Vlad,
Two areas here where you contradict previous argument.
1. Your illusionism, where anything is explicable in terms of it's components therefore a cricket match IS only a collection of players and a wicket, according to how you have previously argued. Here you are refuting that
You’re very confused. A cricket match is both a set of its component parts and activities,
and a description of the whole event. I have no idea why you find this so hard to grasp – it seems very simple to me.
2. According to arguments where a trinity is really merely three gods and therefore illusory as a unity, a cricket match is merely a collection of players and a wicket.
I’ve haven't discussed the Trinity, but in any case if you want to assert such a thing as three entities that collectively you describe as a “Trinity” that’s fine. My chocolate bar consists of chocolate, caramel and nuts but it’s also called a Sneakers Bar. Where you fall apart is when you overreach into eliding your three parts somehow into one and the same thing. Or something. Who knows – it’s all incoherence at that point.
So once again we see you changing your argument to suit.
You opposing your own straw men versions of what I’ve said isn’t me changing my actual argument at all, and you should stop lying about this.
What we still have is evolution mistaken for creation.
No-one has done that, and you should stop lying about that too.
As far as Paley is concerned all I am saying is something that looks designed, could have been designed. Not "therefore designed"
You still have it arse-backwards – basically the same struggle you have with the burden of proof concept. Paley’s Watch merely tells you that the appearance of complexity does not imply purpose. That some objects – such as watches –
are purposive is neither here nor there. It’s a non-point.
If something is really a single thing, and is the only thing it has no context in which to do anything accidentally.
Did this gibberish mean something in your head before you eructated it?
On your previous arguing a cricket match is just the illusion of a single entity,it really being a collection.
More lying isn’t getting you off the hook here. At one level of abstraction a cricket match is a single entity; at another it’s lots of people and equipment (and at another level it’s bajillions of sub-atomic particles too). Your fallacy of composition mistake is just to assume that the deterministic character of the components that comprise the universe implies that the universe itself must also be deterministic in character. Clocks are made of components, including springs. If you drop a spring it will bounce. Does that mean that if you drop a clock it will also bounce? Why not?
You will of course now run away from this as you always do, but that won’t make your basic mistake in reasoning go away.
