Mr Opinion,

<<I think you should go first. What is LIFE?>>

The content of this thread is about the good God allowing or causing Covid-19. So I don't plan on dealing with your manufactured topic.

If you want to understand how my Christian world view obtains information about disasters such as the tsunami of 2004 or Covid-19, I'm available for a discussion.

However, if you sling logical fallacies at me, I will not pursue the dialogue. Logical fallacies prevent logical discussions.

In your discussions with those of us with a different world view, you have acted like a self-centred narcissist whose only concern is for you and your supreme view of science and the universe, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=act%20like%20a%20dick

You seem to have forgotten the fact that your use of fallacies - erroneous reasoning - undermines the credibility of your arguments. If you use fallacious arguments (as you've done many times on this and other threads), you are not writing as a good logical and critical thinker.

I ask you to step up to the mark of being a good, logical thinker by throwing away your flaws in reasoning.

Dear Ozpen,

You write;

“However, if you sling logical fallacies at me, I will not pursue the dialogue. Logical fallacies prevent logical discussions.”

“You seem to have forgotten the fact that your use of fallacies - erroneous reasoning - undermines the credibility of your arguments. If you use fallacious arguments (as you've done many times on this and other threads), you are not writing as a good logical and critical thinker. I ask you to step up to the mark of being a good, logical thinker by throwing away your flaws in reasoning.”

For God's sake mate, cut the crap. You have repeatedly demonstrated a singular lack of appreciation for the proper identification of what constitutes a logical fallacy, yet here you are flouting your ignorance and filling half your post drivel.

Mr Opinion may well indulge in the odd logical fallacy as we all do, but your own use of them combined with your incomplete understanding of when to call out others is making a farce of the whole bloomin lot.

In fact there really should be another logical fallacy, one that describes the fallacious use of charges of logical fallacies to mask deficiencies in one's arguments.

Give it a rest.

//You don't get more order out of disorder.//

Yes, you do. As thinkabit pointed out in his example of atmospheric precipitation, spontaneous processes that involve a decrease in entropy can and do occur in nature. Constantly, because its always raining somewhere on Earth. And indeed on other planets/moons - it rains methane on Titan, the largest moon of Saturn.

These entropy decreasing processes are permitted so long as the process involve a decrease in the Gibbs free energy, which is derived from both the enthalpy and the entropy of the process. If the enthalpy is negative - i.e. if it is an exothermic process, e.g. phase changes from gas to liquid to solid, numerous chemical reactions - the entropy can decrease.

//These two theories work well enough in modern times but they both fall apart when they are theorized to the point of how the earth began//

Not really... the theory of evolution does not apply to the formation of the Earth because it's a planet rather than a lifeform.

Because it's a planet, it's bloody massive and get a proper grip on things with such large gravitational fields you need to apply general relativity.As far as I'm aware, the laws of thermodynamics are not considered inconsistent with general relativity. If they are, physicists are keeping very quiet about it, which would be odd because a) they generally make such a fuss about their theories being inconsistent; see general relativity and quantum mechanics and b) overturning the second law would open the door to the theoretical possibility of over-unity devices. Who doesn't want an over-unity deivce?

//Yet in evolution, many people pose the theory to outside it's scope, to both where life began//

Yep, it's a common mistake to confuse the theory of evolution with theories of abiogenesis. They aren't the same thing. But erroneously conflating the theories does not falsify them.

//With the observations of entropy as they usually apply, if life sparked in the chaotic world that it would start from, there's no reason to think that it would survive to a point of a few generations.//

There's no reason to think it wouldn't if the processes that allow it are thermodynamically favourable.

// Unless you look past earth and into space. Then the diversity and the amount of life drops to a dramatic zero amount discovered.//

Space isn't very hospitable to life, NNS. It's bloody cold and a vacuum. Planets and moons are where you'd expect to find life. And the number of planets we've looked vs. the total number of planets just in our galaxy alone is approximately three-fifths of bugger all.

//In fact there really should be another logical fallacy, one that describes the fallacious use of charges of logical fallacies to mask deficiencies in one's arguments.//

I don't know if that is an informal fallacy that's been given a name yet, although I wouldn't be surprised.

But his claim that "Logical fallacies prevent logical discussions" commits the Fallacy fallacy:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

If he wants to up his critical thinking game, I'd advise him to tone down his excessive focus on people's fallacies and focus instead on the subject of their arguments. But hey, what do I know?

SteeleRedux,

<<For God's sake mate, cut the crap.>>

There you go again with another Ad Hominem (Abusive) logical fallacy, http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

Why don't you quit your logical fallacies so we can have a reasonable discussion on the good God and disasters? Are you capable of that? If so, please demonstrate it in your language.

<<For God's sake>>

So you believe in the God you have blasphemed?