Logical Proof of Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

I don't think you are wrong.Postelnik has posted this garbage all over the Net and has been soundly spanked countless times.It seems that his tactic is 'driveby'.He posts at a site, sees that he is out of his depth and then moves on to another site as if nothing had happened.

Site One Comment 190546 Oh man; so many words that can be reduced down to 'the argument from personal incredulity' Site Two Postelnik fancies himself a master of logic (if not proper punctuation or English), and yet doesn't seem to notice that his entire, long-winded blather amounts to one spectacular logical fallacy, namely, the argument from incredulity , with a heaping side dish of straw men. Site Three The third one is just an argument from incredulity, it’s too beautiful, to preciese. What is it that drives someone like this to think that they have actually produced something that anyone is going to take seriously?Does Postelnik actually think that anyone is going to look at his article and go ”wow, this guy has really got something, let’s see the atheists explain these away!’Why is this guy posting this link around the Net after he has been shown so many times what the problems are with his arguments?Does he think that there’s going to be a discussion forum where no one is aware of the argument from incredulity?Finally, why does someone who has been shown so many times the error in his thinking continue to use the same arguments?If this is what belieiving in God does to your brain, then thank goodness I don’t believe.I’m thinking of showing this article to my Philosophy students tomorrow, just to see how many errors they can find in it.

Interesting links Brian. Thanks.
YP has a bosom buddy here at EvCForum, Catholic Scientist. The both of them are outright trolls. Their answers so flagrantly disregard reality that the behavior is down right dishonest, and fundamentally immoral. Yet they continue to scream their indignation. One might be well justified to call them downright evil.M. Scott Peck, MD, famous in psychology, wrote a book about these kinds of people. “People of the Lie” The title says it all, its rather old, but a good read.I guess it’s a side effect from freedom of speech that we cannot tie the jerks down and make them face the questions that they won’t.We need to learn to deal with them without letting them get us angry. That gives them control over us.This needs to be said again. Rational people need to develop a method of dealing with these people. It has often been said that attaching a name to something provides a handle that we can use to understand and possibly control it. Do we have a legitimate name that we can use in public for people like YP and CS? Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can deal with them? How would you (anyone) initiate a thread along these lines?

BTW: Is anyone else have difficulties posting. A short post may take three minutes to complete, and often times out before completing.admin@I think I have sent them four emails over the last week. Maybe if more send in their comments.

Whew! That was objective?????If you are to assume there is a creator then you are going to assume god created everything. If you are to assume there is a god, then you have to think like god, not like man. If you think like god then you have to assume the design is perfect, as is!Thinking like god and bearing in mind all things change, have you some logical explanation that this is so?

Here's a few.............

duplicateEdited by pelican, : No reason given.

testing 1,2,3 Edited by jaywill, : Ignore

That's the old ever popular "Argument from Boredom".

I was going to stay out of this debate, because your thread title gave me the false impression that it was going to be about theism versus atheism.However, on reading your article, I see that in fact you wish to argue creationist nonsense versus science, and that you are simply saying "atheists" where an honester man would say "the consensus of biologists, of whatever religion", or "the consensus of physicists, of whatever religion".Now, the thing that strikes me most clearly about your arguments against science is that you obviously have absolutely no idea what scientists claim. You may think that you are arguing against science, or, as you prefer to call it, "atheism", but you are in fact arguing against a mish-mash of nonsense that you made up in your head. I agree that your nonsense is nonsense, but it is your nonsense.As for your logic, it is non-existent. A logical assault on science would require reasoning from the actual premises of science to a false conclusion. Not only are you unaware of the premises, but you supply precious little reasoning.Let's look at one case where you actually get a premise about right: That's good for a beginner, life did and does "adapt itself" (though I dislike the imprecision of the phrase). However, you then conclude: But you provide no chain of reasoning from the premise that lineages adapt to their environment and the "conclusion" of "animals that could subsist solely on snow and ice". None whatsoever. This is because there isn't one. It is what logicians call a non sequitur.A final word about "logic". It is a subject that I used to teach at Leicester University. If you have ever even glanced at a book on the subject, then I can only say that your little essay betrays no sign of this. I suggest that before you use the word "logic" again, you get hold of a beginner's book on the subject, and study it. At present, you are merely unskilled and unaware of it.In general, I should recommend you always to find out what you're talking about before you start talking about it. To bloviate on a subject of which you have no knowledge is dishonest, because if you do so you'll only ever tell the truth by coincidence, and so most of what you say will be untrue.You are in the position of a man using a gun while blindfold --- even if there is, in the vicinity, someone whom you ought to shoot (and how would you know, being blindfolded?) you are still much more likely to hit one of the innocent bystanders.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

That's good for a beginner, life did and does "adapt itself" (though I dislike the imprecision of the phrase). However, you then conclude:

​

[W]ere this to be the case we’d have animals that could solely subsist on snow and ice in some regions.

​

But you provide no chain of reasoning from the premise that lineages adapt to their environment and the "conclusion" of "animals that could subsist solely on snow and ice". None whatsoever. This is because there isn't one. It is what logicians call a non sequitur.

---

I don't know much on the subject of bacteria, however haven't they found viable and thriving colonies of bacteria buried far beneath the ice in Greenland? Wouldn't this be an example of how life can adapt to extreme environments that ypostelnik said was not possible?

Sure, but they don't "subsist solely on snow and ice", something that is energetically impossible. They just live amongst it.No, assuming that ypostelnik understands the words he's using, which is a long shot, then he's claiming that science predicts something that science actually says can't possibly happen.Hey, he's just that sort of guy.

There is logic in not believing the unproven and illogical.It is quite logical to question a miracle working God. Especially one who has shown that He does not mind using genocide against man.My definition of God does not include miracle worker. If it did I would have to consider God immoral for holding back and not stepping up.If is not logical to question the reality of talking snakes, then whoever says this is a fool.Regards
DL

The only logically sound argument that Postelnit has demonstrated is that his arguments are logically unsound.

We can change definitions for God all we want but eventually it will lead to a philosophical ideology rather than a religious ideology. At that point it would not be a creation vs science debate, it would be philosophy vs science debate, which seems rather pointless since philosophy has never contradicted the BB, evolution, abiogenesis etc...Furthermore what type of definition for God is there other than what is founded in scriptures? On what basis do you find God to be moral in the first place?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky