No syllogism or logical thinking or question can go right when things are presumed from the beginning. By starting off a question with «who», Creationists are implying that someone with intentions and mental states created everything, leaving perfectly plausible options out of the equation. Natural and non-intentional phenomena could also have been the beginning of the universe, and creationists are fallaciously not including these possibilities. So: aren't Creationists committing a fallacy by excluding plausible hypotheses and presuming the intentional stance of the first cause?
ps.yes, I'm reposting, for last time I got 2 stars, but only 5 answers. Hate when that happens.
Update:@muhammad: No. That leave us without an explanation for now. You won't have all the explanations now. So when you fail to get one, why come up with a fairy tale to fill in the gaps. There can still be an explanation, and the explanation doesn't have to be one with mental states and intentions. And it would still be an explanation.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
This is because creationists are starting with the assumption that a sentient god created everything. If you include the option of a natural phenomenon being the cause, then you have the possibility of the Big Bang theory, as this is the theory that a purely natural phenomenon started everything. Creationists want to exclude that.
Creationism is itself a complete fallacy for that very reason. It is only by ignoring proper rigorous logic that anyone can possibly propose it - it is, in fact just the one big assumption that there was a sentient creator.
How can it be a logical fallacy of a creationist to start a question with who? That is the definition of being a creationist. That there is a creator.
STEIN: properly, then, WHO did create the heavens and the earth? DAWKINS: Why do you employ the word “who”? See, you on the instant beg the question via employing the word “who” STEIN: properly, then, how did it get created? DAWKINS: Umm, properly, via an exceedingly sluggish technique. STEIN: properly, how did it start up? DAWKINS: no one is familiar with the way it have been given started. all of us understand the form of experience that it ought to have been. all of us understand the form of experience that ought to have befell for the beginning place of life. STEIN: And what became into that? DAWKINS: It became into the beginning place of the 1st self-replicating molecule. STEIN: suited, and how did that take place? DAWKINS: I advised you, WE DON’T understand STEIN: So, you have not any thought the way it started? DAWKINS: No, no, nor has anybody. STEIN: Nor has anybody else. What do you think of is the possibility that smart layout ought to become the answer to a pair subjects in genetics or in evolution. DAWKINS: properly, it ought to take place interior of right here way. it must be that at some formerly time, someplace in the universe, a civilization stepped forward, via probable via some form of Darwinian means, probable to an exceedingly very severe point of technologies, and DESIGNED a sort of life that they seeded onto according to threat this planet. Um, now it quite is a threat, and an captivating threat. and that i think that is conceivable which you ought to detect data for that in case you seem on the small print of biochemistry, molecular biology, you ought to detect a SIGNATURE of a few form of dressmaker STEIN NARRATION: Wait a 2d! Richard Dawkins theory that smart layout must be a valid pursuit? DAWKINS: Mm, and that dressmaker ought to correctly be a greater robust INTELLIGENCE from someplace else in the universe. That larger INTELLIGENCE could, itself, have had to have take place via some explicable, finally explicable, technique. It COULDN’T have in basic terms jumped into life spontaneously. That’s the factor. STEIN NARRATION: So, Professor Dawkins became into not against smart layout, in basic terms particular “varieties” of designers… which includes God.
Its rather like us atheist asking creationists: "Which natural, physical, phenomenon led to the existence of the universe if not the big bang?".
And that leaves a Universe without an explanation or a purpose which is pretty stupid sorry.
"Who" is present both in theist and non-theist approaches. For atheists it is Nature, for theists it's God.