A Christian Plants His Flag? I Sincerely Doubt It?

[POI]

Well, tell ya what, I'll level with you..

1) Prove to me that sentient life can come from non sentient life...2) and that design can come from disorder..3) and that infinity can be traversed.

If you can do either of these 3 things, I'll abandon my "indoctrinated" belief.

Cool?

4) Until then, I'll continue professing that Christ is Lord, and the way to eternal life is through him, and him alone.

For debate:

1) I think he is asking to 'prove' abiogenesis? Well, being this topic is not scientifically theoretical, I'm not sure anyone can really do this? Which I think will offer one of the last bastions of hope, or safe havens for the Christian to retreat to, when it comes to the ever-shrinking gaps --- as it relates to the "god of the gaps" argument.

2) How does a creationist first determine what is intelligently designed, verses not? I mean, was the 'universe' itself intelligently designed? If so, how does one prove it? Further, if humans were supposed to be one of God's highlights, then why make a "universe" uninhabitable to these humans without major synthetic intervention? Or even more, only create a singular planet, (like Earth), where humans are unable to inhabit a vast majority of it? Or, how about the human itself? How intelligently was the human "designed"?

3) Is it possible 'matter' or 'something', in some form or another, has always existed? If not, why not? Otherwise, the term 'creationism' becomes an absurd assertion. Instead, one can only logically argue for an intelligent 'change agency' alone. And I doubt the aforementioned Christian, in this case, can fly with this concept.

4) Out of all the religions presented in history, why THIS one? Wouldn't a person, who is after truth, at least explore them all? And what happens when/if more than one collection of claims jives with them? Can multiple claims, of conflicting asserted premises, be true simultaneously? If not, but more than one presents with the same amount of evidence, then does one just flip a coin, or other, to discard one of more of them?

[SiNcE_1985]

I see you really had no response, but to instead whine, as your given quoted statement was a classic example of the 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

It wasn't, though.

It isn't..

1. We don't know X, therefore God did it.

But rather..

2. We know X didn't, therefore, God did it.

As I keep stating, we don't infer God based on what we don't know; but what we do know.

The whole "God of the gaps" charge is archaic. It's old. It's played out. It doesn't work here.

"Nature" is not merely asserted but instead proven to exist time and time again.

In fact, you and I dwell within 'nature' all around us.

Yeah, but too bad no one is arguing whether or not nature exists.

So, keep this one tucked into your pocket so that you'll have it ready to present, should a person come along arguing against the existence of nature.

"God" is instead merely an unsupported claim and/or assertion to fill the ever-shrinking gaps in which science closes time and time again.

It is supported to me. You think otherwise?

Well, that's what makes you an unbeliever, and me a believer, I suppose.

You have very few ever-shrinking gaps left available to you. As time and discovery pass along, your 'god of the gaps' arguments become fewer and smaller to try and fill. It takes little faith to discern that 'science' still has a lot of uncovering yet to do, in a vast number of fields, while 'god-religion(s)', on the other hand, remain stagnant. Consider yourself now enlightened.

I remain unenlightened.

You stated: "If you can successfully prove 1/3 correct, I'll abandon my Christian theism. Fair enough?"

You are going to need to pick a lane Venom. I trust we can stick to 'design'? If not, let me know?

Yeah, I'm still waiting on you to prove 1/3.

Here is a reminder of exactly what you stated: "Because, the more complex X is, the more a designer is required." The following are complex, without proven 'design'.

- climate/weather (convection cells, lightening)
- plate tectonics
- erosion
- mineral crystal formation
- snowflakes

I'll await the goalpost move yet to come.... In which case, we may move along to the topic of 'irreducible complexity.'

We had already arrived at irreducible complexity once these 3 were mentioned..

1. Purpose
2. Function
3. Information

Which, by the way, none of those things you mentioned have either...therefore, cannot be a product of natural design.

Nope. It deals with your notion of 'fine-tuning', as it relates to the topic of "design". You are not going to be able to hand-wave this one away unfortunately. The only way to wiggle yourself out of this topic is to be in direct breach of your former statement above, in that I only need to debunk 1/3. The story of the "puddle" debunks your notion that the hole was made just for the 'puddle.' The moral of the story is that we adapt to our surroundings, rather than some intentional god creating a space perfectly for US humans. I'll explain more below...

