You could remove "naturally" necessary if you also were postulating supernatural necessity as in God causes homosexuality. I'll dismiss this as a minority opinion which I'm not addressing. Any situation, such as the having of homosexual desires, can either be contingent or necessary. If it is necessary then it cannot have been different. If it is contingent, then it can be different. If it is contingent, it could be random or teleological.
| P3 How are homosexual actions a natural necessity? |
By natural necessity you could understand this as equally accounted for by natural explanations when compared to the alternative, heterosexuality. Consider: At least some people are left handed by natural necessity. This could include genetics and environment and exclude individual teleological choice.
| P4 What is your basis for knowing the nature of a non-existing god if he did exist? |
This is how you write a philosophical proposition and talk about a contrary position. If the assumptions are not true for a particular theism, then neither are the conclusions. If you're a Deist or a hindu theist this obviously does not apply. This argument, as stated in the terms, only would apply to a theism which contained those assumptions.
| C5 Why? Are you saying that God can't exist if there are homosexuals? |
Some God's can't exist if there is natural homosexuality. Any theism which entails the claim that homosexuality is a choice is false if it is true that homosexuality is natural. C5 follows primarily from two points: P3 and P4b where if the probality is high that at least some homosexuality is natural and also the probability is low that if God were to exist he would have created natural homosexuality, then one of several disjuncts is probably true. The one this argument was phrased for is the argument that probably theism is false as laid out in the premises. There are many possible theological counter arguments here which mainly question or reinterpret P4 by adding additional characteristics to the theistic God which trump the 3 listed. Note I did not make this list exclusive of other possibilities.
| P6 What is the basis for this assumption? How did you observe both conditions? How do you make a comparison when only one set of conditions are known to exist? How do you know that this isn't a "less similar" condition? |
The same comments as above apply here. Further I clearly stated this premise as hypothetical reasoning. Christian theism entails the claims that humans are special and distinct from other species in many important ways. Naturalism, if it entails evolution, posits that we should expect to find many similarities. Even if, all other things being equal, the claims were identical, Christian theism is claiming difference. This is not a logical proof, but an evidential argument because some things aren't ruled out by theism absolutely. That's why I'm constantly saying probably, at least some, etc.
| C7 So? You can choose any similarity you want. |
Being charitible, I understand your claim to be that the preceding arguments were arbitrary. It may be the case that some similarities are arbitrary, such as equal frequency of bowl movements or equal number of teeth. However, for any theism which entails moral claims then this is not arbitrary. A hypothesis which is necessary for naturalism and confirmed a posteriori provides some evidence for naturalism. The same datum, not being associated with the theistic hypothesis, may either simply have no bearing on the arguments or may count as evidence against it. My conclusion here is strong and is derived from the premises. I could only choose another similarity if it were likewise derived from equally strong assumptions.
| C9 Reading this as written, you are saying that theism is likely true (double negative) and we have one instance of evidence for naturalism. This contradicts C5. |
I made a typo.
And when I said bingo bango, my intention was "And here we go!" or off to the races with the argument. I may not post additional responses to your brief criticisms after the failure of our last scientific/philosophical discussion. I'd rather do so on economics since I enjoy it more these days! No offense meant by that, we've had good interchanges since our fist evolution tussle - but as you identified last time these subjects are so huge, your time is limited and we wind up talking past each other. If we wanted to tusssle it out we'd have to discuss:
1. Necessity and contingency.
2. Free will, agent causation and predestination.
Among others. And in general I'm still not gonna argue against a principled skeptical position unless I get to change the terms of debate, which would be hijacking the OP. Cheers, though. Really not trying to be a snot as I write this. Thanks for the reply.
l ] 