Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning.

[Deesse23]

Deese: "intentionally or not, i dont care if you are insanely ignorant or just dishonest"

In future, if you're just going to abuse/insult me, I'm not going to respond to you. Nothing I said is dishonest or ignorant;

Almost everything you said was demonstrably wrong or you couldnt demonstrate your claims to be true
You dont know what Atheism is
You dont know what natural "laws" are
You are utterly confused about nature and design
You are quote mining (aka. taking out of context) several people
You are uninformed about the genetic "code"
You have committed the most simple fallacies in the book
You have invoked medieval philosophers who were engaged in motivated reasoning and who have been thoroughly criticized since they spat out their ideas.

You have been wrong inalmost every claim you made, it has been pointed out to you, yet you just continue your gish gallopp by invoking new topics (and people to misquote). You are either unwilling or unable to absorb what has been explained to you. So you are either dishonest or ignorant. Which one is it?

I notice you Atheists often excuse yourself from the obligation of giving evidence/constructing syllogisms/logical proofs for what you believe, while demanding we Christians/Theists do all this and more, then refusing to acknowledge it when we do provide them.

And here is the evidence, for example that you dont even know what Atheism is.
What do i believe in (and should  provide evidence for)?

"Prove me wrong by showing your probability calculations for universes with life vs those without with reference to the (variations of) natural constants."

Answered above in response to Brian. Consult the source I mentioned, a scholarly Encyclopedia and secular publication.

And again you didnt understand the stuff you present: Something being highly improbably, does not equal "goddidit!".
But, explain to us, in your own words how you calculate probabilities for multiple potential universes (and their natural laws allowing for life), with having.....ONE universe at hand, which DOES harbor life.

"And even IF you could demonstrate that our universe is rather improbable....have you heared of people winning the lottery?"

Non sequitur. Because the numbers drawn in the lottery are numbers on tickets that have already been distributed, the probability of SOMEONE winning the Lottery is 1 (assuming all tickets have sold out; and the winner claims it). The probability of YOU PERSONALLY (or any random individual) winning the lottery is small.

aaand my argument went completely over your head, and thats why i left out the rest of your reply
But ill repeat, maybe you´ll get it at second try (a 6y old certainly would):

Your argument:

1. On chance alone, the narrow range (given different configurations of physical constants) of life-permitting universes is vastly less probable than life-precluding ones.
2. But we are evidently in a life-permitting universe.
3. It is thus rational to infer that our existence is not owing to chance alone, but Design.

It is not and it...is nonsense, because you are arguing for the existence of a god by probability, not being able to give any such probability: You know why? You cant calculate probabilities for life-permitting universes, because you dont know the life-permitting conditions. At best you know a subset of them.
But i granted you in my first reply, that maybe, just maybe a life-permitting universe is astonishingly highly improbable, ye we live in one. So what? "We find ourselves in a very, very improbable universe", thats the BEST conclusion your syllogism can provide. All you have here is an argument from numbers, which is a shockingly weak argument (particularly since you dont HAVE those numbers)

If i made a lottery with ridiculously low winning numbers, and once someone won this lottery, that does not suddenly make a god exist, that does in no way support the idea of a god existing. In other words: Highly improbable things happen all the time.....they arent evidence for god, no matter how hard you wish for it.


By the way: Why do i suspect you are dishonest (which makes you almost ignore me *shiver*)
You are presenting us with stuff like arguments from numbers or Aquinas. You made it clear you are here to convince/convert some of us with this. Are these the reasons YOU do believe? Is Aquinas and probabilities/numbers the reason you converted? When/if you are going to stand before your maker and are asked "why", will you tell him "because of probabilities and Aquinas"? I suspect (and hope!) not. Please tell me your worldview is not founded on such flimsy premises.

Why dont you present your gospel to us? Dont you think your holy book (inspired by no less than a god!) should be sufficient to convert a few Atheists here and there?

Ergo: You are (most probably) trying to convert people to Christianity with arguments that didnt convince you. Thats dishonest, no matter how you spin it. Why not try to convert us with what made YOU a christian, that would be a honest move. So tell us. What is the reason YOU converted to Christianity? What is/are the reasons YOU believe?

The probability of life forming by chance is not like this, because there is no guarantee that "the winning ticket has been distributed", i.e. that intelligent life will form on chance alone. We are assessing two mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive probabilities, i.e. that given that Life has formed (L), whether it did so by Chance (C/L), or Design (D/L). The less likely it is that life formed by chance, the more likely it is that life formed by design. This is not true in your above lottery analogy. Since P(C/L)+P(D/L)=1, the smaller the former is, the higher, or closer to 1, or more probable, the 2nd term in the equation is.

Jebus, and here comes the math, based on faulty premises. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. I dont inted to waste more of my time going deeper into this and leave that to others.
Just a small tip: "chance or design" shows once more your FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of...many things. If life arose, then it did because the laws of nature permitted it, thats far from being "chance".
What you are trying here is to set up a false dichotomy. Your argument is literally "It can be only TWO things, and since its not #1, its #2". This is a very weak attempt to
avoid admitting to the fact that you have no evidence FOR your god proposition #2.

And here we come full circle. You initially accused Atheists of asking you to provide evidence and then dismissing it. Well here we go. You dont even (intended to) provide any evidence (for your god) with your closing argument, so what reaction do you expect from readers?