I live in the United States, so you can imagine that running across another individual with a triple digit IQ nowadays is like passing a far off ship in the night.
You make an excellent point, but I personally wouldn't use the lack of "identifiable cause" argument to refute the syllogism. You're dealing with illiterate creationists, who will invariably fire back with something like, "It's unidentifiable because it's God, and God exists outside the known Universe -- blah, blah, blah." Of course, the language will be a little more "science-speaky" - but you get the point.
The real problem is that applying the axioms and laws of logic break down very quickly (especially when it comes to the concept of causality) when things get very small, are at extremely high temperatures/energy, are traveling at or near the speed of light, etc. Causality gets a tad ambiguous when you travel outside the realm of our comfy, low-velocity, macro three-space environment which our senses and thought-processes have adapted to accommodate.
I guess you could go a step further and try to explain it formally, perhaps through Godels incompleteness theorem. Good luck with that. These people can't even grasp the basic premise that it makes absolutely no sense to describe mechanisms which rely on probability and have fuzzy states, with a logical construct better suited for the Newtonian world.
<<For the sheer Tartarus of it>>
Ha! Good one! But wasted on fools. I would've used "H-E-double hockey sticks". |
