Side Comments on Progress after the Royal Society Conference

[lee_merrill]

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

Like an atheist saying “I know there are no gods!” You know this, exactly, how? You have looked everywhere God might be, if he existed, everywhere, and all at once, and haven’t found him? That’s a claim of virtual omniscience, and omnipresence. You really should be worshipped, you supernatural being, you.

Addressed to me. Moreover, it’s a twofer: your ad hominem fallacy was based on a blatant lie.

No, I was addressing “an atheist”, not you specifically. Of course, if you are an atheist, my challenge would be pertinent to you.

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

And a valid analogy can indeed be used in an argument, that’s the main reason for making them, to illustrate and support a point.

The former, not the latter. Analogies are explanatory devices. Your use of the Hoyle analogy tells me that you don’t understand that natural selection is nonrandom.

Again, I didn’t use the Hoyle analogy quote, I used a different quote, where there was no analogy. And I agree, and have agreed that natural selection is not just random.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

Like an atheist saying “I know there are no gods!” You know this, exactly, how? You have looked everywhere God might be, if he existed, everywhere, and all at once, and haven’t found him? That’s a claim of virtual omniscience, and omnipresence. You really should be worshipped, you supernatural being, you.

Addressed to me. Moreover, it’s a twofer: your ad hominem fallacy was based on a blatant lie.

No, I was addressing “an atheist”, not you specifically.

There were 5 instances of “you” in the paragraph you wrote in response to me. Is English not your native language?

@lee_merrill

Again, I didn’t use the Hoyle analogy quote…

You did earlier, remember? Or likely not.