Posted: Aug 03, 2017 8:05 am
Wortfish wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Wortfish wrote:When Paley delivered his watchmaker argument, he never intended it to be a scientific explanation, only a religious argument.
There's no such thing. There's logical arguments, period.
Putting religion into it doesn't magically make it it's own category of arguments that's immune from scientific and/or logical criticisms.
The point is that Paley was making a religious argument for the existence of God.
I just explained to you there's no such thing.
What the fuck is a religious argument?
Wortfish wrote:He was not trying to explain how watches are designed. The ID movement claims to have an explanation for biological complexity when all they have is a religious interpretation.
A religious interpetation =/= a religious argument.