The Case for Theism

[Esquilax]

Not that I've noticed.

Yes. The problem is in your inability to notice cogent refutation, not in the nonexistence of same.

I think they'd be smart enough to figure out how to turn it on. They would carefully take it apart and examine the intricacies. They could take the CPU out and note it no longer works. They could take the memory chips out and note it doesn't work. But you say the conclusion of intelligent design would be invalid...even though in that case it would be true. Its your conclusion that would be invalid.

Because nobody is justified in just assuming a designer the way you are.

Beyond that, this is the watchmaker argument, and it's invalid. Here's why: you can't actually use it to make a direct analogy with the universe. In your example the laptop exists in a world where it's possible to contrast it with naturally occurring things and come to the conclusion that it was designed that way; after all, contrasting it like that would be the only way possible to determine design absent the presence of the designer or the purpose of the device itself.

But when you try to expand that to a universal scale, all of a sudden you lose that point of contrast. Now, nothing is naturally occurring, and everything is designed. A much more accurate analogy would be that you find a laptop, in a universe made of laptops, on a planet solely composed of laptops, and you yourself are a laptop. How could you possibly determine design when everything around you and everything you could possibly know is likewise? You haven't reduced the chances of naturalistic, godless creation at all.

Maybe it was an orange that turned into a laptop and you would say its still an orange in the form of a laptop. Or maybe it materialized from a corridor to an alternate universe where only laptops always existed.

How is it you can imagine terms outside of your false dichotomy now, but when I do it somehow it's invalid? It's the same fucking principle.

I mean come on in the world of atheism any alternative theory you can imagine is viable since it doesn't require any evidence it actually happened or could happen and you don't have to believe it yourself. And if you don't believe that I'll chalk it up to personal incredulity.

Any alternate theory is valid in an argument with a guy who's insisting that only two theories are possible when that's blatantly not true. And notably, I gave you evidence for the alternate theories I provided, whether you bothered to read it or not. It's there, and it's present. Stop outright lying in order to make your position look better.