Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

No, bro. There cannot be more than two options, review the law of excluded middle. We either have a finite or infinite regress of causes of the universe. That's it, finite or infinite. Finite implies an eternal entity because of the principle "something can't come from nothing".

The law of the excluded middle is not the insistence that we accept a false dichotomy.  We need only accept that there are two possible ways for a state of affairs to come into being to remove any necessity of either of those two ways. If you're absolutely insistent on forcing an informed decision between god or not god (however many millions of not god ways we're condensing into a single category for effect) - then okay....not god is the informed answer. Again, I'm fine if you want to go full on "something can't come from nothing" - but I don't know why you'd assert that rule, as a god botherer.  You clearly think that at least one something can come from nothing.

I'm fine with you thinking as much, and you should be fine with it too.  

I would hold off on discussing infinite regress until we agree on the point abve. It would be progress of a kind though if every atheist on earth honestly declares that infinite regess is his only and last resort.

Again, if something is a problem, it's not just "a problem for atheists".  Basic consistency.  

Teleological arguments are analogical arguments, and don't depend on the anthropic principle for their soundness.
Actually, you are the disastrous, misinformed part of the discussion, and you already exhibit grave ignorance of our basic philosophical arguments for God, there:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleo...arguments/

Quote : "4.1.1 No explanation needed

Three approaches have been taken to undermine the demand for explanation presented by fine-tuning.

4.1.1.1 Weak anthropic principle"

And bingo! The anthropic principle is actually a response to fine tuning.

And that's fucking disastrous, sir.

You do see that you've repeated exactly what I just told you, right?  

Let's read again, as in actually read what I'm writing to you, or just stop asking?

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 really should be written on the skyline : Only a silly, illogical world would convince atheists of God. That's where atheists are prepared to go to avoid the unavoidable truth.

What you're missing here is that, what shouldn't follow natural rules is the all powerful djinn, and the djinn only, everything else, every shred of existence, every atom, should be subservient to his divine commandment i.e. physical laws.  Your scientific method, by the way, is not your invention, the universe endowed to you made such a method possible and efficient.

If you say so...and yet I remain uninterested in joining your club all the same. I keep trying to explain to you that even though I think you lack a grasp of basic facts, or even the concept of a fact, it isn't on account of some shit god not being really real™ that I'm irreligious. This is true of many..many many many agnostics and atheists. You could argue until you're blue in the face with people who don't believe in the fairy tales that you do - but you will make no progress..by doing so, towards resolving their objections towards your death cult.

Meaningless isn't equivalent to false. I suggest you stop this dishonest, cheap strawman game, and address the real issues we're discussing.

What real issues?  Succinctly, and with as little islamic fapping as possible, describe any real issue whatsoever.