This is not a God of the Gaps argument. It's a simple deduction. Either Life was A. Intelligently Created B. Accidentally created via unguided, mindless natural processes B is impossible. Therefore, A is true: Life was Created by an Intelligent Designer.

A: Zero evidence for magic. B: Origin of Life is a field of science with large amounts of scientific evidence for how the building blocks of life were created and how they came together. We have several plausible pathways for how life arose. x.com/LarsTheBadMan/…

Quick question. Do you believe logic exists as a real and fundamental part of reality, or is it only a human invention?

Logic is an abstract concept. We discovered that's how things work. - Law of Identity - Law of Non-Contradiction - Law of the Excluded Middle All three are descriptive. Not prescriptive. Nobody "wrote a law". It's identified consistent behavior, so we call it "law".

At least you’re consistent. But the view you just described leads straight into nihilism. If logic is only a human invention, then truth and reason collapse, and no society can stand on that. It is a bleak way to see the world. Good luck living with that worldview.

I did not say logic was a human invention. I said we discovered that's how the world works. Try to keep up. Societies has stood on that since humans could form societies. Not in any way an issue for truth or reason. At times Christian reasoning is just plain stupid.

Everything is either discovered or invented. There is no third option. So the real question is whether logic exists outside the human mind. If it does not, then it is only an abstract observation by mankind. But if logic is only a human abstraction, then it is not universal, not…

I don't know how many times a month I tear that stupid cosmological argument to shreds. It's so flawed it's ridiculous. Anyone still using it should be ashamed of themselves. That's how obviously flawed it is. What version do you want me to shred first?

You cannot even get past the transcendental argument, so how would you ‘shred’ the cosmological one? The cosmological argument simply follows from the fact that logic exists outside the human mind. You have backed yourself into a corner. Either you have unknowingly accepted the…

The Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) is even more stupid, so let me shred that to pieces first then. TAG claims that logic, reason, morality, and science are only possible if God exists. That's so fucking stupid it's insane. Here's why it fails: 1/x

1. It Doesn't Actually Establish Its Conclusion TAG argues: "Logic requires X, Y, and Z preconditions, and only theism provides them." But it never proves that God provides these preconditions - it just asserts it. How does God's mind make logic work? 2/x

The argument gives no mechanism, just "God did it." This is an explanation that explains nothing. 2. The Euthyphro Problem Is logic logical because God thinks it, or does God think it because it's logical? 3/x

- If logic depends on God's will, then it's arbitrary (God could make contradictions true) - If God must conform to logic, then logic is independent of God and the argument fails 4/x

TAG advocates usually say "logic reflects God's nature," but this just pushes the problem back - why is God's nature logical rather than illogical? If the answer is "God is necessarily logical," you've just admitted logic is necessary independently of any choice or will. 5/x

3. Naturalistic Alternatives Exist Logic and reason can be grounded in: - Structural necessity: Logical laws describe relationships that hold in any possible world, requiring no mind - Mathematical Platonism: Abstract objects exist necessarily, atheism-compatible 6/x

- Evolutionary epistemology: Our cognitive faculties evolved to track reality reliably enough for survival - Modal realism: Logic describes what's possible/necessary across all possible worlds None of these require God. 7/x

4. Theism Doesn't Actually Solve the Problem If you claim "the human mind can't account for logic without God," the same problem applies to God: - How does God's mind guarantee logic is universal and necessary? - Why should we trust God's cognitive faculties? 8/x

- What grounds God's reasoning? You've just moved the mystery up one level without solving it. This is infinite regress in disguise - theists stop at God arbitrarily. 9/x

5. The "Borrowed Capital" Charge is Circular TAG proponents say atheists use logic but can't account for it (borrowing from theism). But this assumes what it's trying to prove - that theism does account for logic. It's just assertion masquerading as argument. 10/x

6. It Proves Too Much If valid, TAG would prove that ANY worldview that claims to ground logic is true. A Hindu could make the same argument: "Logic requires Brahman." A polytheist could argue: "Logic requires the eternal Forms sustained by Zeus." 11/x

No polytheism fails to ground the Eidos and resolve the one in many problem because the wills of each of the gods (at least as they are associated with the Eidos in Neoplatonism) are different and competing, rendering Eidos incoherent.

You appear incoherent. Jumping all over my thread with ignorant posts. Like here. A fuckin assertion about a religion that is not yours, without backing it up with anything but "trust me bro". Total clown.

You cited Quine, Putnam, and Field, but none of them support the idea that abstract, immaterial, necessary truths fit comfortably inside naturalism. Quine Quine only accepted abstract objects as a last resort and openly admitted they do not fit strict naturalism. His…

I don't give a crap how many gods you think Plato's reasoning leads to. Reasoning cannot make gods pop into existence. So what if I got one of the three dudes wrong, changes nothing as it's just opinions by three dudes. The Real Issue: False Dichotomy Your argument assumes: 1/x

- Either strict physicalism (no abstractions) - Or theism But there's vast middle ground: - Naturalism ≠ materialism. You can reject supernatural minds/agents while accepting abstract structures - The question isn't "are abstractions awkward for naturalism?" (they are) 2/x

- The question is "do they require a divine mind specifically?" (you haven't proven this) Plato Didn't Argue for the your "God" "Plato's reasoning leads to God" is anachronistic. Plato's Forms were: - Impersonal - Non-creative (the Demiurge worked with pre-existing Forms) 3/x

- Not objects of worship - Not the Christian God If anything, Plato supports abstract realism *without* a personal deity. The Burden You Haven't Met Even granting that abstract objects create philosophical tensions for naturalism, you need to show: 4/x

- Why abstractions require a mind (not just brute necessity) - Why that mind must be personal - Why it must be the Christian Trinity specifically You've asserted #1, haven't addressed #2 or #3. You simply have nothing. But at least you got your ass whopped again. 5/5

My burden is only to show plausibility. If the world were eternal, we could never have arrived at this moment because an actual infinite past cannot be crossed. This suggests a beginning. Whatever caused the universe cannot be bound by time, space, or matter. And since we both…