Yes, it's nonsensical. Intelligence can't just spontaneously create itself unless you believe in magic, do you not see the value in that assessment?
It's an argument from incredulity, the fact that you don't believe a thing is possible doesn't mean it's not possible. Do you have actual logical arguments or evidence for that conclusion. I would add it's the same argument I've heard from some atheists against god with no more or less logic to it.
why do you think IT CAN, is the appropriate question. You want me to give you some explanation outside of commonsense when in fact you should be asking yourself how can it. It's self-explanatory.
Actually the appropriate question would seem to be how can we determine how what we observe came to be? It's equally fitting to ask how can an intelligence begin natural forces. Rather than answer 'it's self explanatory' (which is no explanation at all, I conclude it's unknown, which at this point seems the most logical conclusion.
You can label it an assumption, but yes I believe it is common sense.
It's a belief based on something other than facts or reasoning, that is why it is an assumption. The problem is atheists could claim their common sense tells them god doesn't exist. Why is your common sense more reliable? Common sense is why people believed in Vulcan, common sense is a pretty specialized tool, which experience suggests isn't well equipped for handling cosmology or quantum mechanics.
That is an assumption, we've been over that already. The acceptance that the processes in nature occurring all by themselves is materialism, which is a worldview meaning it's derived from your own interpretation. Science doesn't claim that, it just shows how the processes work, not why they exist or why they even occur at all.
No, it would be an assumption for me to state we have processes that aren't initiated by an intelligence, what I said is based on the fact that as of yet no one has been able to show that an intelligence is involved. From this I conclude it's unknown if an intelligence is involved. This doesn't require me to accept materialism it simple means I continue to question, to seek logically sound arguments supported by evidence.
If you don't know why processes occur or how they could ever generate themselves and I know that processes only occur through an agent my position is superior, how can you not see that? remember, if we were asked what is 2+2 and you said you don't know and I said 4, I have the superior calculation. So, no, it's not immaterial to my premise, you have no answer or reason to accept what you have accepted. I do have a reason and an answer for the premise I have accepted
We've been over why this analogy isn't accurate. 2+2=4 isn't a strong claim because of any other claim? It's a strong claim because it can be shown to be correct, just as 2+2= (insert anything other than 4) is a weak argument because it can be shown to be false. To say an argument is made stronger because of the lack of or incorrectness of other arguments is an argument from ignorance and as such fallacious. To put it another way, can you show your answer is 4 and not any other number? Until you can your analogy isn't fitting and either way your argument is fallacious.
Also, this is a strawman, or at least a very severe misunderstanding of my position. What I have accepted is that unfortunately I have no way to verify any of the claims made in regards to the existence or non-existence of god, to follow your analogy, I don't know which answer is four and it seems more logical to admit that I don't know than to keep insisting an answer is right when I could be trying to argue 2+2=5. I am not forced to accept anything. The question is how can you show your calculation is superior? You can claim it, but you haven't yet addressed it.
Read above.
The above was an argument from ignorance and a false analogy (as had been pointed out before). Your argument is only strong if it's supported by logically sound arguments and evidence. Can you present either for your claims (see my above replies for the fallacies I've proposed that you haven't actually addressed).
Already went over that.
So common sense again? No evidence or logically sound augmentation?
I have been verifying it by giving you examples of production as associated with intelligence, and by appealing to your rational mind that things can't just produce themselves. Why you believe they can is beyond me, especially when you say you don't know why. I mean I don't really understand why you wouldn't think my premise is not superior unless you believe in magic. That things can create themselves.
Strawman: Not arguing for things creating themselves, not accepting unintelligent origins, I hold we have yet to establish how the forces that create the things we observe originated, attacking any other premise is to attack arguments I haven't made, please, address my position rather than some other position.
Argument from incredulity: You repeatedly argue that it's absurd that the idea of unintelligent forces getting the results we observe is impossible and absurd, got any logical argumentation or evidence to back that up? If not it's a fallacy.
Argument from ignorance: As said before the lack of or invalidity of other premises doesn't make yours stronger. An argument is only valid when it can be shown to be valid.
False dilemma: You keep trying to equate not accepting your argument with accepting the counter argument (this may be what's leading to your straw man). I don't accept either of these positions. My position is that so far I've been presented with no logical argument with supporting evidence to prove a creator was, or wasn't involved in the creation of the universe.
It's commonsense. I keep pointing that out but that's what it is. If you disagree then my whole premise is probably not going to resonate with you. I tell you look at the results, it produces intelligence.....the very process itself aims to produce what would be the product of forethought, you so far seem content in accepting that an intelligent production occurred all on its own. That's the absurdity of it, nothing occurs all by itself, certainly not processes that produce intelligent results, you may call it an assumption but at least it's commonsense.
And I keep pointing out that common sense is unreliable, that is why it should be supported by logical arguments and evidence.
Okay, I respect your opinion. But, if we don't use common sense to support a conclusion what should we begin with?
There is the crux of the matter and why I used the term unsupported common sense. You can make an assumption based on common sense, but it is just an assumption until such a time as it is supported by logically sound arguments and evidence. To be clear, I don't argue that this assumption is false, I simply question how we can determine it's an accurate claim.
