The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

Looking at the complexity of living systems and determining that the chances that these things evolved from random chemicals is infinitely less than there being a super intelligence that designed it all.

So, I just want to recap your position, and you can jump in to correct me wherever: you take complexity to be suggestive of design, in that you've used your incredible misunderstanding of how positive evidence works to suggest that the complexity of life indicates design. You simultaneously believe in a creator intelligence- the christian god- who designed life on Earth and has no designer or cause himself, despite being infinitely more complex due to his capabilities and attributes. That you don't see the obvious hypocrisy in holding these two positions is its own kind of terrifying thing, but I've no doubt you'll simply ignore that I pointed it out, as you do every time someone draws light upon the breathtaking double standards you hold, so I'll move on.

Just considering these two positions on their own merits, you now have two groups of complex entities that exist within your view of the situation: we have complex entities that are designed and the reason we can reach that conclusion is because they are complex, and we have complex entities of an order of magnitude greater complexity than anything in the first category, but that for random and unexplained reasons we must not conclude was designed due to its complexity, presumably because complexity is only evidence for design when it's convenient for your argument.

So to clarify: you already believe that complex things can exist naturally, without the need for a designer. Within the set of possible things, in your worldview, there exists a complex entity without any form of designer or cause. Keeping that in mind, you now cannot use complexity as evidence of design, because you've already accepted that complex things don't necessarily have designers, leaving you with a piece of "evidence" for your position that can either lead to the conclusion that you want, and the precise opposite conclusion. Evidently, you have a longer row to hoe in terms of argumentation, and that "it's complex," does not get you to "it was designed," any more than it would if I'd applied that argument to your god. If it's not sufficient to lead you to conclude that your god was designed, it's not sufficient to lead you to conclude that life was designed, not on its own, and no amount of arbitrary special pleading and totally unjustified assertions is going to get you out of this simple, set theory debunking of your lead claim.

Things can be complex with a designer, things can be complex without a designer. How did you determine that life falls into the former category and not the latter, without appealing to the odds considering that the odds of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial being existing because of nothing are far, far longer due to contravening everything we observe to be true in reality?