Replies

[”argument from ignorance + no sequitur (logical fallacy)”]

Which logical fallacy are you talking about? You use the term “non sequitur” like it was a mantra. These statements are not non sequiturs, they are a priori truths.

Your pseudo-intellectual nomenclature notwithstanding, there is no logical fallacy in these conclusions. If it is impossible for life to have formed from a random process, a priori it must have been the result of a guided process.

"Which logical fallacy are you talking about? You use the term “non sequitur” like it was a mantra."

OK, lets look at the definition of non sequitur

"Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises."

example: If A is true, then B is true

Now, lets look at just one of your "evidences".

"We exist, therefore we were created. It is therefore reasonable to deduce the existence of a creator."

If A (We exist) Then B (we were created). That is a non sequitur. Just because A is true does not make B true as well.

Lets look at the definition of argument from ignorance (subtype argument from incredulity).

"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproved premise is true instead."

Now lets look at another of your claims.

"Life is too complex to have simply sprung up from random forces"

Because you can't imagine how it could have "sprung up from random forces" you claim that it must be otherwise. You provide ZERO evidence to support your claim that it is "too complex", you just wave your hand and pronounce it so.

Note: this is also a strawman since the ToE does not cover the origin on life and "random forces" in the form of mutations are arguably the least important force at work in evolution and you ignore natural selection. Thereby creating a weak strawman version of that which you claim to be arguing against.

"If it is impossible for life to have formed from a random process, a priori it must have been the result of a guided process."

OK, it appears you really want to move from The Theory of Evolution to The Origin of Life so lets do it.

What hypothesis are you trying to argue against that says life arose from "a random process" and what is your evidence that this is impossible.