Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

The law of the excluded middle is not the insistence that we accept a false dichotomy. 

In what sense saying "finite or infinite" is, or can be, a false dichotomy? Explain, don't just merely throw accusations.

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.

No, I don't think anything can come from nothing. This is a gross misunderstanding of what the word infinite means. If we assert a god is there, he was always there. There was never a nothing state he came from. Therefore, "something can't come from nothing" is universally true and there is no exception.
Infinite regress is actually the misinformed answer. If there was any concept of time or, equivalently, some notion of delay between two causes, then infinite regress is already impossible, because we are here, which means an infinite amount of time already elapsed, and that is absurd. If we imagine an infinite row of soldiers, each one waiting for his predecessor's gunshot to shoot himself, then no one will ever shoot!

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.

.................?

Why then, some pages ago. You said this :

Do you really reject the anthropic principle?  Isn't the anthropic principle exactly why you think some god is needed?  Something has to account for the requirements of mans existence, and any cosmological notion must account for those requirements?

I don't think that you've thought this through. 

I didn't even mention the anthropic principle before that, you brought that into the discussion without any warrant ,and started complaining about why I am not using it. Odd, really odd.

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.

If I am not making any progress, then it's mainly due to your close mindedness, and inability to leave stereotypes aside and discuss the so called objections .. objectively. And you made that clear when you turned our discussion about morality and anachronism into flyting.

---

This is your argument. What is your definition of design? For the third time I’ll ask: was a snowflake designed?

Design is anything complex/sophisticated enough to make itd coming by chance at least very unlikely.  And a snowflake is, in the broad sense, designed. Its formation is a result of the ordered structure of ice.

No. What would convince me of design is evidence of the designer, because that is the only way to get to a rationally justified belief in ID.

You just want the design argument, which is an inference from what's around us, to be turned on its head. Providing evidence of a designer per se won't even include design as a premise. Orderly laws around us - that make things appear to be designed - require an explanation themselves. And the most reasonable explanation is a personal entity, since it obviously produced personal beings.

So, your god had to fine tune natural laws down to the quantum level in order for us to be able to exist? Why is god so constricted by the laws of nature? Not much of a god if you ask me.

The whole thing was a no brainer for god, by definition. So this hardly counts as an objection.