A puddle doesn't have..

1. Purpose
2. Function
3. Information

So, unless your puddle has any of those, then it isn't analogous to actual design..particularly human anatomy which has various parts, purposes, and function...and not to mention information (DNA).

So, please..stop it.

Already addressed with the story of the "puddle". The 'puddle' invokes purpose, function, and information. What the "puddle" does not realize, is that the surroundings were not 'made' for the 'puddle'.

Oh, please tell me; if there is a 1x1 ft puddle in the ground after it rains..tell me what is the intrinsic purpose and function of the puddle?

This is the 'puddle's' egotistical and naive conclusion. It's no different than if a "weed", sprouting out of the small crack of a boulder states, "wow, this environment was made just for me! What are the odds that I could sprout here?" We adapt to the environment, versus the other way around.

A weed sprouting from a crack of a boulder, there is no..

1. Purpose
2. Function
3. Information

What your describing are mere coincidences.

A one chance in 10^10^123 is no coincidence...that is a desired action for a specific outcome....and that is why live in on a purposeful, functional planet full of information.

Your "drift" is a complete nothingburger. We are discussing the topic of design. God prioritizes the design of "the universe" over humans, which for the most part, is lethal to God's most prized and cherishes creation -- humans.

Yet, here we are, humans...still flourishing on a privileged planet since it's inception.

You still missed my point. Please acknowledge and address it before we move forward here. Again, any state in which the universe is in carries the exact same mathematical odds.

Um, no. I understood the point....even if it's the exact same mathematical odds; the exact mathematical odds is 1 / 10^10^123.

Regardless.

And the laws which govern our universe is mathematically precise.

This is cosmic engineering.

Further, again, since the claimed grand designer deems humans so important, why create the 'universe' were almost absolutely none of it is suitable for human life? I'll answer for you. The universe was not designed for humans. Like the "puddle" or the "weed", we adapted to a very small part of the environment for which was not designed with US in mind at all.

Dealt with.

Then see directly above in red, as the Biblical narrative does not jive.

It jives to me.

If you cannot sight where the provided link directly answers my specific question, then I can dismiss it. Again, when I "google" my question, the 'google' answer does not comport with your given link.

From what I remember and correct me if I'm wrong, but you asked what are the constants and values of our universe (I'm paraphrasing). I provided a link which answers the question.

I can't help you after that.

I know you want to play the cat and mouse game with it, and I have no desire to do so.

So, we can drop it..but it ain't going nowhere. The science is what it is.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #10]

Oh, and by the way...you had also said (post #8) that there was likely no function or purpose in reality..and I responded by saying..

No purpose or function, eh?

Cool.

So, let me gouge out your eyes, since because according to you, there is no purpose or function in reality, which includes your two eyes.

Not only that, but the statement "there is no purpose or function in reality" is self refuting, because that would mean that the statement itself has no purpose or function.

I noticed that you conveniently didn't respond to this in post #10.

I wonder why?

Probably because you realize how much purpose and function those things (your eyes) have...and your nonsense statement about there being "no function or purpose in reality" should have never been made in the first place.

[POI]

It wasn't, though.

It isn't..

1. We don't know X, therefore God did it.

But rather..

2. We know X didn't, therefore, God did it.

As I keep stating, we don't infer God based on what we don't know; but what we do know.

The whole "God of the gaps" charge is archaic. It's old. It's played out. It doesn't work here.

More tantrums and misdirected thinking.... I'm leaving your 'god of the gaps' argument here for the audience to see:

"If either of those 3 things actually happened in nature, then either should be provable by science. However, if either didn't happen in nature, then neither are provable by science. Guess what, neither can be proved using science."

Yeah, but too bad no one is arguing whether or not nature exists. So, keep this tucked into your pocket so that you'll have it ready to present, should a person come along arguing against the existence of nature.

Then my point stands. "Nature" has already been demonstrated. God has not and is instead asserted, based upon crappy presented arguments from apologists and theists. And I'm now focusing on 1/3, which focuses on the topic of 'design.'

It is supported to me. You think otherwise? Well, that's what makes you an unbeliever, and me a believer, I suppose.

Thanks, "captain obvious."

