Argument from personal incredulity, or Argument for Ignorance, yea, your position is just that simple.
Your argument also include an a case of Special Pleading.
This Universe is so complex it MUST have a creator, yet the complexity of the intelligence required to create the Universe, by your rules, would be so complex as to require a creator itself. As a result, by invoking Magic, you have not explained anything at all.
[i][/i]
AS,
EXACTLY! It is YOU!
An argument from personal incredulity: Asserting because one finds something difficult to understand it can’t be true.
You find it difficult to accept or understand the idea of “god” so you dismiss it.
Then you go on: An argument from ignorance: It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.
You assert that because you see no satisfactory proof of a creator then there must be a “natural” explanation for the universe, but you don’t know what it is!
TF
That's a whole lot more honest then claiming "it was magic", but that kind of goes back to the OP, doesn't it?
Nope, just shows your hard set bias.
btw, what is honest about Larry Krauss and the "Universe from Nothing" business. He is a book seller. Not exactly honest when he says the universe comes from "nothing."
What does he start with and how did the "starter" come to existence?
Isn't he the one who made a name for himself by "proving" that the universe was "curved" and therefore would expand and contract then burst again in a never ending cycle? Now is seems that most astrophysicists see our universe as expanding, linear and there is NOT a never ending cycle.
TF
Actually, he day job is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University. If you care to look at his CV, it's only 33 pages long.
As a theoretical physicist, Krauss was actually on of the first to propose the Universe is flat, because that was the only way he could make the math work. Turns out since then this has been experimentally confirmed. As for your underlying assertion that from time to time he is wrong, well of course that is the case, after all, he is human. As for Krauss proving anything, he's a Theoretical Physicist. He has to wait for the experimentalst for proof.
Here' listen to an actual physicist vs a comedian:
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 09/02/15.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
