[SunkenCiv]

The ex cathedra claim that a designer is required is also a priori, and by that standard has nothing to do with logic.

The Religion forum here on FR is the best place to have those kinds of discussions.

[muir_redwoods]

So you defer to an unnamed other authority and have no answer. Thanks

[SkyPilot]

The ex cathedra claim that a designer is required is also a priori, and by that standard has nothing to do with logic.

How can the subject of God as the creator be "ex cathedra" when God is expressed in the affirmative, but in your world view to consider His very work is to be dismissed as illogical?

You used 50 cent words to say this: 'I don't even want to consider God, so I won't even consider it - and if you even bring it up, I'll attack the messenger as being unscientific and illogical.'

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."

Romans 1: 18-19

[mountainlion]

ex cathedra? priori?

You do not make much sense. Spell check doesn't even like your words. Nice picture though.

[GourmetDan]

"The ex cathedra claim that a designer is required is also a priori, and by that standard has nothing to do with logic."

Unfortunately, you have violated your own standard. You have assumed a designer for that post 'ex cathedra' and 'a priori' and therefore without logic. On what basis did you do that and why would it not also apply to your claim above?