I remain unenlightened.

Denial and misrepresentation are key ingredients to your presented belief preservation. Based upon advances in 'scientific' discovery, logic, and other, the gaps for your Christian claimed god are ever shrinking.

Yeah, I'm still waiting on you to prove 1/3.

4th request:

Why would an all knowing and all wise "creator" create humans in their 'created' form? (I.E.):

1) An airway shared with a foodway
2) An appendix known to inflate and rupture
3) A prostate located to sometimes block urine flow
4) Sex organs sharing a sewage path
5) Humans have to continuously breath, blink, eat, drink, expel waste, etc...

It's almost as if blind cumulative processes are happening here....

Which, by the way, none of those things you mentioned have either...therefore, cannot be a product of nature design.

I'm challenging what you stated here--> "Because, the more complex X is, the more a designer is required."

I've just offered many categories which offer complexity. Is each and every snowflake "designed"? If so, prove it.

A puddle doesn't have..

1. Purpose
2. Function
3. Information

So, unless your puddle has any of those, then it isn't analogous to actual design..particularly human anatomy which has various parts, purposes, and function...and not to mention information (DNA).

So, please..stop it.

Venom, I've mentioned, from the jump, this story is a metaphor. One of your beginning arguments addresses 'fine-tuning.' I'm zeroing in on the topic of 'design'. Both the 'puddle' and the 'weed' address this argument head-on.

Human life is a product of adaptation to its environment. Human life is not instead the product of being "finely-tuned" specifically for human life. The analogy posits that a human might think its "universe" was perfectly made for it. "Q" you then offering bad apologetics, like when quoting an irrelevant "Penrose" finding. I'll explain more below.

Oh, please tell me; if there is a 1x1 ft puddle in the ground after it rains..tell me what is the intrinsic purpose and function of the puddle?

Explained above... The puddle infers meaningful design, just as you do in this "universe". Think about it Venom... The puddle, the weed, and the human all believe they are special, and designed in a perfectly created environment specifically made for THEM. Metaphorically as a "designer", you 'create' a hole, or a boulder, and a 'universe', with the purposeful "design" for the puddle, or the weed, or the human.

The metaphor asks the one invoking "intentional design". In this case, the 'universe', let alone earth itself, does not look to have been "finely tuned" for human life at all, Rather, it looks like both weeds and humans defied the odds of adversity.

A weed sprouting from a crack of a boulder, there is no..

1. Purpose
2. Function
3. Information

What your describing are mere coincidences.

Looks like the metaphors might be starting to finally set in... It's better late than never...

A one chance in 10^10^123 is no coincidence...that is a desired action for a specific outcome....and that is why live in on a purposeful, functional planet full of information.

Again, the chance is identical, regardless of the 'universes' current state.

Yet, here we are, humans...still flourishing on a privileged planet since it's inception.

So do puddles and weeds. I guess this means the "universe" was also finely tuned for puddles and weeds.

Um, no. I understood the point....

If you really did, you would finally ditch this crappy apologetic, in which was likely presented to you by one of those Christian apologists.

I can't help

I know you want to play the cat and mouse game with it, and I have no desire to do so.

So, we can drop it..but it ain't going nowhere. The science is what it is.

As you would say, "I'll just take the 'W' here."

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #12]

After you catch up and finally realize that the initially presented (puddle/weed) metaphors are perfectly analogous, and that an intelligent designer of humans would not 'design' humans in the way in which they are apparently 'designed', and also acknowledge that complexity emerges in "nature", we can certainly then go after the eye, if still need-be for funsies. Kapeesh?

[SiNcE_1985]

More tantrums and misdirected thinking.... I'm leaving your 'god of the gaps' argument here for the audience to see:

"If either of those 3 things actually happened in nature, then either should be provable by science. However, if either didn't happen in nature, then neither are provable by science. Guess what, neither can be proved using science."

"Guess what, neither can be proved using science"

Then my point stands. "Nature" has already been demonstrated. God has not and is instead asserted, based upon crappy presented arguments from apologists and theists. And I'm now focusing on 1/3, which focuses on the topic of 'design.'

Um, no.

You can't use nature to explain the origins of its own domain.

That would be like if you were tasked to explain the origins of your computer, but you can't appeal to any explanation that is external to your computer.

