Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[Esquilax]

My goodness; tell me exactly how you used materials to create immaterial laws? Category errors abound!

And this is where the fun begins in this little game: Who are you to question the creator of the universe? You wouldn't understand my magnificent plan. It's too complex and ineffable for you. Etc etc, all the other theist arguments for why they can't explain the things that god does. They all apply here. Are you really stating that there's no possible point at the future in which devices for manipulating natural laws can exist? Who's to say I didn't build two time machines and use one to go forward and obtain machinery to go back and manipulate the natural laws into their current state.

Secondly, are you really going to concede that natural laws have to be the creation of an intelligent and creative entity? You’re beginning to sound like a theist.

No, and I think we both understand that my solution there was an invented one. That was the point: accounting for something is not the same as having the correct position, and being unable to account for something does not mean that position is wrong. I just made something up, off the top of my head, that accounts for natural laws, but we both understand that this is incorrect.

It's the same with you and god: you proudly state that you can account for things, as though that's a problem for everyone else. But you can explain anything with magic, it doesn't mean you're right. Evidence will prove that; don't pretend this "I can account for things!" argument actually addresses anything pertinent.

Furthermore, you use god as an explanation, but god explains nothing, because "god did it" isn't an answer. You say you can account for the natural laws, but accounting for things requires an explanation for how they occur, not merely an assertion of a cause. If I'm asked to account for how hotdogs are made, answering "meat," means I've failed.

And when you top that by adding that you require presuppositions to make this worldview work... come on, Stat. How can you possibly present such an argument seriously?