How do you feel about infinite regression, Horatio?

Primitive people made up stories and came up with mystical explanations of everything that they didn’t understand. Many of these ideas developed into primitive religions, and then morphed into our modern ones.
Some people of today still believe in some of these primitive ideas and expect the rest of us to respect that, and to accept “I don’t know where the universe came from” evidence of a supernatural being.

I witnessed Richard Dawkins on the tube admitting that theistic evolution is a pov that could be defended. His only qualm was to keep it out of the classroom.

Goes to show Dawkins is an honest and reasonable man even if he doesn’t agree with the pov. Others, eh, not so much.

As I stated earlier and in multiple posts there is a difference between legitimate use of expert testimony and the fallacious Appeal to Authority. When one violates certain clearly defined rules (available in almost any basic text on informal logic as well as presented compreshensively to anyone recieving an education in Philosophy, Law, or the Sciences) then one enters the realm of the fallacy.

Earlier I posted:

“My suspicions will be confirmed if TNT returns to accuse me of the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy for referring to the dictionary. If this occurs it will become painfully obvious TNT has no legitimate interest in discussing this matter in a reasonable manner…”

This applies to you as well.

Claiming I used Appeal to Authority when citing a non-controversial basic text on logic is akin to claiming I used it when citing the dictionary.

I offered information concerning a well-documented and heavily referenced fallacy of informal logic. I explained both where TNT used it and why the statement qualified as innappropriate. I referenced a basic logic text, citing title, page number and author.

Mr. Watkins discussion of Appeal to Authority is not controversial, there is no discernible disagreement among scholars as to how to utilize it and when. In other words, the explanation and citations I gave IS REPRESENTATIVE of expert opinion in this field (logic). All of these things combine to demonstrate beyond any rational objection that my earlier post(s) are in no way indicative of fallacious us of Appeal to Authority.

Any person interested in meaningful discussion could take but a few moments to confirm everything I have said above. Apparently, you simply don’t wish to produce the effort neccessary to confirm my references.

I am willing to try this one more time, however. In the interest of civility, I will provide you with more references where the Appeal to Authority is discussed exactly as I have stated above:

Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic (Tenth Edition) (Prentice Hall, 1998), pp. 165-166.

T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 31-34.

Browne, M. Neil & Stuart M. Keeley. Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Prentice Hall, 1997).

Damer. T. Edward. Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments 4th edition (Wadsworth Pub Co, 2001).

I have been extremely generous in providing so many references. Your accusation that I have used Appeal to Authority while “condemning my opponent” is unfounded and ridiculous.

I suppose I shouldn’t expect much more from someone who posts things like, “I won’t even get into his self-defeating arguments.” If you have no wish to support your assertions then move on. I have little patience for lazy argumentation and baseless accusations.

Jynx once again appeals to authority to make his point. When your own argument can’t stand alone resort to this fallcy while condemning your opponent.

The idea of a multiverse is incoherent and unnecessary given that any additional “universes” are contained in the word universe.

The word universe should not have a plural.