Can you do it? No.

But hey, using fallacious reasoning doesn't seem to bother you... apparently.

Thanks, "captain obvious."

No prob, because either A or B.

And if not B, then A.

Denial and misrepresentation are key ingredients to your presented belief preservation. Based upon advances in 'scientific' discovery, logic, and other, the gaps for your Christian claimed god are ever shrinking.

Scientific discovery? Ha.

4th request:

Why would an all knowing and all wise "creator" create humans in their 'created' form? (I.E.):

1) An airway shared with a foodway
2) An appendix known to inflate and rupture
3) A prostate located to sometimes block urine flow
4) Sex organs sharing a sewage path
5) Humans have to continuously breath, blink, eat, drink, expel waste, etc...

It's almost as if blind cumulative processes are happening here....

Because he wanted to.

That's my answer.

I've just offered many categories which offer complexity. Is each and every snowflake "designed"? If so, prove it.

1,2,3.

You know what belongs side of each #.

Venom, I've mentioned, from the jump, this story is a metaphor. One of your beginning arguments addresses 'fine-tuning.' I'm zeroing in on the topic of 'design'. Both the 'puddle' and the 'weed' address this argument head-on.

If your presented analogy doesn't have the 1,2,3 elements to it..then it isn't analogous.

Human life is a product of adaptation to its environment.

Adaptation occurs after something begins. Show me how it (life) originated, before you talk about how it adapts.

I know, I know...it is quite convenient to hop, skip, and jump over the abiogenesis part...but I'm not here for your convenience (except for the 1/3 option)

Demonstrate abiogenesis first.

Human life is not instead the product of being "finely-tuned" specifically for human life. The analogy posits that a human might think its "universe" was perfectly made for it.

A universe not fine tuned for life wouldn't have 1,2,3.

Your analogies; they dont.

So, your analogies are two, fallacious, false equivalencies.

Explained above... The puddle infers meaningful design, just as you do in this "universe".

Think about it Venom... The puddle, the weed, and the human all believe they are special, and designed in a perfectly created environment specifically made for THEM. Metaphorically as a "designer", you 'create' a hole, or a boulder, and a 'universe', with the purposeful "design" for the puddle, or the weed, or the human.

Water in a hole ain't 1,2,3.

The metaphor asks the one invoking "intentional design". In this case, the 'universe', let alone earth itself, does not look to have been "finely tuned" for human life at all, Rather, it looks like both weeds and humans defied the odds of adversity.

If it doesn't look fine tuned, then you wouldn't have naturalists trying to explain the fine tuning away, via multiverse theories and such.

You do realize that the only reason the multiverse was postulated, was because the evidence of fine tuning was so overwhelming that they had to try to come up with something to explain it.

One chance in 1 / 10^10^123.

Certain mathematical parameters have to be met to even have chemistry, much less life.

To be frank, you clearly don't know what you're talking about here...you claim there is no fine tuning, yet, you wouldn't even exist without the fine tuning of which you claim there is none.

You're starting to come across as a troll, sir.

Looks like the metaphors might be starting to finally set in... It's better late than never...

They set in a long time ago, as un-analogous, irrelevant, and a blatant waste of time.

Again, the chance is identical, regardless of the 'universes' current state.

No substance. This is just something you say when you've got an empty cupboard.

So do puddles and weeds. I guess this means the "universe" was also finely tuned for puddles and weeds.

No 1,2,3.

If you really did, you would finally ditch this crappy apologetic, in which was likely presented to you by one of those Christian apologists.

I need substance, not filler-lines.

As you would say, "I'll just take the 'W' here."

Sir, I don't think even you believe you are winning anything here.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #12]

After you catch up and finally realize that the initially presented (puddle/weed) metaphors are perfectly analogous, and that an intelligent designer of humans would not 'design' humans in the way in which they are apparently 'designed', and also acknowledge that complexity emerges in "nature", we can certainly then go after the eye, if still need-be for funsies. Kapeesh?

The fact that you addressed everything else within the post, yet purposely chose to ignore that specific part, that's enough of a funsie for me.

