Originally Posted by Rotaerk

Yes, that is a(x)->b(x). When you say you support it as a model, you're saying that you're *assuming* a(x)->b(x) to be true. However, I am not drawing into question your logic in here: "I assume a(x)->b(x), I know a(Perham), therefore b(Perham)." That is valid logic.

The logic of that deduction is, again, not the issue. The issue is in the assumption. Your original goal was (ostensibly) to show b(Perham), i.e. "The process which created me is intelligent", to be true. You can't simply assume one of the prerequisites (a(x)->b(x)) while attempting to prove b(x). In fact, because I agree with your logic and am willing to assume a(Perham) is true, if you show a(x)->b(x) to be true, that is precisely all you need to do to convince me of b(Perham).

---

Now, if you do not care to convince me of a(x)->b(x), then I won't be surprised. It is a common pattern of behavior in religious debate: Someone attempts to convince someone of something, then when they fail, they fallback to "oh, I don't care if you actually believe me." and then say something to the effect of "I'm content believing it myself".

This is giving up. An argument should end in the "loser" reconsidering their belief decisions, but instead, these people lose the argument and then withdraw from it as though they were never arguing and go back into their shell of "I know I'm right, they just don't get it". If you're right, you should be able to present something to back it up. Well anyway, then they lash out again with another faulty argument, lose, and repeat. It'd be nice if someone actually admitted that they were arguing and that they might have been wrong, once in a while...