Quote:I use the word refute because your position is so weak that even the presentation of alternate theories is sufficient to demolish it. Your arguments are refuted because they've been shown to be invalid and/or it has been shown that alternatives with greater evidence to them are available. Neither science nor law can "disprove" anything in any absolute sense, but showing the multiple logical fallacies present in your arguments and the absence of any actual evidence is sufficient to disprove it as far as any disproof is possible.
Your counter arguments couldn't demolish a paper bag. All you have done in rebuttal is offer alternate theories few of which if any you actually subscribe to yourself and most cases conflict with each other. I don't get how you think that people who don't have a dog in this hunt, who are just impartial and are neither comitted theists or atheists are going to be persuaded that mindless, lifeless forces minus design or intent can cause something totally unlike itself to exist based solely on some theories none of which you'll commit to saying you believe is true. I can understand why such arguments would be persuasive to someone already 100% committed to the atheist narrative such as yourself for example.
These same arguments you offer could be applied to something know to have been intentionally created by a designer. Suppose a laptop computer materialized in the lab of some scientists 200 years ago. No one knows how it got there and no one is familiar with the manufacturing techniques of our time. 100 scientists look at it and just based on observation, turning it on, looking at the symmetry 70 of them conclude the object was created intentionally by a designer. They offer facts to support that conclusion.
1. The fact it exists
2. The fact it is complex
3. The fact it operates in a specfic manner
4. The fact the individual parts work in unison to achieve a specific result.
On the other hand a group of people disagree and believe the laptop was caused without plan or intent by mindless processes that didnt' intend to cause a laptop to exist. What do they offer in support of their contention?
1. Maybe it always existed (of course they don't actually believe that but the fact its a possibility that supports the conclusion already arrived at is good enough for them.
2. You can't prove its complex because maybe if laptops exist they have to be the way they are. Or if you don't like that counter theory we have another one up our sleeve this is one of an infinitude of laptops created by some unknown process and given enough time and chances one of them was bound to start up and say Windows 7 starting.
3. You can't say it operates in a specific manner unless you have all laptops that ever existed or will ever exist to compare it to.
4. See two and three.
The point here is all your counter arguments could be applied equally to things known to have been designed and engineered by a sentient being.