[POI]

Stay in one lane Venom. I'm addressing 'design', as I addressed in post #3. The 'I sincerely doubt it' clause, in the title of this topic reigns true in almost every response. You just cannot help yourself. You must deflect, redirect, and pivot, in an attempt to remain afloat. So, I guess we will now color outside the lines...

"Guess what, neither can be proved using science"

Allow me to steelman your assertion here. Does a claim, which cannot be proven specifically by using "scientific" means then mean 'god did it'?

Um, no. You can't use nature to explain the origins of its own domain.

You still continue to miss my point. We don't have to assume nature, as nature has been demonstrated. The time to believe something exists is after it has been demonstrated. Thus far, you offer nothing more than unfounded assertions, founded in fallacious reasoning.

Scientific discovery? Ha.

Yes. thousands of years ago, it was "common knowledge" that some dude named Thor was up there in the clouds throwing down lightning bolts, until we finally understood what lightening/thunder really was.

Because he wanted to.

An answer that any apologist, representing ANY religion, could just as well use as their answer. It's another hot garbage answer from Team-Christian-Apologetics. If you believe in your god, maybe manifest the holy spirit to instead provide you with a better answer. The one you offer now is, as you say, very "WEAK". So come on Venom, let's try this, yet again... No cop outs or dodging this time....

5th request:

Why would an all knowing and all wise "creator" create humans in their 'created' form? (I.E.):

1) An airway shared with a foodway
2) An appendix known to inflate and rupture
3) A prostate located to sometimes block urine flow
4) Sex organs sharing a sewage path
5) Humans have to continuously breath, blink, eat, drink, expel waste, etc...

It's almost as if blind cumulative processes are happening here....

1,2,3.

Yet, again, stop avoiding my question. You stated --> "Because, the more complex X is, the more a designer is required."

Being that snowflakes are complex, are snowflakes "designed"? If so, prove it?

If your presented analogy doesn't have the 1,2,3 elements to it..then it isn't analogous.

I'm addressing 'fine-tuning.' You know, the argument you brought forth from the beginning. And according to YOUR rationale. If the earth was "fine-tuned" for life, then it was more-so fine-tuned for weeds than it was for humans.

Adaptation occurs after something begins. Show me how it (life) originated, before you talk about how it adapts.

You see, here we are again. I'm addressing the asserted chosen 'design' tactics of the asserted 'designer', and you are instead jumping ship and asking me to prove that the designer exists. We are hypothetically passed that Venom. The focus is on questioning the asserted "designer". And so far, when you address the actual topic at hand, you "flub out' and completely give up, because you know such design is either quite poor, or, non-existent. You have no other option(s), which is why you flat out refuse to intelligently address why humans present with many 'design' flaws.

Demonstrate abiogenesis first.

As the title states... "A Christian Plants His Flag? I Sincerely Doubt It?". Now you want to jump ship and go to topic 1) instead. I don't blame you. (Protection/diversion/pivoting) is the name of the game for maintaining the belief preservation of an irrational indoctrinated belief.

A universe not fine tuned for life wouldn't have 1,2,3. Your analogies; they dont.

A universe "fine-tuned" for human life would not present with a universe where the vast majority it is lethal to humans. Imagine if I told you I 'fine-tuned' a vast space and told you I specifically had you in mind when I 'created' the space. But when I 'fine-tuned' it for you, you were allergic to 99.99999% of the asserted "finely-tuned-for-just-for-you" space. Weeee!

Water in a hole ain't 1,2,3.

Saying a space is "finely-tuned" for you, and then giving a better argument for the weed's "finely-tuned" existence over humans, because weeds actually flourish more-so than humans - despite all the odds, ain't helping your case.

If it doesn't look fine tuned, then you wouldn't have naturalists trying to explain the fine tuning away, via multiverse theories and such. You do realize that the only reason the multiverse was postulated, was because the evidence of fine tuning was so overwhelming that they had to try to come up with something to explain it.

I'm not arguing for a "multiverse". I don't need to. Your fine-tuning argument gets debunked using simple logic alone.

One chance in 1 / 10^10^123.Certain mathematical parameters have to be met to even have chemistry, much less life. To be frank, you clearly don't know what you're talking about here...you claim there is no fine tuning, yet, you wouldn't even exist without the fine tuning of which you claim there is none. You're starting to come across as a troll, sir.

