So your an Athiest

[AAA]

We do have the ability to recognize features of design, because we have a history of seeing the causal relationship between intelligence and information/design. We then see information around us. The logical conclusion based on our historical observations of the cause of information should lead us to conclude that intelligence played a role in its origin. You can use your presuppositions of the irrationality of a designer to deny it, but you are disagreeing with a fundamental logical inference from historical science. I don't understand why you can't grasp that. All you have done is say that I am arguing from illogical arguments. But you answer me this question: Why is it illogical to assume intelligent cause to the origin of biological information when naturalistic explanations fall short? Why do I have to wait for a naturalistic explanation when there is no reason for me to think that one will arise? You are arguing from a fallible argument in the fact that you are assuming you have the correct answer right off the bat. Your idea seems to be: because we know that life arose from naturalistic processes, it is illogical to insert God in the places that we don't know the answer to yet.

Also a non-designed universe would likely be either an infinitesimally small region of matter that could not lead to the formation of planets. Or it would be expanding so rapidly that gravity would be insufficient force to lead to the formation of planets. There constants of the universe would not be set at the extremely precise values that they would need to be to lead to the formations of planets.

Oh...BLAAAAM, you got us! Argue from history, specifically on what does not apply because it applies only to the products of intelligence which have been produced in the top-down fashion - oh, how can any science believer argue with that? Hmmm...well, there's the fact that observed life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design!

AAA, you really do have a soul, which is just another word to combine "mind", the poetic "heart", and more importantly "character", and this thread is not good for it because there is no arguable virtue recognized among communities of the human animal in dishonesty. You wander only further from honesty, crossing the line over to insult and outright lies the more you attempt to support unsupportable ideas in your attempt to avoid dealing with the truth which scares you (although in truth what you're doing now is about as scary as it gets).

This will be my last response on this page, because I'm sick of us arguing in circles and not getting anywhere. I don't know that we were produced by an intelligence, but I think that it is a better explanation for the design (which all cases of design where we know the origin proceeds from intelligence) that we see. Until better evidence can reasonably explain a bottom up process that leads to information and increasing complexity, my default position is that the intelligent information had an intelligent designer. You say that life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design. That is just a misinformed assertion with no basis in the facts. It shows plenty of evidence of design with complex interplay, and you really have to stretch the theory of evolution to account for their interactivity. Our genome seems to be decreasing in function as time goes on which is more consistent with a top-down design than a bottom up design. Thanks for putting up with my thoughts, and please look at the scientific evidence objectively and keep an open mind. I will try to do the same.