[Joseph Sweeney]

@Aldin

Ergo, we must choose what we believe about those beginnings.

No, no we don't.

See, this is where my argument stems from. I don't need to choose an argument for the beginning of the universe yet. I am waiting on evidence of some kind to sway me one way or the other.

If one were to ask me, "how did the universe begin in its present form?" I would shrug my shoulders and say that we don't quite know yet. But the universe in its present form is not evidence for god. Or rather, it is not evidence for just god. It's evidence for practically anything if you are willing to try hard enough and apply a confirmation bias.

Now, I can rule out several versions of a deity, just as I can rule out the existence of an object that is square while simultaneously being circular. Which is what I do for the god of the Bible in the proof at the beginning of the thread.

Additionally, you are straw-manning my argument. My argument doesn't break down to "incredibly unlikely snowflake." Rather, my argument states that given our current universe, it seems quite likely. There are around 100 billion galaxies in the universe, with billions of solar systems and trillions of plants. Since certain environments are hospital to life, it seems very likely that there should arise (a) planet(s) in which life could prosper.

Now what my argument does say is, even *if* our universe being configured as it was today were incredibly unlikely, that doesn't mean anything really. Because something did have to happen, and thus our universe is just as likely as any other single example, as far as we know. And even if that weren't the case, that is not to say any other universe couldn't give rise to life, let alone human life all over again.

How life came to be, I have no guess. But individuals in the field of abiogenesis are making strides in that direction (we found out how amino acids can arise from electricity).

Anyway, the argument from design seems wholly irrelevant, because the design, in many cases, sucks. Millions of species have gone extinct since life began, many attributes in animals demonstrate a poor quality in "design" and have the appearance of randomness. What kind of design is this? Let alone intelligent, not to mention all-knowing?

Finding a rock that is perfect for skipping among billions of rocks that are not ideal for skipping seems more likely than the mixer analogy, but I digress.

You asked for God to provide evidence that He exists. I'm saying that it's right there and you are choosing to interpret it to mean something else.

It is also evidence for just about anything else. Observe: due to the evident randomness that permeates throughout our universe, I conclude that this is evidence that an immortal, timeless, insubstantial die is forever being cast by six timeless, immortal, insubstantial gamblers who assigned attributes of the universe at random to each side of the die.

In your own words, if I may, Aldin, "And I say that is sufficient evidence for those who choose to believe in [the six gamblers] to rationally do so. I don't need to prove it it the ONLY rational thing to do.... I'm saying that it's right there and you are choosing to interpret it to mean something else."

One thing striking about both your claim towards your deity, and mine towards the six gamblers is that they both remain unfalsifiable.

You're choosing to apply your view of reality to what is more or less an unsubstantiated claim. I am saying, "Let's put the breaks on for a second here. There may be an intelligent designer, but he isn't the one you're choosing. It also may just be something else, let's wait and see."

What strikes me though, is that you suggest that you do not need to prove that god is the only rational course of belief. Then I ask you, if you cannot prove this claim, which seems to be the case, otherwise I assume you would, how on earth do you expect to invalidate premise for of the argument from non-belief? And if one cannot demonstrate that god existing is the only rational belief, then rational disbelief does exist, ergo () the conclusion follows naturally from the premises, and one of those options provided must be selected.

@Dr.Goomonkey

So, even though there is definitely an intelligent designer to No Man's Sky, there are still some great design flaws in it, so one could argue that an intelligent creator of our universe could have used a similar method of design where not every single detail was ironed out, allowing for some the flaws JS mentioned even if there is a creator.

But not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevelonet designer. And if he lacks one of these attributes, then, in the words of Epicurus, "Why call him God?"

~JS, who randomly has a Delta commercial stuck in his head