Already answered many times... But you just cannot help yourself, with the garbage apologetics. And when the Christian apologist gets flustered, like you clearly are, they sometimes resort to ad hominem attacks, as you clearly are here as well.

No substance. This is just something you say when you've got an empty cupboard.

Your demonstrated ignorance to this observation continues to be your bliss.

No 1,2,3.

(Rinse/repeat) -- Saying a space is "finely-tuned" for you, and then giving a better argument for the weed's "finely-tuned" existence over humans, because weeds actually flourish more-so than humans - despite all the odds, ain't helping your case.

Sir, I don't think even you believe you are winning anything here.

And you call me the "troll".

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #16]

Avoidance is clearly becoming your specialty.

[SiNcE_1985]

Stay in one lane Venom.

All of this is my lane...and I am an 18-wheeler semi tractor trailer...wondering why this Ford Fusion (you) decided to merge into it.

Tsk, tsk.

I'm addressing 'design', as I addressed in post #3. The 'I sincerely doubt it' clause, in the title of this topic reigns true in almost every response. You just cannot help yourself. You must deflect, redirect, and pivot, in an attempt to remain afloat. So, I guess we will now color outside the lines...

You've already been owned on this here issue.

This is just overtime for me, and I'm having fun with it.

Easy money.

Allow me to steelman your assertion here. Does a claim, which cannot be proven specifically by using "scientific" means then mean 'god did it'?

Science cannot explain the origins of material reality.

So yes, this means that absolutely, positively; God did it.

100%.

You still continue to miss my point. We don't have to assume nature, as nature has been demonstrated.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, the last time you raised this point..but now, this is a blatant straw man.

Whether or not nature exists is not the point of contention...the question is; does nature have the explanatory power to explain the produced effect.

That is the contention.

You're saying..

1. We know nature exists.

2. Therefore, nature explains X.

This is a non sequitur. It does not logically follow.

The time to believe something exists is after it has been demonstrated. Thus far, you offer nothing more than unfounded assertions, founded in fallacious reasoning.

Yeah, just like #2 (above), that is an unfounded assertion...and not only is it unfounded, it's even worse; it's false.

Yes. thousands of years ago, it was "common knowledge" that some dude named Thor was up there in the clouds throwing down lightning bolts, until we finally understood what lightening/thunder really was.

Yeah, just like around 200 years ago, some dude named Charles Darwin claimed that life began from slime slithering out of some premordial soup.

The Thor stuff seems more believable, to me.

An answer that any apologist, representing ANY religion, could just as well use as their answer. It's another hot garbage answer from Team-Christian-Apologetics. If you believe in your god, maybe manifest the holy spirit to instead provide you with a better answer. The one you offer now is, as you say, very "WEAK". So come on Venom, let's try this, yet again... No cop outs or dodging this time....

Bro, you're asking me why person X did something Y way, instead of Z way.

Unless person X explains him/her self, how am I supposed to know?

Because person X wanted to do it that way, that's why.

We don't know specifics, but that should do it for now.

5th request:

Why would an all knowing and all wise "creator" create humans in their 'created' form? (I.E.):

1) An airway shared with a foodway
2) An appendix known to inflate and rupture
3) A prostate located to sometimes block urine flow
4) Sex organs sharing a sewage path
5) Humans have to continuously breath, blink, eat, drink, expel waste, etc...
It's almost as if blind cumulative processes are happening here....

Why would Henry Ford create the Model T with 4 wheels, instead of 10?

That will be my response every time you decide to paste that "filler" stuff.

Yet, again, stop avoiding my question. You stated --> "Because, the more complex X is, the more a designer is required."

Being that snowflakes are complex, are snowflakes "designed"? If so, prove it?

Coincidental patterns can still be considered "designed".

A gray rock can be said to have "design".

We are not talking about any ole "design", though.

We ain't talking about coincidental stuff.

We are talking about intelligent design.

And intelligent design has those 1,2,3 elements to it, which is what a snowflake doesn't have.

It's obvious that you're tactic now is to keep repeating the same filler stuff, as if it hasn't been addressed...to give the appearance as if you're engaging in the conversation when in reality, you're not.

It's a crying shame, actually.

