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]

.

The modesty of this thread is something that should be appreciated.

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.

Well, let me put it to you this way; in order for theism to be false, all 3 of those hypotheses must be true.

In essence, those are the 3 default positions once you negate theism.

My challenge is, prove all 3 correct and if you find the task difficult, I'll make it easier for you...

Prove at least ONE of the 3 correct.

Either one. Take your pick.

If you can successfully prove 1/3 correct, I'll abandon my Christian theism.

Fair enough?

Am I a nice guy or what?

2) How does a creationist first determine what is intelligently designed, verses not?

I'll answer that question with a question..

How do you determine if/that a computer is designed?

Take whatever answer you give, and apply it to the universe.

Or, I'll ask this..

What requires more design; the design itself, or the designer himself/herself?

Let's start there.

I mean, was the 'universe' itself intelligently designed?
If so, how does one prove it?

Because, the constants and values which makes our universe life permitting is mathematically precise...to an astronomically HIGH degree.

Random or chaotic process won't give you that kind of precision.

However..intelligent, ordered processes does...and what we have here is an undeniable Cosmic Engineer.

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?

Even if I'm unable to live comfortably inside of an uninhabited volcano, that doesn't negate the fact that the actual house that I live in, is intelligently designed.

One doesn't negate the other.

Or, how about the human itself? How intelligently was the human "designed"?

Because, the parts that make up the human body (5 senses, organs, blood, veins, skeleton)..all have purpose and function.

Purpose + function = design.

You are more than just a blob of matter from some random explosion or some billion year fortune process.

You were made in the image of the Creator of the universe, who loves and wants a relationship with you.

3) Is it possible 'matter' or 'something', in some form or another, has always existed? If not, why not

Because if matter had always existed, then the matter that you are comprised of, wouldn't have created you only a finite time ago.

That is the short answer.

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.

A mindless entity (nature) cannot be considered intelligent.

So your intelligent change agency idea is logically absurd.

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?

Before you ponder your brain about which specific version of theism is true... first, find out if theism, in general, is true

[1213]

....Out of all the religions presented in history, why THIS one? Wouldn't a person, who is after truth, at least explore them all? ...

Christianity because:
1) Bible God is the only one who seems to have something impressive to say.
2) The other have not bothered to say anything that makes them special.

[POI]

Prove at least ONE of the 3 correct.

Either one. Take your pick.

If you can successfully prove 1/3 correct, I'll abandon my Christian theism.

Fair enough?

As the title suggests, I sincerely doubt it. But let's see where this goes, for funsies anyways.

How do you determine if/that a computer is designed?

We know humans design(ed) and 'create(d)' computers.

Take whatever answer you give, and apply it to the universe.

How does a 'creationist' determine what was designed, verses what was not?

What requires more design; the design itself, or the designer himself/herself?

Prove the universe was 'designed' at all?

Because, the constants and values which makes our universe life permitting is mathematically precise...to an astronomically HIGH degree.

1) Why would an all powerful agency need to abide by any constraints and values to permit life? See question 4) as a follow-up....
2) What exact constraints and values permit any 'life' in general at all?
3) Why create such a vast space where 99.999999% is not suitable for his "most valued" creation (i.e.) us?
4) Have you heard of the story of the puddle? In essence, the puddle too states, "what are the odds"? And yet, natural processes alone occurred -- (rain filled the hole in the ground).
5) How intelligently was the human really "designed"?

I'm going to stop here, as you stated we only need to address 1/3....

[SiNcE_1985]

As the title suggests, I sincerely doubt it. But let's see where this goes, for funsies anyways.

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.

So, we both sincerely doubt it.

We can agree on that one.

We know humans design(ed) and 'create(d)' computers.

Could nature have design(ed) and/or create(d) computers, based on what we know about nature.

Keyword: know.

How is a computer applicable to the 'universe'?

Because, the more complex X is, the more a designer is required.

The universe is more complex than a computer. The human body is also more complex than a computer.

So, if intelligence is required for computers, then it logically follows that the universe/human body; intelligence is also required.

Prove the universe was 'designed' at all?

I asked a question. Please answer.

1) Why would an all powerful agency need to abide by any constraints and values to permit life? See question 4) as a follow-up....

"Need" is a strong word here.

The Creator had the ability to create from nothing...and if you can create from nothing, there ain't much that you can't do.

I said all that to say; the Creator did it how he wanted to do it.

2) What exact constraints and values permit any 'life' in general at all?

1 chance in 10^10^123...is the probability of getting a fine tuned universe by way of chance.

As for the constants and values themselves..

https://leightonvw.com/2025/01/20/why-i ... -for-life/

I mean, a quick Google search and this is what you'll get...and these are known facts in science, and not anything to be debated..as the contention is; how do we best explain it.

And we're (intelligent design theorists) saying, it is best explained by way of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

3) Why create such a vast space where 99.999999% is not suitable for his "most valued" creation (i.e.) us?

Because when you're God, you create whatever universe you want to create.

4) Have you heard of the story of the puddle? In essence, the puddle too states, "what are the odds"? And yet, natural processes alone occurred -- (rain filled the hole in the ground).

How did the puddle get there? That question needs to be addressed.

5) How intelligently was the human really "designed"?

I'm going to stop here, as you stated we only need to address 1/3....

I already addressed this.

[POI]

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. So, we both sincerely doubt it.

God of the gaps fallacy...

*******************

Also, as an aside, when I say "I doubt it", I mean it's gonna take more than 1/3, as I'm already seeing the bleeding of topics into other topics.

Could nature have design(ed) and/or create(d) computers, based on what we know about nature.

See below...

Because, the more complex X is, the more a designer is required.

Intelligent design fallacy.... You remind me of the losing side of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial in the 2000's.

The universe is more complex than a computer. The human body is also more complex than a computer. So, if intelligence is required for computers, then it logically follows that the universe/human body; intelligence is also required.

Intelligent design fallacy... Also, see my answer(s) above.

"Need" is a strong word here. The Creator had the ability to create from nothing...and if you can create from nothing, there ain't much that you can't do. I said all that to say; the Creator did it how he wanted to do it.

You are already delving into another topic. Remember, you stated I only need to debunk 1/3. You also evaded the point entirely. An all powerful "creating" agency would not need to adhere to any "guidelines". Life would instead emerge from arenas were life does not or cannot emerge. This is why I asked, in another thread, why does God only "create" human life on about 15% of the earth? The answer is, because only about 15% of the planet is suitable for human life.

1 chance in 10^10^123...is the probability of getting a fine tuned universe by way of chance.

I can't believe 'creationists' are still using this Roger Penrose argument.... No matter how the 'universe' sets, in its current state, the chance is still the same.

As for the constants and values themselves..

https://leightonvw.com/2025/01/20/why-i ... -for-life/

I mean, a quick Google search and this is what you'll get...and these are known facts in science, and not anything to be debated..as the contention is; how do we best explain it. And we're (intelligent design theorists) saying, it is best explained by way of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

This is not the answer I get when I 'google' my question. Where in the provided link answers my proposed question? Please quote it?

Because when you're God, you create whatever universe you want to create.

Hmm? The claim is that humans are God's most cherished creation, as we are said to be made in his 'likeness.' God can roam wherever, but humans cannot? In fact, humans are quite limited in where they can dwell, let alone spaces they can occupy at all. A matter of fact, the vast majority of the environment, in which God was said to "create", is deemed lethal for human inhabitance. God, in all his desire for the humans he 'created', decided to limit a human's dwelling place to a very small fraction of the entire 'universe'? I guess that's how God wanted it

How did the puddle get there? That question needs to be addressed.

You've missed the analogy. It builds upon what I've stated above. The story of "the puddle in the hole", popularized by Douglas Adams, represents the argument that life is a product of evolution adapting to its environment, rather than the environment being "fine-tuned" specifically for life. The analogy posits that a puddle might think its hole was perfectly made for it, unaware that the hole's shape is determined by how liquid naturally conforms to the space available to it. In this metaphor, the puddle is "life" and the hole is "the universe", suggesting that life's characteristics are the result of adaptation to the universe's existing laws, not proof of a designed, purposeful creation.

I already addressed this.

You missed my point entirely. Allow me to elaborate. 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....

[SiNcE_1985]

God of the gaps fallacy...

God of the Gaps is when gaps of knowledge is filled with an appealing of an god concept; obviously, based on what you don't know.

But I'm not appealing to God because of what I don't know; I'm appealing to God because of what I do know.

And what's funny is; atheists will accuse theists of God of the gaps argumentation, but will then turn around and use Nature of the gaps argumentation.

Text book example of special pleading.

Also, as an aside, when I say "I doubt it", I mean it's gonna take more than 1/3, as I'm already seeing the bleeding of topics into other topics.

?

Intelligent design fallacy.... You remind me of the losing side of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial in the 2000's.

Intelligent design fallacy?

That must be something new you made up, simply because you're unable to offer a legitimate response to what I've been saying.

You shouldn't have started the fire if you didn't want any of the smoke.

"It's a fallacy to say that something was designed, that was designed."

That's some crazy work.

The universe is more complex than a computer. The human body is also more complex than a computer. So, if intelligence is required for computers, then it logically follows that the universe/human body; intelli

Intelligent design fallacy... Also, see my answer(s) above.

I said what I said.

Either..

1. Articulate how/why what I said is fallacious.

You know, in a likewise manner as I did to you..with your countless Genetic Fallacies in the other thread.

2. Refute/debunk what I said, by simply explaining why I am wrong.

But phantom accusations of a "intelligent design fallacy" is rather WEAK.

I expect more from you.

You are already delving into another topic. Remember, you stated I only need to debunk 1/3.

Um, no.

My point is; your question insinuated that God needed to do X in Y way... implying that God was limited in how he did things.

And I was simply stating the contrary.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm still on topic.

You also evaded the point entirely. An all powerful "creating" agency would not need to adhere to any "guidelines".

Again, just like before, your using the word "need" by implying that God was limited in his power or scope.

Henry Ford didn't need to create the Model T with four wheels. He could have used 10 wheels.

But he did it according to what he wanted and how he wanted.

Life would instead emerge from arenas were life does not or cannot emerge. This is why I asked, in another thread, why does God only "create" human life on about 15% of the earth? The answer is, because only about 15% of the planet is suitable for human life.

Because, that's the way God wanted to do it.

Why does life exist, period, on a 1 chance in 10^10^123 odds?

Would you dare tackle that conundrum?

You're putting God on trial for doing things his way, but you won't even bring such naturalistic claims in for questioning.

I can't believe 'creationists' are still using this Roger Penrose argument....

It's not any argument, it is a scientific fact.

No matter how the 'universe' sets, in its current state, the chance is still the same.

Yeah, the astronomical odds of 1 chance in 10^10^123, is still the same.

This is not the answer I get when I 'google' my question. Where in the provided link answers my proposed question? Please quote it?

You asked something along the lines of what are the constants and values.

And that's what you got.

Hmm? The claim is that humans are God's most cherished creation, as we are said to be made in his 'likeness.' God can roam wherever, but humans cannot? In fact, humans are quite limited in where they can dwell, let alone spaces they can occupy at all. A matter of fact, the vast majority of the environment, in which God was said to "create", is deemed lethal for human inhabitance. God, in all his desire for the humans he 'created', decided to limit a human's dwelling place to a very small fraction of the entire 'universe'? I guess that's how God wanted it

Red herring fallacy.

This is a distraction, as it has nothing to do with either of the 3 things you were supposed to be tackling.

Just a whole lot of nothing...no relevance whatsoever.

You've missed the analogy. It builds upon what I've stated above. The story of "the puddle in the hole", popularized by Douglas Adams, represents the argument that life is a product of evolution adapting to its environment, rather than the environment being "fine-tuned" specifically for life. The analogy posits that a puddle might think its hole was perfectly made for it, unaware that the hole's shape is determined by how liquid naturally conforms to the space available to it. In this metaphor, the puddle is "life" and the hole is "the universe", suggesting that life's characteristics are the result of adaptation to the universe's existing laws, not proof of a designed, purposeful creation.

Um, I stated prior that we can infer design is based on..

1. Purpose.

2. Function.

Liquid in a hole has neither of the two.

False equivalence fallacy.

You missed my point entirely. Allow me to elaborate. 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....

You're asking arbitrary questions...you can ask any painter or architect..

How come you painted it this way, instead of that way?

How come you designed the building with 10 rooms, instead of 12?

Whether or not you'll agree with the answers, is completely irrelevant to whether the painting or building was designed in the first place.

[POI]

God of the Gaps is when gaps of knowledge is filled with an appealing of an god concept; obviously, based on what you don't know. But I'm not appealing to God because of what I don't know; I'm appealing to God because of what I do know.

Let us remind the audience of exactly what you stated:

"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."

"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century, and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God.

?

In the OP, I reckon 1) and/or 2), and 3) will have to be addressed, based upon the organic flow of our exchange. I cannot address the perceived topic 'design' alone, as you are already also addressing 'something-from-nothing'.

Intelligent design fallacy? That must be something new you made up, simply because you're unable to offer a legitimate response to what I've been saying. You shouldn't have started the fire if you didn't want any of the smoke. "It's a fallacy to say that something was designed, that was designed."

LOL! I explained below. It goes not much further than the 'puddle' story. If you truly understand the metaphor, you would abort your entire argument, as it is clearly fallacious. I'll keep driving it home below.

1. Articulate how/why what I said is fallacious.

Because "more complex" things arise from natural causes.

You know, in a likewise manner as I did to you..with your countless Genetic Fallacies in the other thread.

LOL! This was all you had when I was merely explaining how you "just so happened to be indoctrinated into the 'right' set of beliefs." And yet, when I wanted to address the Gospels, you immediately aborted.

2. Refute/debunk what I said, by simply explaining why I am wrong.

The puddle story.

But phantom accusations of a "intelligent design fallacy" is rather WEAK.

It's just a synonym of the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy. The "intelligent design fallacy" is a critique of the reasoning behind intelligent design, identifying it as a non-scientific argument based on several logical fallacies, particularly the argument from incredulity and the argument from ignorance. Proponents claim complex biological systems couldn't evolve naturally and must be the result of a designer, but this is considered a fallacy because the lack of understanding of a natural process is presented as evidence for a non-natural one.

Again, just like before, your using the word "need" by implying that God was limited in his power or scope.

Henry Ford didn't need to create the Model T with four wheels. He could have used 10 wheels.

But he did it according to what he wanted and how he wanted.

My point continues to be missed. Refer to the puddle story.

Because, that's the way God wanted to do it.

Nothingburger...

Why does life exist, period, on a 1 chance in 10^10^123 odds?

You've missed my point, yet again. Regardless of how the universe is laid out, the odds are the same, whether life exists in none of it, 1% of it, or 99% of it. Hence, the seemingly intimidating mathematical equation then becomes pointless and useless.

You're putting God on trial for doing things his way, but you won't even bring such naturalistic claims in for questioning.

LOL! I'm merely asking a very logical question. If humans are so dang important, as your ancient story-book dictates, then why are humans vastly limited to how much of the "universe" we can access?

It's not any argument, it is a scientific fact.

Which is absolutely irrelevant, as I explained above.

You asked something along the lines of what are the constants and values. And that's what you got.

Second request... Where in the provided link answers my proposed question? Please quote it?

Red herring fallacy. This is a distraction, as it has nothing to do with either of the 3 things you were supposed to be tackling. Just a whole lot of nothing...no relevance whatsoever.

Just another misplaced rubberstamp. It addresses the design argument. Why design a space for which God's most cherished creation can barely inhabit?

Um, I stated prior that we can infer design is based on..

1. Purpose.

2. Function.

Liquid in a hole has neither of the two.

False equivalence fallacy.

All I can do is reattach my last response, as it addresses the assertion(s) of 'purpose' and 'function'. In your worldview, you invoke 'purpose' and 'function' where there is likely none in realty. Hence, the "puddle in the hole story."

You've missed the analogy. It builds upon what I've stated above. The story of "the puddle in the hole", popularized by Douglas Adams, represents the argument that life is a product of evolution adapting to its environment, rather than the environment being "fine-tuned" specifically for life. The analogy posits that a puddle might think its hole was perfectly made for it, unaware that the hole's shape is determined by how liquid naturally conforms to the space available to it. In this metaphor, the puddle is "life" and the hole is "the universe", suggesting that life's characteristics are the result of adaptation to the universe's existing laws, not proof of a designed, purposeful creation.

You're asking arbitrary questions...you can ask any painter or architect..

Nope. it challenges the concept of an intelligent designer.

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....

[SiNcE_1985]

Let us remind the audience of exactly what you stated:

"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."

"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century, and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God.

Ok, so when nature (unknown natural law/phenomenon) is used to fill in gaps of scientific understanding, what do we call that, then?

Enlighten me.

If it's good for y'all, then it's good for us...and I say this while rejecting your accusation of such reasoning on our end.

I'm saying that even if we are using such reasoning, then we're as justified in doing so as you believe you are on your end.

In the OP, I reckon 1) and/or 2), and 3) will have to be addressed, based upon the organic flow of our exchange. I cannot address the perceived topic 'design' alone, as you are already also addressing 'something-from-nothing'.

I was making an off the cuff point, in passing.

It wasn't meant to be dwelled upon.

LOL! I explained below. It goes not much further than the 'puddle' story. If you truly understand the metaphor, you would abort your entire argument, as it is clearly fallacious. I'll keep driving it home below.

I already acknowledged the puddle story as un-analogous.

Because more complex things are also proven to be by natural causes.

Such as?

LOL! This was all you had when I was merely explaining how you "just so happened to be indoctrinated into the 'right' set of beliefs." And yet, when I wanted to address the Gospels, you immediately aborted.

Wow, you just did what I thought was impossible.

You've just committed a logical fallacy (Genetic Fallacy), without actually even committing the fallacy.

That is quite a remarkable task.

I am genuinely impressed.

The puddle story.

Dealt with and dismissed.

It's just a synonym of the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy. The "intelligent design fallacy" is a critique of the reasoning behind intelligent design, identifying it as a non-scientific argument based on several logical fallacies, particularly the argument from incredulity and the argument from ignorance. Proponents claim complex biological systems couldn't evolve naturally and must be the result of a designer, but this is considered a fallacy because the lack of understanding of a natural process is presented as evidence for a non-natural one.

Um, no.

Again, we're inferring design based on what we know, not what do don't know.

1. Purpose
2. Function

And here's a third one...

3. Information.

Nature doesn't have the mind, nor any conceivable ability to provide any of those three things.

And if you think otherwise, prove it.

My point continues to be missed. Refer to the puddle story.

I did.

Nothingburger...

What?

Bro, if you were to ask Norman Rockwell (famous painter) why did he paint X painting Y way, instead of Z way..and his response is..

"Because I wanted to paint it X way".

Then guess what, that is the end of discussion.

Your opinion on what or why you think his painting should be Z way is unwarranted, irrelevant, and about as useless as the "s" in island.

Catch my drift?

You've missed my point, yet again. Regardless of how the universe is laid out, the odds are the same, whether life exists in none of it, 1% of it, or 99% of it. Hence, the seemingly intimidating mathematical equation then becomes pointless and useless.

Ok, so if a doctor told you that you have a 1 chance in 10^10^123 of surviving cancer, or a 1 chance in 3 in surviving cancer...and you had the option of choosing which odds you'd prefer for survival..

Which one would you choose?

Please answer the question.

No filibustering or red herrings.

LOL! I'm merely asking a very logical question. If humans are so dang important, as your ancient story-book dictates, then why are humans vastly limited to how much of the "universe" we can access?

Because maybe God said, "I want to create a universe that is vastly limited, as to how much humans can access".

Ok, let's say that is the answer?

You still have God, and you still have a created universe.

Now what?

Second request... Where in the provided link answers my proposed question? Please quote it?

What was your proposed question? Tell me again, so I can repost the link.

Just another misplaced rubberstamp. It addresses the design argument. Why design a space for which God's most cherished creation can barely inhabit?

Because he wanted to. Not trying to sound abrasive, but if God does something, it is because he wants to do it that specific way.

Any way you think it could have been better; when you become God, then you do it that way.

Until then..

All I can do is reattach my last response, as it addresses the assertion(s) of 'purpose' and 'function'. In your worldview, you invoke 'purpose' and 'function' where there is likely none in realty. Hence, the "puddle in the hole story."

You've missed the analogy. It builds upon what I've stated above. The story of "the puddle in the hole", popularized by Douglas Adams, represents the argument that life is a product of evolution adapting to its environment, rather than the environment being "fine-tuned" specifically for life. The analogy posits that a puddle might think its hole was perfectly made for it, unaware that the hole's shape is determined by how liquid naturally conforms to the space available to it. In this metaphor, the puddle is "life" and the hole is "the universe", suggesting that life's characteristics are the result of adaptation to the universe's existing laws, not proof of a designed, purposeful creation.

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.

Just taking L's all through here, ain't you.

Nope. it challenges the concept of an intelligent designer.

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....

Cart before the horse fallacy.

Show me how life got here in the first place before you critique the inner workings of it.

[POI]

Ok, so when nature (unknown natural law/phenomenon) is used to fill in gaps of scientific understanding, what do we call that, then? Enlighten me.

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.

"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. "God" is instead merely an unsupported claim and/or assertion to fill the ever-shrinking gaps in which science closes time and time again. 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 was making an off the cuff point, in passing.

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?

Such as?

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.'

Dealt with and dismissed.

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...

Um, no. Again, we're inferring design based on what we know, not what do don't know.

1. Purpose
2. Function

And here's a third one...

3. Information.

Nature doesn't have the mind, nor any conceivable ability to provide any of those three things.

And if you think otherwise, prove 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'. 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.

What? Bro, if you were to ask Norman Rockwell (famous painter) why did he paint X painting Y way, instead of Z way..and his response is.. "Because I wanted to paint it X way". Then guess what, that is the end of discussion. Your opinion on what or why you think his painting should be Z way is unwarranted, irrelevant, and about as useless as the "s" in island. Catch my drift?

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.

Ok, so if a doctor told you that you have a 1 chance in 10^10^123 of surviving cancer, or a 1 chance in 3 in surviving cancer...and you had the option of choosing which odds you'd prefer for survival.. Which one would you choose?

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. 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.

Because maybe God said, "I want to create a universe that is vastly limited, as to how much humans can access". Ok, let's say that is the answer? You still have God, and you still have a created universe. Now what?

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

What was your proposed question? Tell me again, so I can repost the link.

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.

Show me how life got here in the first place before you critique the inner workings of it.

LOL! I'm challenging the supposed 'designer', and now you want to pivot. You are, again, in breach of your prior statement. This is one of the reasons the title of this topic states "I sincerely doubt it". Meaning, I doubt even debunking 1/3 would do it. Figures. Third 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....