Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

Ok, so the reasoning only follows if the designer was wanting to, and/or capable of making an optimal design (apparently as determined by you). So then if either of these premises are false, then the conclusion is invalid.

And you can give a reasonable evidence based non ad hoc reason  that being powerful enough and knowledgeable enough to create life and i would imagine every system in the known universe  .Would not be capable of creating an optimal universe ? 

And you can give non ad hoc reason that this designer would not create an optimal universe and life ?

And you third point is essentially"stop asking why stuff isn't optimal because i have no answer f"

And even better question what would an undesigned universe look like? At what point would the universe be too sub optimal to be designed?

And by all means attack the premises but as i have shown above you have alot of explaining to do .

So who are you, with your limited knowledge to say what is optimal?  With all the variables, with all the interactions, can you say what is optimal in the overall case?    I think that you might have difficulty seeing the forest amongst the tree's.  As we have seen, the logic doesn't follow against design, even if something is not optimal.  All you have is your assumption that things should be optimal (in the way that you see it), and that they are not.   

I often find, that things which people criticize as sub-optimal are often very short cited.   I believe that Neo has pointed out the advantages of having the having the nose and the mouth connected before.   That there is a place for mucas and other things to go when you get a cold.   That you can still breathe when your nose is stuffed up.   I had either heard or read the other day (don't remember where) of a study, that believes that this unique jaw formation which you criticize is largely given credit for the vast range of human speech, over other animals. 

You see; you don't just get to make a claim, and then assume it's true, unless others can defeat it.   What you call "ad hoc", are reasonable explanations for why things may not be optimal to your specifications.  That your premises are not necessarily true.  They also don't seem to fit with the Judeo/Christian tradition, which has never said that things should be easy or always safe.   There are a lot of good character traits which are built up from what you call sub-optimal design. I don't believe the argument, that God had to make us Gods, or else he could not have made us, is a very good one.