I'm addressing 'fine-tuning.' You know, the argument you brought forth from the beginning. And according to YOUR rationale. If the earth was "fine-tuned" for life, then it was more-so fine-tuned for weeds than it was for humans.

Your analogy is not analogous to what we're discussing.

You're saying, for example, that the paint spilled on a canvas by accident (random coincidental design/pattern) is analogous to a Picasso masterpiece (intelligent design).

They are not the same, and they are not analogous.

So, your presenting a fallacious false equivalency, and presenting it as if it's the best counter-argument in the world.

It's a cross between sad, and laughable...and like I said before, I expect more from you.

You see, here we are again. I'm addressing the asserted chosen 'design' tactics of the asserted 'designer', and you are instead jumping ship and asking me to prove that the designer exists. We are hypothetically passed that Venom. The focus is on questioning the asserted "designer". And so far, when you address the actual topic at hand, you "flub out' and completely give up, because you know such design is either quite poor, or, non-existent. You have no other option(s), which is why you flat out refuse to intelligently address why humans present with many 'design' flaws.

Fine tuning is mainly in reference to the origins of life..so forgive me for the constant mentioning of abiogenesis and evolution as it pertains to this topic.

I kinda have to mention it.

Now, I understand that this conversation makes you uncomfortable, but hey... you'll be aight.

Being atheists should make people uncomfortable.

*I recall years ago, when I told a skeptic that I'm a Christian Apologist..and he said; "Yeah? Good, because you should apologize for being a Christian".
*

As the title states... "A Christian Plants His Flag? I Sincerely Doubt It?". Now you want to jump ship and go to topic 1) instead. I don't blame you. (Protection/diversion/pivoting) is the name of the game for maintaining the belief preservation of an irrational indoctrinated belief.

?

A universe "fine-tuned" for human life would not present with a universe where the vast majority it is lethal to humans.

Are you pretending to know the kind of universe that the Designer would make, should one exists?

Maybe that's the kind of universe you would make of you were the designer.

But newsflash; you ain't the Designer.

Imagine if I told you I 'fine-tuned' a vast space and told you I specifically had you in mind when I 'created' the space. But when I 'fine-tuned' it for you, you were allergic to 99.99999% of the asserted "finely-tuned-for-just-for-you" space. Weeee!

Yeah and despite this 99.99%, I'm thriving just fine.

Thanks for placing me in an area within the space that shelters me from those harsh realities around me that you also apparently created.

I guess that means that there is something special about me, as to why you'd shelter me from it.

Appreciate cha.

Saying a space is "finely-tuned" for you, and then giving a better argument for the weed's "finely-tuned" existence over humans, because weeds actually flourish more-so than humans - despite all the odds, ain't helping your case.

Again, the weeds ain't 1,2,3.

Just like spilled paint on a canvas ain't Picosso's work.

I'm not arguing for a "multiverse". I don't need to. Your fine-tuning argument gets debunked using simple logic alone.

Obviously, you're doing your own thing.

Scientists and scholarship, they know what's up.

Already answered many times... But you just cannot help yourself, with the garbage apologetics. And when the Christian apologist gets flustered, like you clearly are, they sometimes resort to ad hominem attacks, as you clearly are here as well.

(Rinse/repeat) -- Saying a space is "finely-tuned" for you, and then giving a better argument for the weed's "finely-tuned" existence over humans, because weeds actually flourish more-so than humans - despite all the odds, ain't helping your case.

Here's some fun..


So, if I accidentally "spill" paint on a canvas, and I put this "painting" next to a Picosso masterpiece, and I asked you..

"Which one of these two paintings is a result of intelligent design?"

And the obvious, correct answer will have you rewarded with 1,000000000 dollars.

Which one would you choose?

[POI]

Science cannot explain the origins of material reality. So yes, this means that absolutely, positively; God did it. 100%.

God of the gaps

You're saying..

1. We know nature exists.

2. Therefore, nature explains X.

You are still not following. This is not what I'm saying. I saying that nature is proven. Prove anything beyond nature exists. My current hypothesis, is that "nature", in one form or another, always has existed.

Yeah, just like #2 (above), that is an unfounded assertion...and not only is it unfounded, it's even worse; it's false.

#2 is addressing your debunked "intelligent designer" assertion.

