The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[R00tKiT]

In short, the universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it were not designed.

Do you really rethink this stuff before sending it, or are you just interested in writing elegant sentences ? You do realize that if you consider everything you see as not enough evidence for design, then nothing can possibly convince you of design, and your position becomes virtually unfalsifiable. If physical constants tuned to about 120 decimal places aren't enough evidence supporting design for your pathetic "standards of evidence", then your position really isn't an honest one.

Furthermore, you can't possibly prove the negative assertion "the universe isn't designed", and thus you have zero observation of "undesigned universes", if such a thing exists.

You are then asked to prove two things:

1/ That the set of "undesigned universes" is nonempty.

2/ That our observable universe belongs to this set.

Good luck.

Some things appear designed and are designed, like cars and buildings, and other things appear designed but are not, like rock formations and snowflakes.

This sentence is ridiculous, lady. You can't prove that rock formation or snowflakes aren't designed. That's a negative assertion.

Describing no matter how exhaustively the formation of a snowflake doesn't explain away the intervention of a supreme being. What makes you assert that a god wouldn't include all the things you cited in some bigger or lengthier design scheme anyway?

Therefore, the appearance of design is an invalid reason to conclude design. Got anything else?

The appearance of human beings doing stuff around you obviously got you to believe in other minds. The appearance of design should normally get you to something. If you think the latter reason is invalid, then you should consider the former invalid too, and act on this consideration. After that I'll let you pick a psychiatric hospital of your choosing where you can write more on this matter, and on solipsism.

So, for intellectually coherent people, this appearance does lead to a designer, at least in probabilistic terms. For the others, I frankly have nothing else.

Show me some of this 'sugge4stive evidence'. Because so far, all I've even been provided with from theists (you included), is fallacious arguments; like, argument from design and argument from ignorance.

My acceptance of the existence of other minds is a pragmatic position I take, because that is all that I am presented with.

I am not presented with anything like the existence of other minds, for a god. Again, all I am presented with is reality. Theists claim this reality is due to some god or another, but they are unable to support their claim. 

I still can't fathom what would convince one of design more than what he actually sees. We know enough about our own anatomy, the unlikelihood of life, the fine-tuning of physical constants, etc. to demand a serious explanation. If one can't see precision and design in precisely tuned formulas then where can he possibly see it ?

Is this an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity ? Not at all, we're simply faced with phenomena we can either ignore or explan adequately by inference. And it turns out we use the latter even when there are less good reasons to do so.

Any argument supporting the existence of other minds is essentially analogical. Now the famous teleological arguments are analogical, too. If you have enough belief in analogy to behave as if other minds exists -which you do, then rejecting the teleological argument for the exact same flaws that arguments for other minds have is clearly a dishonest move.

No, we receive input that some believe has the appearance of design. But all I am ever presented with by theists, to demonstrate that it is actual design, are fallacious teleological arguments.

As I explained above, "actual design" greatly resembles the true scotsman in this context. We act on appearances every single time, atheists suspend this principle when dealing with nature, that's dishonest.

Clearly producing something adapted to an end requires effort. The eye, for example, curiously resembles a designed camera. Now, natural selection isn't really a trump card, it's only a process as far as we know, and processes do not and cannot explain away design, because they can simply be part of a more complicated "master plan".

(1) It's clear that adaptation of means to ends points to a designer.
(2) The human eye is adapted to an end.
(3) The human eye is designed.

Premise (1) is analogical, it has the same force as any statement we take as true by analogy, the cost of rejecting it is exactly that of rejecting other minds, the existence of other countries you never went to, etc. And again, natural selection and mutation aren't valid objections or alternative explanations in any way for (2). If (1) and (2) are valid, then one is forced to accept (3).

So...

Your admission that a device (or other scientific method) for detecting gods may be beyond human ability, should just be another reason why belief in gods is irrational.

Nome one other claim, other than the existence of a god, would you accept, without demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic?

There are many, many claims I accept without all that. Take the existence of Sierra Leone, a country I never set foot on. I have no falsifiable evidence, or sound logic conclusively proving its existence. Yet I am certain it's there.

The Eddington experiment, one of the first test confirming general relativity, was conducted by two teams, each of two people. Yes, what resembles eyewitness testimony from four people is enough for the rest of the human population to accept GR.
Curiously, when it comes to a designer, fine tuned constants to dozens of decimals become inadequate evidence........

You could convince me that a so called prophet had an experience. Convincing me it was a god responsible for said experience, would in fact require demonstrating the existence of a god.

But I am not sure how you could ever eliminate every natural and mundane explanation, from being less likely than a god.

I agree. And that's why any discussion about prophets before establishing the existence of god is a waste of time.

If a just god exists, then it's possible to eliminate some mundane explanations, like famous figures of abrahamic religions being conmen. The justness of god logically implies that he did leave us with some kind of instructions to follow the righteous path, prophets claiming the possession of such instructions will be tenable candidates. Also, prophets with "successful careers" are more likely to be genuine, because this just god wouldn't let anyone misguide humanity this brilliantly

Ancient texts (Quran included), fallacious arguments (argument from design, Kalam cosmological argument, ontological argument, etc),  miracle claims, prayer, etc, etc, certainly do not work. So, I am left being unconvinced that gods exist (or there I am in the Matrix), and all you seem to offer are flawed inferences.

The Qur'an for example presupposes throughout the existence of god. The arguments you cited are not - as I explained above, with zero argumentative force. I agree with you on the ontological argument, though.