Since you introduced him with the implication he has sound arguments, why don’t you offer the quote(s), and I will give it due diligence. I can only reiterate that in the debate I watched he offered the same irrational arguments and unevidenced rhetoric I’ve seen offered by countless theists before. No offence but i find watching such apologetics tedious, and for the very reason they offer nothing new, but if you think he has anything credible by all means offer it here, with a citation. That way we can save time by you starting with what you think is his best argument(s). Rather than me wading through the worst, which will achieve nothing when you claim he has better, except me wasting time.
Actually here is one anyway, approx 4 minutes in lennox is confronted with the dichotomy of the existence of suffering alongside the claim a deity exists that could both prevent it and is maximally mercifully, it starts with Epicurus’s well known quote that encapsulates the problem. Lennox straight out of the gate presents a nothing but whataboutism, dodges the fact of the argument against the existence of such a deity, and sets about a straw man fallacy about atheism, as if not believing in a deity should enable atheism to solve the problem of suffering. For a mathematician of his repute to make so obviously an irrational argument is breathtaking, or rather it would be had I not seen similarly irrational claims from highly credentialed scientists and mathematicians before when espousing about their subjective religious beliefs.
So you interpret that as “Lennox thinks science purportedly “proves” the existence of his choice of cartoon magic man”, well that’s not what he said at all, it’s your interpretation of what he said, paraphrasing, the all too often flaw in atheist arguments.
I said I do and why? The video link was supposed to be in there, but my explanation of why his claim was irrational was there, here it is again then:
However as I said, it would make more sense for you to present an argument by Lennox you think is credible, as I have not seen one, only the poorly reasoned irrational ones he has made.
I’m guessing this is another request for @Sherlock-Holmes to demonstrate something tangible to support one of his appeal to authority fallacies, that will forever be ignored. I forget how transparently dishonest apologists can be until they roll their wagon in here, and start peddling their snake oil.
They are asserting the same thing, that science evidence a deity. @Calilasseia caricature of a deity as a cartoon magic man aside, you’re simply being pedantic. Just as you refused to answer my question because I referred to unevidenced claims for supernatural causation as magic, when you asked me to define magic for you, as if you don’t know or can’t find out what the dictionary definition is. At the start of this discourse I would and did take the time to do this for you, posting simple word definitions with links, but you have too often demanded such attention then rolled past it without comment, even after multiples requests you address it.
What springs to mind as an amp allegory is the story of the boy who cried wolf. Start showing some integrity and reciprocity and that might change.
I explained the point in that post as simply as it is possible to, you implied he had credible argument by bringing him into this, and now quelle surprise when asked you can’t offer a single one.
I agree, you don’t find using known logical fallacies at all troublesome for a start, you didn’t even bother respond to the one I evidenced he’d made, after asking for it repeatedly, you don’t care that he like you is invoking inexplicable supernatural causation, then falsely and repeatedly labelling it as an explanation, then failing to offer one word of explanation as to how it was done, and worse pretending unfalsifiable ideas like supernatural causation are even remotely compatible with scientific rigour.
Obviously because you came here to a debate forum, to peddle unevidenced superstition, using irrational arguments, and are trying to make an appeal to authority fallacy right here using Lennox, which yet again you refuse to even try and support. Is it possible you don’t even realise how tediously dishonest you have been?
FYI I don’t interpret the principles of logic, I didn’t create them, I didn’t create the logical fallacies you keep using over and over in your poorly reasoned and weak arguments, so each time you imply bias on my part, without even attempting any defence, all any neutral observer will hear is
Waaaah! Waaaah! Waaaah! Waaaah! , you’re not playing by my rules, so I’m not playing anymore, and I’m taking my ball home.
Oh and I will keep highlighting those common logical fallacies every time you use them, as it destroys the lie you are being rational.
Why are you wasting time stating the trivially true? You are simply and laughably wrong, your objection is simple pedantry, because @Calilasseia characterised your deity as a cartoon magic man. Otherwise the statements say the same thing, that Lennox has claimed science is a good reason to believe (evidences in other words) his deity exists. We note you have yet again refused to offer one single example of the good arguments you implied he had for a deity as well, hiding behind the same false accusation that as an atheist I can “interpret it properly” so a poisoning of the well and a no true Scotsman fallacy there neatly lined up to rattle off everytime you make another assertion you don’t want to even attempt to justify.
I was absolutely correct, the quote from Lennox is not the same as how @Calilasseia interpreted it, I even posted the two sentences to make it easier for you.
Once again you have offered a bare unsupported statement, that is at odds with the facts I have demonstrated time and again of your fallacious arguments, and most hilariously used an Ad hominem fallacy, and fail to see the irony.
Since you pretend you are being rational, here’s a clue, my emotional state has no relevance to the arguments, your dishonest evasion of almost every single claim you make is not just relevant to those claims, it is manifestly demonstrated in your stock poisoning of the well fallacy that you trotted out here again to avoid offering even a single example to support your assertion.
So having failed to grasp the simplest of sentences from me, painted your face with egg like a jackson pollack, you ow want to not only move the goalposts swiftly away from that error, but imply your comprehension of language is batter than mine. Well lets test that shall we?
I never said the statements were the same, I said they were asserting the same thing, is it possible you can’t fathom the difference?
As I said this is painful. Anyway time for dinner. See if you learn what the words your using mean, and master some simple sentences before i get back, If it helps I will be having wine with my food, maybe it’ll dull my senses and give your posts some parity.
Waaaah! 