Yeah, just like around 200 years ago, some dude named Charles Darwin claimed that life began from slime slithering out of some premordial soup. The Thor stuff seems more believable, to me.

Of course it does, to you. "Science " is hard. It's also dishonest when you misrepresent the actual field of study. Making baseless god claims, to fill the gaps in your current lack in knowledge, is easier.

Bro, you're asking me why person X did something Y way, instead of Z way. Unless person X explains him/her self, how am I supposed to know? Because person X wanted to do it that way, that's why. We don't know specifics, but that should do it for now.

God ain't gonna ever explain himself, 'cuz your god likely isn't there to answer.

The intelligent design (ID) argument claims that certain features of the universe and life are too complex to be explained by undirected natural processes like evolution and are better explained by an intelligent cause. It uses concepts like "irreducible complexity"—where a system requires all its parts to function—to argue for a designer. This argument is widely seen by scientists as a form of creationism, lacking empirical support and failing to meet the standards of scientific theory.

And we haven't even touched on "irreducible complexity" yet.

An 'intelligent cause' would not create his most marveled creation with such flaws. Please try, yet again....

6th request:

Why would an all knowing and all wise "creator" create humans in their 'created' form? (I.E.):

1) An airway shared with a foodway
2) An appendix known to inflate and rupture
3) A prostate located to sometimes block urine flow
4) Sex organs sharing a sewage path
5) Humans have to continuously breath, blink, eat, drink, expel waste, etc...
It's almost as if blind cumulative processes are happening here....

Coincidental patterns can still be considered "designed". A gray rock can be said to have "design". We are not talking about any ole "design", though. We ain't talking about coincidental stuff. We are talking about intelligent design.

Snowflakes are complex. Hence, according to YOU, they must require a designer, right? Are you ready to abort your prior statement yet?

And intelligent design has those 1,2,3 elements to it, which is what a snowflake doesn't have.

I just posted what the ID argument argues for above in red. Please demonstrate why snowflakes are 'designed'?

You're saying, for example, that the paint spilled on a canvas by accident (random coincidental design/pattern) is analogous to a Picasso masterpiece (intelligent design). They are not the same, and they are not analogous. So, your presenting a fallacious false equivalency, and presenting it as if it's the best counter-argument in the world. It's a cross between sad, and laughable...and like I said before, I expect more from you.

Strawman. I've already explained.

Fine tuning is mainly in reference to the origins of life..so forgive me for the constant mentioning of abiogenesis and evolution as it pertains to this topic.

No Venom. I'm going after the so-called 'intelligence' of the so-called 'designer.'

?

You will pivot and switch topics, via belief preservation.

Are you pretending to know the kind of universe that the Designer would make, should one exists? Maybe that's the kind of universe you would make of you were the designer. But newsflash; you ain't the Designer.

That is exactly what YOU are doing. I'm not the one claiming some designer, and then referencing things in which appears designed. That's all you. I'm now countering with other things which possess complexity to demonstrate the absurdity in your claim(s). And the things in which you assert are designed, are objectively poorly designed, if the goal is the 'well-being' for "his most marveled creation". This was demonstrated the second you started avoiding my 5) questions about human characteristics.

Yeah and despite this 99.99%, I'm thriving just fine. Thanks for placing me in an area within the space that shelters me from those harsh realities around me that you also apparently created. I guess that means that there is something special about me, as to why you'd shelter me from it. Appreciate cha.

Oh, the mental gymnastics believers have to do to retain belief in this stuff.

Just like spilled paint on a canvas ain't Picosso's work.

Another strawman... The observed complexity of snowflakes are nothing like randomly spilled paint.

Obviously, you're doing your own thing. Scientists and scholarship, they know what's up.

No. It's you who is doing their own thing, based upon the classic definition of ID. Scientists and scholars back the 'science' for which you flat out reject. You cannot have your cake and eat it too Venom.

So, if I accidentally "spill" paint on a canvas, and I put this "painting" next to a Picosso masterpiece, and I asked you.. "Which one of these two paintings is a result of intelligent design?" And the obvious, correct answer will have you rewarded with 1,000000000 dollars. Which one would you choose?

Another strawman... Your argument proves that the earth is more-so fine-tuned for weeds than humans. And the reason you gave is because they flourish. Good going...