My dumbass parents doubt evolution

[Kirbmarc]

ou need to know the material before offering superficial commentary on everything you know nothing about.

What do you know about what I know?

You need to defeat premises, not demand I prove premises in an argument in infinite regression.

I have defeated the premises of your arguments. For example, I have showed how the fine tune argument assumes that the universe is tuned to life when evidence suggests that it's life that is fine tuned to the universe, therefore that argument is fallacious. Not to mention the fact that changing the values up to a 25% of their value still produces stars and therefore carbon (see: here), or the fact that this universe is not as favorable to life as a "perfectly tuned universe" would be.

I also have showed how the ontological argument begs the question. The ontological arguments wants to deduce the existance of god simply by its attributes. But as Kant as shown, this is impossible.

If it were possible to simply deduce existance from metaphysical properties, one hundred dollars in my pocket and the idea one hundred dollars would be the same thing. They aren't. Existance is not an attribute that you can deduce by other theorethical attributes.

Your argument by design is wrong simply because there's no compelling evidence of design. Irreducible complexity has been refuted repeatedly and even the original proponents of that hypotheisis don't peddle it anymore.

As far as your other arguments go, the cosmological and the necessity argument also have been thoroughly examined by Kant. They're assumptions that the principle of cause-effect (which is something that exists among phenomena) could be applied to deduce an abstract, methaphysical entity. This isn't the case.

Moreover, most possible explanations for the origin of universe do not require a willful, intelligent creator. There is no evidence of such an entity, and no theorethic need to bring it up as an explanation.

Hearsay about miracles and other experiences is simply hearsay. It's just as valid as the claims of those who say they were abducted by aliens.

You need to tell me how God is not capable to ground an objective realm of moral values and duties that we all apprehend. You have not done that

Your god enforces a completely arbitrary moral code, that has varied through time and space countless times. Have you stoned any of his neighbors who work on Saturday recently?

By defining god as the supreme moral authority, you simply argue that a supreme moral authorithy allows for an objective morality because you say it exists. You can't prove that a supreme moral authorithy exists just by defining it.

Moreover, an objective system of morality can be based simply on reason and the assumption that man have a pattern of preferred behavior. I have already shown you that model, and your criticicism of it has been completely inadequate.

Tangential commentary on every point that does not engage the arguments or premises does nothing to answer or defeat arguments.

I have engaged arguments and premises. You just pretend you don't notice it.

I initially had hopes you were something more than another Atheist nitwit. Frankly, you're clueless.

Thank you for the kind compliment. Another sterling example of your sharp intellect and your intellectual honesty.