An argument against
Conservatism and liberalism are not just differences of opinion, but different ways of thought processing.You lay out your argument first in this: "My basic premise is that conservative thought is guided by deductive reasoning and liberal thought is governed by inductive reasoning." How are you not attempting to postulate that liberals use inductive reasoning in thought and conservatives use deductive reasoning in thought? I do not see how you can interpret your premise any other way.
My counter-premise is that sometimes the liberal thought process is guided by inductive reasoning, sometimes it is guided by deductive reasoning. In parallel, sometimes the conservative thought process is guided by inductive reasoning, sometimes it is guided by deductive reasoning. I gave you an example of how conservatives use inductive reasoning in everyday speech. To give you a more recent example one only has to look at the recent Mass. election. Conservatives are hailing Scott Brown's recent victory as indication to a referendum on Obama's policies. How is that not inductive reasoning? Furthermore, to counter your Egypt/terrorist remark, a typical conservative thinker would be more likely to conclude through inductive reasoning that all Muslims are terrorists and bent on western annihilation.
FWIW ... Obama's slogan was never "Hope and Change" but "Hope", "Change We Need", "Change We Can Believe In". Contrasting, a few of GWB's 2000 slogans included "Real Plans for Real People" and "Reformer with Results". All sweeping generalizations/inferences and just as 'inductive' as you would put it.
by otm_shankAn argument against
Intelligent design@allonzo1
"i challenge you to describe any evolution of society into an advance stage without huge readily available quantities of limestone."
"One of the examples was that by some quirk of nature if the particular creatures that made limestone had never come into being, then advanced society would never have developed."
You seem to be trying to make an anthropic argument as you are making the premise that without limestone, advanced societies would not have developed. This is entirely subjective and speculative. You are creating a singularity where there is none. Where is it law that limestone is required in the development of advanced societies? Where is your evidence that advanced societies would not have developed without it? The fact that we have developed with limestone does not provide proof that limestone is a requirement of advanced societies. It merely shows one example and that we have adapted and developed with our natural surroundings and have used our resources on Earth to provide a more habitable life.
Has limestone made life more manageable on Earth? Of course. Does that provide adequate evidence for an intelligent designer? Of course not, it is entirely subjective and is absolutely ridiculous. How has limestone developed over time on Earth? Through the process of natural selection. How has our ability to utilize our planet's resources developed over time? Through the process of natural selection. No ID needed.
Furthermore, in your argument you fundamentally admit, through your 'quirk' assertion, that an all-or-nothing catalyst was needed (limestone). This is quite contradictory to natural selection and I state again that you are confusing chance with natural selection.
"Lastly, i ask again. How many coincidence does it take for you to question the game, and there is only one game in town."
Again, you show that you do not understand the differences between chance and natural selection. You also seem to toss aside Katzwinkel's tea pot argument and further press upon us to prove that there is NO intelligent designer, when you have yet to provide any evidence for your own argument.
Is natural selection the 'end all to end alls?' No, but to borrow your phrase, it is the only game in town - and it works really well.
Now, you state there is only one game in town. I am assuming you are speaking of a specific creation myth. I place upon you the challenge of dismantling all other creation myths and solving the infinite loop problem of your own designer and thereby proving once and for all that an intelligent designer(s)'s hand is at work.
by otm_shankAn argument for
Physician-assisted SuicidePrevention of suicide is a violation of religious freedom. A significant part of religious beliefs involves what happens in the afterlife. By preventing suicide, the government is imposing its religious belief that suicide is a sin. No one knows for sure what happens after we die; it should be up to the individual to determine what he or she believes. The government cannot legislate morality.
by KatzwinkelAn argument against
Obama's Afganistan StrategyOne solid principle of warfare is that it is best to bring overwhelming force to bear. Why in the world is the president playing games with numbers. if the commanders think that more numbers are required then why not give them AT LEAST what they're asking for? It's a hedge that stinks of politics when people's lives are at stake.
by egorz13An argument against
Intelligent design@Katzwinkel
Who created the Celestial Katzwinkel? This shows precisely one of the fundamental issues with ID - the problem of the infinite loop. Who created the creator(s)? If we are to say that a being more powerful than the Celestial Katzwinkel is needed to create the Celestial Katzwinkel, this further enhances the problem by requiring an infinite amount of all powerful Katzwinkels and thereby further increases improbability.
@allonso1
I believe you are confused with chance and natural selection. In all of your examples, you seem to be implying that chance is the solution put forth by the non-ID side to the problem of existence and development of life as we know it and that chance cannot solve this problem. You are correct in that chance is a false solution, however, chance is not the solution put forth by the non-ID side, but rather natural selection. Natural selection is not chance.
Natural selection represents the only verifiable solution to the problem of life and works extremely well in solving this problem. Natural selection breaks down the issue of complexity (as you stated previously) into smaller and smaller chunks over vast spans of time. It is a cumulative process of evolution through selection to arrive at any given state at any given time period. Natural selection breaks the barriers of improbability.
"Who appreciates the billions of years that single celled creatures were able to manufacturing limestone so that we could build buildings and roads?"
Natural selection appreciates this. No intelligent designer needed.
by otm_shank
