Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

Sure, "the true stuff" requires an explanation, and not for nothing, it has one.  You simply wish to add another possibility in.  That a god turned a wrench and played in the dirt.  Like I said, fine, if you say so, but since we're considering two possible explanations - god is not necessary to the explanation. 

If I understand what you're saying correctly, we agree that there can possibly be only these exact two explanations : God or infinite regress. So infinite regress is the explanation you think is more reasonable, right?

If it were meaningless you wouldn't be insisting that cosmological notions are necessarily constrained to account for the existence of man and his requirements.  You're basing your argument for god on it.   I'd call that meaningful.  It's disastrous, but still very meaningful.

No pal, my argument resembles the teleological argument. And I don't recall the latter being solely built on the anthropic principle.

And a small reminder for you : I don't reject the anthropic principle. I just don't think it's an argument.

I'll point out, again, that it's actually the existence of a creature that drinks water..in a universe without water, that would be the surprising and miraculous and potentially divine universe.  For some odd reason, we just so happen to be living in the unremarkably natural one, instead.

This is really funny, and, I might add, stupid. The divine universe you're advocating for is the universe that makes no sense, that is not intelligible, in which the simplest tautologies are false. If such a creature exists, then, unfortunately for us, our scientific method can't account for it, can't explain it, can't predict its behavior, etc. It might prove god to you, but it would do a great disservice to our god given ability to understand the world.

To put it in simple terms : you prefer the (unintelligble universe+god) pack to the pack - I would argue - you already have : (intelligible universe+god).

The funny thing here is that if the universe were indeed as you want it to be, you would again simply go the other route : a divine universe is the universe where your nonsensical creature doesn't exist, where only orderly laws work.

We had a poster (can't remember who) link a video that went along the lines of how the worst thing about theism, was that it made him sound like an idiot.  This is one of those times.  Believers are conditioned to believe not just in superstitious shit, but to disbelieve in anything that conflicts with that superstitious shit.  This damages their credibility and the credibility of their faith, tying it...for no necessary reason, to the stupid shit they say.  That's why it's never taken an army of atheists to destroy a religion.  They do it to themselves.

You're doing it right now.  If your religion requires you to accept ignorant superstitions -and- reject tautologically true statements about the universe....then your religion is doomed.  Personally, I think it's just you.  That your religion would do fine, and do better, without the stupid shit that you say.

I repeat : I don't reject the tautologies you're talking about. And you can play the "theists destroy their religion" game somewhere else.