When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[AAA]

You can live without your toes, but you can't function normally without them.  You can function normally without your tonsils too.  If god is so efficient, we would have far less organs than we do.

And what about all the genetic defects?  What sort of designer makes it so that children get cancer, or go blind?

The theists favorite go to: "They wouldn't have understood it at the time!"  I call bullshit.  They'd have understood just fine, and it would have advanced science hundreds of years.

Again, other species on earth regenerate.  Yet humans do not.  Seems to be a fundamental flaw.  No other creatures have laser eyes.  

If we were designed, it'd be stupid design or it'd be evil design (with maximal suffering in mind).

It depends on what you mean by normal function. If you want to decrease your immune function go ahead. Genetic defects are caused largely by humans exposing ourselves to mutagens. We create harmful chemicals and ingest them. Then irresponsible people who smoke and drink have children and pass on the mutations from their germline cells. It is the ancestors' faults generally. There are actually amazing mechanisms to repair DNA, like photolyase enzymes. 

You can call BS on that, but the fact is that the appendix was thought to be vestigial, but now functions are coming to light and are well known. So it is true. 

Yes other species regenerate limbs. But other species also have wings, and some have six legs, some have bio-luminescence. Why don't we have every possible quality? I don't know, but that is a pretty silly reason to disbelieve in God. If we evolved, then why do we not keep the advantageous qualities such as the ability to breathe under water? 

It isn't evil design, it has many regulatory mechanisms in place to prevent the genes from becoming corrupt, but our society seems to be doing everything possible to mutate ourselves. Maximal suffering is not in mind, I think you don't know how good we have it.

---

Saying an undefined sky-being is an oversimplification. I think it is likely that there are other spacial dimensions (Physicists think there could be up to 11) like a 4 dimensional being. Imagine our 3D interaction with a 2D creature, then you can see the parallels of how a 4D creature would interact with our 3D world. Yes it is more plausible that the universe was created in a top down fashion than a bottom up fashion. Think about entropy. The amount of usable energy is decreasing as time goes on. This means that at the beginning, the universe had much more usable energy. There is no natural way that the total amount of usable energy in a system can increase, yet it clearly happened.  

You choose to look at the "flaws" when there are so many examples that represent tremendous design. Every protein and enzyme works with chemical specificity and well. Historically, evolutionists jump to the conclusion that there is a flaw in the creature due to their presuppositions about us gradually changing. Typically, they will then find later that the structure in question does have a purpose and is well suited for its function.

This discussion of a four-D entity, from the guy who dismisses multiverse as unevidenced?

By the way, scientists may have found evidence for a multiverse hypothesis. Is there any for your four-D critter?

I'm not obliged to pay any respect to any hypothetical entity simply because you choose to worship one.

You can bring evidence if you wish to change my mind; suppositions aren't evidence.

I don't have proof of a four D entity, but it makes sense of some things such as UFO activity with things disappearing without a trace and paranormal activity. If you are a materialist, you just have to say these things aren't real. Obviously most of these are fake, but you shouldn't just dismiss the claims because of your ideology. Again, I'm not talking about you specifically, but more about materialists in general. 

I don't really have evidence of the four D critter other than that it seems to fit some of the more unusual data that is observed. Let's hear the evidence of the multiverse...

Evidence of Design: information in cells and fine tuned universe coupled with the absence of a plausible explanation for their natural origin. Also the data being consistent with the design model, while not always being consistent with the evolutionary model.

---

Also, there's a lot of argument from ignorance going on here.

I'm not arguing from lack of evidence for naturalism, I'm arguing from positive indicators of intelligent design that we observe. Information comes from intelligence based on our repeated experience, there is no reason to think that biological information is different.