Originally posted by RJHinds
Why not?
I have already clearly said why not.
Reminder:
your premise was "I would guess the chances of those preexisting facilities existing in a unicellular species is not generally very likely to come about." (my quote)
your conclusion was "That is because God had to do His part” (your quote)
and I said why the conclusion could not logically follow from your premise with:
“For there to be occasional improbable occurrences is mathematically inevitable therefore do not require some kind of divine intervention just for being improbable.
So there is no logical contradiction between something improbable occurring and there being no god nor is there a contradiction between there being a god but that god having noting to do with that improbable event -your implied conclusion does not logically follow from your implied premise.” (my quote)
-if you are so hung-up with the word “imply” in my quote above, just consider it deleted out and ignore it -I don't care whether you 'implied' it or just said it , it makes no difference to the argument either way.
You ask “why not” i.e. why does your conclusion NOT logically follow from your premise but, perhaps the default question should be “why does it” i.e. why DOES your conclusion logically follow from your premise. That's because, if you cannot demonstrate that your conclusion logically DOES follow from your premise, then
THAT is the reason “why not”!!!!!