Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[LadyForCamus]

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.

So, now you’re equivocating definitions of the word “design”, which is another fallacy. Do you think it’s our first go-around with this terrible argument? I’ll give the intellectually honest answer to my own question: No, each individual snowflake is not intelligently designed by a god. We know how snowflakes form naturally. So again, we have stuff that looks intelligently designed that isn’t, like a snowflake. And, we have stuff that looks intelligently designed that is, like a piece of art in a museum. Therefore (again), the appearance of design is not a valid indicator of design, and cannot rationally be fostered as evidence for ID. 

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.

Nah, I’m simply waiting for you to present a sound argument. 

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.

Lol, what? My point completely decimates the foundational characteristics of your god claim, and that’s your rebuttal? 😂