The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[R00tKiT]

Even if the universe were finely tuned (fact: it is not), that would have no bearing on evolution.  Evolution and fine tuning have no relation to each other.

Evolution couldn't have occurred without fine-tuning. Natural selection depends on a large set of chemical and biological processes that can't be ascribed to coincidence.

Are you actively working at being this wrong or does it just come to you naturally? Science has already explained how snowflakes and rock formations form naturally. Do you contest that fact? Go ahead. I’d love to hear that.

And do you answer me without reading what you answer to ? I said, repeatedly, that scientific explanations do not explain away design. Is it that hard for you to imagine a god intending to design mountains through rock formations ? And there is no equivocation on the word 'design", it's just that you and I have different definitions of design.

Design (according to LadyForCamus) : is ........... human design . Defining one word by the same word plus the word human, excellent job.
As a result the lady will automatically accuse anyone who thinks something non human is designed, of equivocation.

Of course you will reject any argument from design if your definition is that narrow. The larger and more accurate definition that should be adopted is: anything that appears to have some adaptation of means to ends.

And as I pointed out to you in our first conversation on this argument months ago, you’re just blatantly equivocating on the word ‘design’ here. Your rebuttal is an explicit equivocation fallacy. You have to fix this and try again. I’ll wait.

Equivocation is the use of the same word in multiple sense. I have, however, one unique definition of design, which clearly isn't yours. In short, it's just that my rebuttal doesn't fit your discriminatory definition of the word.

We know what endogenous retroviruses (ERV) are. They're not simply useless, they're downright dangerous. Kindly explain why we have them. While you're at it, explain why we have 99% of the same ERV that chimpanzees do. In the same locations, with the same mutations, and the same LTR lead-ins and lead-outs.

That's simply not true. Two minutes of research online in this subject will tell you that they are mostly harmless because they acquired inactivating mutations , and so most of them can no longer produce actual viruses.

And I am not really into these flawed comparisons with chimpanzees, regardless of which location in our genome. We also share 50% of our genes with bananas, clearly we can't conclude anything.

Argument by assertion. How novel. How utterly wrong. As you stroll along William Paley's beach you'll notice a pocket watch and go, "Wow! That must have been designed!" You'll ignore all the sand and pebbles and waves because your brain recognizes them as lacking either function or design.

In this case my brain would be appealing to ignorance. If you can't think of any function or aspect of design in sand and pebbles, it doesn't mean it's not there.

No, we have reasonable observation of things that lack design. Design is based upon efficient function. Anybody arguing from inefficient function is arguing for an incompetent Designer. Unless god has a penchant for entropy and black holes this universe is exceptionally poorly designed.

Nope. That's completely false. This flawed understanding of efficiency is the source of all the trouble atheists have with the argument from design. So, read what follows out loud and remember it verbatim : Efficiency is a relevant concern only if we have a problem of limited resources.

An all-powerful god DOES NOT have this problem, the word "waste" is ill-defined because all resources can be rendered unlimited.

The argument from fine-tuning is self-defeating. What competent Deity uses physical constants in the first place?

What competence(arrogance?) you think you have to instruct a deity on how to create a universe ?