Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism

[Esquilax]

But what about things that appear to happen with consistency seemingly apart from an intelligent agent, like the formation of a spectrum from light going through a prism? Doesn’t that show that the actions of an intelligent agent supervene on the collective action of undirected actions? The answer is no. Final cause is always at play because there are no undirected actions; particular efficient causes are always directed toward specific determined ends. Since the actions of the whole occur simultaneously we are presented with three possible interpretations: bottom-up causation, top-down causation, or harmonious action. Both the bottom-up and harmonious action interpretations have paradoxical results. Bottom-up causality doesn’t have a principle for directing actions at any level. Harmonious action does not provide a link between the parallel streams of intention and determined ends. What remains is top-down causality wherein intelligence operates at all levels of reality.

Each of the bolded sentences contain either an unjustified assertion, or a hidden premise that is merely assumed to be true. At no point did you, for example, demonstrate your assertion that there are no undirected actions. More importantly, you didn't bother to show that any of this is required for the universe to exist; like Aquinas, you merely assert it based on a bunch of intuitive nothings.

Anyone that calls this mere assertion only does so because they do not like the result and not any flaw in the demonstration.

And you cover for your fiat assertions with passive aggressive well poisoning. Truly, you're a class act top to bottom, Chad.

But never forget: demonstrations, by necessity, require, you know, demonstrations.