Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Angrboda]

I never suggested the existence of an actual infinite, which is what was Aquinas' objection, and so no, you haven't provided a valid reason.  You neither know nor can demonstrate that an infinite duration must have preceded the creation of this universe.  You are simply mouthing ignorant articles of faith.

I am not sure I follow. You said we can't apply the CA to a universe prior to this one because it could be eternal, and I am telling you that this very preceding universe caused our own at some point, and so cannot have an eternal past (because we must get to the point where it actually causes our universe). 

No, I did not say that. I said the cosmological argument can't be applied because we can't know whether that predecessor universe began to exist. The rest is your invention.

An exception can prove a rule of convention, not a rule of logic, an inference, or a law of physics.   In such cases they are called counter-examples and falsify that being claimed, as here.  As noted, the existence of good isn't a bar to a malevolent deity.

Most inferences are done in the existence of exceptions. Inference is inherently probabilistic. We infer benevolence based on what we observe around us, if our world was some infinite loop where we repeatedly get squashed like bugs and then reincarnated, then yeah, maybe you can make a case for a malevolent deity. Instead, we have a world when people can experience pleasure, peace, empathy, have a wealthy life, etc. and where the universe is to some extent intelligible and predictable.

I meant deductive inferences, but even inductive inferences are falsified by counter-examples, it's just a question of how much. Since it's irrelevant, I won't discuss that aspect further. You stated an absolute rule that has a counter-example; that invalidates the rule as an absolute, regardless of whatever else you might say. Since your rule admits of exceptions, it is not itself a bar to a valid exception to it and is thus not absolute. I'm not making any case for a malevolent deity, but rather pointing out the flaw in your reasoning that a malevolent deity could not be responsible for the good that exists in the world. For the same reason that a good god may allow evil, a bad god may allow good; it may even insist on it. It's the same logic in both cases, that an overriding goal may justify subgoals that are not themselves apparently consistent with that overriding goal. That you endorse the logic when made on behalf of a good god, but object when it is used to defend the possibility of a bad god either shows that you are a hypocrite, or that you simply haven't the first clue about what you are talking about.

"You can't give what you haven't got," is simply invalid as a rule.

Why is it invalid? I already gave its equivalent within the universe, it's exactly the conservation of mass, or, even better, the conservation of energy. An isolated system's energy is constant, we simply can't have some ex nihilo energy popping out somewhere and prompting some movement or motion. In other words, a system can't give some energy it doesn't already have. Energy and mass are interchangeable (in theory) and can only be transformed, but never destroyed or created.

It is valid as an observation about mass or energy; it is not valid as a more general rule and specifically regarding what you claimed about good being incompatible with evil.

An insect isn't like the universe in that its wonderful adaptations evolved through natural means and required no god.  

Personal incredulity. Just because you can't imagine a god operating through these very adaptations doesn't mean he doesn't exist or isn't required. Is it really that difficult to understand that some agent must have started these "wonderful adaptations evolved through natural means".......

It's not personal incredulity as I'm not insisting that it could not have been the designed effects of a god. And yes, it is difficult to understand that a god is necessarily behind the existence of life in the absence of a compelling argument for that being the case. Since we were discussing the universe, not life, it's a bit of a moot point, but you haven't demonstrated that either life or the universe requires a designer.

As to your moronic challenge, it's a non sequitur and I won't waste my time attempting something that would prove nothing even if I failed.  The fact that I can't design an artificial human proves nothing about design.  Hell, I can't even cook a decent meatloaf.  That tells us nothing about God, except perhaps, that there isn't one.

You didn't even understand the challenge.... The point wasn't that you can't design an artificial human, it's that you would keep your body parts even in the presence of artificial organs... they already exist.

Uh huh. If you must know, I have in fact opted for artifical augmentations of what nature gave me. That you suggest there was some point to be made in the context of a discussion about design concerning my preference one way or the other is interesting, but again, amounts to a non sequitur.