Atheism destroyed with a question

[Esquilax]

Assertions of facts science can support with evidence. Assertions that Atheists don't believe in God, last time I checked that was the idea of it. If anything I said is wrong feel free to point out what and why.

You have not presented any evidence.

So if you had never seen a fighter plane before and you saw one flying overhead you wouldn't see it as being something purposefully designed and crafted by an intelligence for a purpose? As long as we're clear on your way of thinking. It's not a usual way of thinking though most people would recognize the plane as a work of an intelligence. Now take the universe as a whole and the exact same applies. You don't need to prove it was you just ought to know via common sense. You can't prove it anyway seeing as science can study God directly only what he created.

Unsurprisingly, you have critically failed to understand my argument. I'd recognize the fighter plane as designed by having the natural world as a point of contrast, plus my prior experience seeing fighter planes being designed. I did mention this in the original argument; we don't see design merely because of complexity, so repeating your initial assertion, as you have here, is rather pointless as it doesn't address my argument at all.

The natural is the design, the universe is the creation. Not a bare assertion that's whole entire the idea and central crux of argument.

No, that is a bare assertion, but it's also the conclusion of your argument, not its crux. Now that we've established you don't understand argumentation as a concept, I'll remind you that my position is that the method you have proposed for how we would conclude that the natural is designed is flawed, something you haven't bothered to address.

But that's the whole point...

Except that we don't recognize design through complexity.

Exactly, therefore the universe has a purposeful intelligent creator. We're getting somewhere now.

Did you seriously not understand what I wrote there? Are you making fun of me?

In the same way as you would recognize a plane as having a designer even if you didn't know what it was. That's not beginning the question it's just what is obvious and you can see and understand.

As I've said multiple times now, you're wrong there. Or at least, you're drastically oversimplifying the process, because you haven't mentioned how I would recognize the fighter plane as designed without knowing what it was: I'd notice that the glass of the cockpit, for example, does not occur in nature... do you see where I'm going with this?

Everything that occurs naturally is part of the design, God created it. I'm pointing out the idea concept you're not understanding not making an assertion btw. You are saying the same thing as "cars don't need makers".

No, what I'm saying is "we can see that cars have makers through contrast with things that don't have makers." Whereas your position is "we can see that cars have makers," without bothering to explore the method we would use for establishing that.

That's the idea yes, all the laws of physics and natural processes of the universe and everything.

So what's your point of contrast?

There isn't one you just have to use your common sense and rational mind. It takes a rational mind to know of the mind a rational creator, we're in his image after all.

So lead me through the thought processes your rational mind would go through to determine that a car or a fighter plane is designed.

You can see how the whole entirety of the universe ties together based upon the overall framework which was set in place from the moment of creation. But if you're in this "cars don't need makers" mindset you won't really appreciate or see it for what it is.

Continuing to strawman my argument isn't a good look, Sword.

That's all you're doing, I'm supplying the reason and evidence and you're ignoring it. That's all atheism is.

Where is this evidence of yours?

A valid and factual observation isn't an assertion.

Maybe you should start making some, then.

I think I already covered the reasoning behind the teleological argument which is one the main arguments that fully refutes atheist metaphysical position. There are other very good rational arguments against atheism of course.

Awesome! Why not set up a debate question with me and present these arguments in full for the entire forum to see, then?