Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

You don't understand at all.  There may be eleventy-two options..but it only takes two to remove any necessity of one particular option.  

As for infinite regress, either it is or it isn't a problem.  If it's a problem, it's a problem for you as well.  This is basic consistency.  I don't particularly mind if you want to open the door to a matryoshka doll scenario up in heaven - but I don't know why you would want to.    

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.

LOL, it's not an argument, it's a tautological truth that shows the specific inadequacy of teleological arguments.  Like I said....fucking disastrous.

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.

Yes, it's a silly world, full of magic.  A world where the natural reality that water drinking creatures require water is subservient and subject to the whims of an all powerful djinn who does not follow those natural rules.  That is precisely the point.  Our scientific method -can- explain why we are water drinking creatures, and why there is water here.  It certainly couldn't explain..if we found ourselves living on the moon, how that was possible.  

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

You're posturing, attempting to equate your moronic superstitions with intelligibility and reason.....but there's no point..as I keep reminding you.  No matter how many stupid things you might have to say on the subject of gods...I'm not interested in joining your club.

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

You present such an enthusiastic partner, though?  Still, I'm glad that you no longer reject the anthropic principle as meaningless, as you did not one short post ago.  What other parts of the things you've said are you willing to abandon as easily? Let's take care of all the low hanging fruit and rotten limbs.