Simplified argument for a God's existence

[Kinich Ahau]

I think Andy just committed the famous "ignorance of fallacies fallacy"

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

Ah, what we have here is a misrepresentation to create a straw man. And at the end Andrew66 demonstrates that it doesn't know what the argument form ignorance fallacy is.

You don't know what "reasoned" means either. As I have demonstrated and you have conceded to my objections, clearly shows that your argument was unreasonable by definition.

OK
Here is an explanation of Argument from ignorance

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
1.true
2.false
3.unknown between true or false
4.being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

So the assertion or argument is

Immortal beings are supernatural. By that I take it that the argument means Immortal beings do not exist as the supernatural world is a fictitious world.

The assertion may be true, or false, but it is actually unknowable given the present data (we have limited information available, humans are ignorant - not omniscient etc.).

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

I think Andy just committed the famous "ignorance of fallacies fallacy"

Actually Davin has committed the "ignorance of ignorance of fallacies fallacy"
HA HA HA

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

OK
Here is an explanation of Argument from ignorance[...]

You don't need to tell me, I'm not the one misapplying it.

If you could read, you'd notice that Kinich Ahau didn't claim something was true because it wasn't proven otherwise. But then if you could read, you'd see the hilarious misunderstanding you've just demonstrated.

It's also pretty funny how you keep on demonstrating your lack of understanding about what supernatural is. Sure you say that if immortality exists, will have a natural explanation, but until it does have a natural explanation, it resides in the realm of the supernatural... unless of course you want to provide the natural explanation for immortality? Probably not, which is why calling something without a natural explanation or any reliable evidence of it, "supernatural."

Let's see you google and pull up the first definition of "supernatural" so that you can copy and paste it without actually understanding it.

Andrew66 wrote

Actually Davin has committed the "ignorance of ignorance of fallacies fallacy"
HA HA HA

Still can't come up with your own insults?

[Davin]

Kinich Ahau wrote

I think Andy just committed the famous "ignorance of fallacies fallacy"

Andrew66 commits the ignorance of everything fallacy.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

Andrew66 commits the ignorance of everything fallacy.

Ironically your statement illustrates an argument of ignorance! How do you know that I make a fallacy on "everything".

Still, a very cute and attractive - witty comeback statement.

R u female?? If your male please disregard the above "cute and attractive" statement.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

If you could read, you'd notice that Kinich Ahau didn't claim something was true because it wasn't proven otherwise.

Any one with half a brain can see Kinich Ahau implied it when she submits that my argument suffers from a problem of giving the superhero supernatural powers such as immortality. She implies that immortality is not true for sure by declaring it is supernatural. I know your not good at mental gymnastics Davin, but claiming something is for certain untrue (i.e. truly untrue) because it hasn't been proven is equivalently committing the same fallacy.

Davin wrote

It's also pretty funny how you keep on demonstrating your lack of understanding about what supernatural is. Sure you say that if immortality exists, will have a natural explanation, but until it does have a natural explanation, it resides in the realm of the supernatural..

Supernatural is simply code for non-existence So Davin your statement goes back to an argument of ignorance. Until immortality is proven false or true- it is simply unknown whether it actually exists - we cannot presume that it resides in the domain of supernatural (non existence).

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

Supernatural is simply code for non-existence

You just magicked that def from your bottom.

[Kinich Ahau]

Andy, I'm sure you will find this very interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_ma..._note-DSLTL-13

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Ironically your statement illustrates an argument of ignorance! How do you know that I make a fallacy on "everything".

We have a pretty significant sample size of your irrational ramblings, and since you've committed fallacies on 100% of everything you've presented here, I think it's safe to assume that you always commit fallacies.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Any one with half a brain can see[...]

Maybe that's your problem, try using your whole brain.

Andrew66 wrote

[...] She implies that immortality is not true for sure by declaring it is supernatural.

Oh? You have a natural explanation for immortality supported by reliable evidence? Do tell.

Andrew66 wrote

[...]Davin your statement goes back to an argument of ignorance.

No matter how many times you incorrectly apply a fallacy, it just won't change what the fallacy actually is.

[Davin]

dogpet wrote

You just magicked that def from your bottom.

Well, Andrew66 couldn't keep on doing what I called it out on doing now could it?

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

Oh? You have a natural explanation for immortality supported by reliable evidence? Do tell.

Again Davin you are being what I have affectionately call the "Evidence based Theologen".

The notion of existence of an intelligent entity being immortal is only supported by the reasoned hypothesis provided at the outset of this post - which only suggests a mechanism ( i.e. a long, perhaps infinitely long process of adaptation and evolution over a long, perhaps infinitely large domain) and therefore possibility that an immortal may have evolved to exist.

I admit there is no "reliable - hard - empirical - evidence" of the kind that a right brained thinker like you would accept. Even if there was a true immortal - his/her immortality would likely be impossible or at least very difficult to prove because it would take forever to prove it.

But one cannot say for sure that immortals don't exist either. It seems that non intelligent things (e.g. sub-atomic particles - energy, mass) are immortal (law of conservation of energy), so why couldn't a higher order thing such as an intelligent entity also become immortal.?

[Kinich Ahau]

Would its mother be immortal too?

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Andy, I'm sure you will find this very interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_ma..._note-DSLTL-13

Thanks Kinich Ahau

Whether an intelligent entity, who can actually think, can take no physical form at all, is frankly beyond what one could posit by any reasoned argument.

In other words I cannot think of a reasoned hypothesis to even suggest plausibility or possibility to support the contention. To my knowledge a physical brain is needed to create thought.

Now absence of evidence (i.e. for formless angels - that don't require multidimensional space to exist) does not mean evidence for absence. But if one cannot even form a reasoned argument that such a being may exist - I would be OK with stating spaceless angels are most likely in the realm of supernatural..

Of course my opinion could change if science would show otherwise in the future.