(1) Is just plain wrong. The ordering in a snowflake or salt crystal is efficient and dependable, but due entirely to natural processes.
that is totally begging the question you have no proof that it;s natural you have no evidence you are asserting it because it deals with nature you assert a prori no God therefore no God
(2) "Usually"? You need to do better than that in a proof.
why? minor exclaims would not disprove the perponderemce of evidence
(3) and (4) are basically the sad out argument that a law of nature needs a law maker, failing to realise that a law in nature is quite different to a legal law.
wrong on 2 commits: (1) I don't argue from a lawmaker analogy,I never assumed it;s a legislator and say that.(2) saying indicative of mind does not make it the legislature analogyy .The law-like dependability is that the thing being described (assuming Physical laws are observations of universal behavior ) is unfailing as though obeying. mind is indicated due to purposiveness but not from analogy but from the behavior of the universe,
(5) "fits the major job description"? You need to do better than that in a proof.
Ot's spot on and you know ot/ Again your assumption is a priori no God therefore a prori no god. it is such an obvious fit you can;t have it, you reonl yspoiuting ieologicalbroimides at it
Then (6)... Well, it turns out that you do use the word "warrant" when using this argument too!
Not in the argument, but as the decisions making paradigm is exactly how Isaid it is sed, you do not understand the issues involved .
So your claim that you do not use "warrant" in all your arguments is based on two arguments, both of which do exactly what I said!
It's not in the argument dumb ass it;s over it,
that is totally begging the question you have no proof that it;s natural you have no evidence you are asserting it because it deals with nature you assert a prori no God therefore no God
(2) "Usually"? You need to do better than that in a proof.
why? minor exclaims would not disprove the perponderemce of evidence
(3) and (4) are basically the sad out argument that a law of nature needs a law maker, failing to realise that a law in nature is quite different to a legal law.
wrong on 2 commits: (1) I don't argue from a lawmaker analogy,I never assumed it;s a legislator and say that.(2) saying indicative of mind does not make it the legislature analogyy .The law-like dependability is that the thing being described (assuming Physical laws are observations of universal behavior ) is unfailing as though obeying. mind is indicated due to purposiveness but not from analogy but from the behavior of the universe,
(5) "fits the major job description"? You need to do better than that in a proof.
Ot's spot on and you know ot/ Again your assumption is a priori no God therefore a prori no god. it is such an obvious fit you can;t have it, you reonl yspoiuting ieologicalbroimides at it
Then (6)... Well, it turns out that you do use the word "warrant" when using this argument too!
Not in the argument, but as the decisions making paradigm is exactly how Isaid it is sed, you do not understand the issues involved .
So your claim that you do not use "warrant" in all your arguments is based on two arguments, both of which do exactly what I said!
It's not in the argument dumb ass it;s over it,
