| theprof00 said: i understand your point happy, (on strawmen) but me argument was why would god make gays, if his purpose for us was to procreate. in this sense it is taking the natural occurence of procreation as saying it is our purpose, when the scientific pov is simply that procreation is an ability. "scientists say that we are designed to procreate" it was not explicitly written, but it was my understanding that that part was understood. |
I can understand that.
But you need to realize the conditional statement, and realize that God as a designer is implicit to the claim ("he makes gays"). From there, you can argue whether God is real or not, whether he created things. But in the claim, the assumption is that God is real, and that he is the designer, and the question becomes "if he intended a specific purpose, why allow something that doesn't fit that purpose". The argument could be "well, maybe God doesn't exist", and in neither of those is there a logical fallacy.
The logical fallacy would be to say "well, God doesn't exist because science says so". That's appeal to authority. Or, the other could respond "well, God exists because the bible says so", and as such, that would be an appeal to authority.
