Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism

[Esquilax]

Esqilax, you make me laugh, literally.

I'm glad: it's so very hard to pull any kind of use out of your dry, philosophical wank-ssertions, and there's only so many ways to say "yes, but you haven't provided a shred of justification for any of that," before I start repeating myself.

Bottom-up causality doesn’t have a principle for directing actions at any level. If that statement is false then you should have no difficulty supplying such a principle.

Ah yes, the old "you can't prove me wrong!" style of theistic burden shifting. A classic, and I shouldn't be surprised: you do seem fond of dredging up old philosophical nothings and then acting as though they're some cutting edge observances of reality.

In actually, a principle acting from the bottom-up has already been excluded by its proponents that say mechanical actions suffice and that intentionality is an illusion.

Am I one of those proponents? Oh, I mean am I actually one of them; I don't want to know what the Straw-Esquilax you construct whenever you want to dishonestly jab at me thinks.

Harmonious action does not provide a link between the parallel streams of intention and determined ends. Here I call out harmonious action as the unfounded assertion by claiming that intentions always but without reason match actions.

Yes, I'm aware you're fond of constructing arguments with hidden premises, the one here being that intentions require some extra, external force to match actions. You can't palm these cards with me.