Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

You don't understand at all.  There may be eleventy-two options..but it only takes two to remove any necessity of one particular option. 

No, bro. There cannot be more than two options, review the law of excluded middle. We either have a finite or infinite regress of causes of the universe. That's it, finite or infinite. Finite implies an eternal entity because of the principle "something can't come from nothing".

As for infinite regress, either it is or it isn't a problem.  If it's a problem, it's a problem for you as well.  This is basic consistency.  I don't particularly mind if you want to open the door to a matryoshka doll scenario up in heaven - but I don't know why you would want to.   

I would hold off on discussing infinite regress until we agree on the point abve. It would be progress of a kind though if every atheist on earth honestly declares that infinite regess is his only and last resort.

LOL, it's not an argument, it's a tautological truth that shows the specific inadequacy of teleological arguments.  Like I said....fucking disastrous.

Teleological arguments are analogical arguments, and don't depend on the anthropic principle for their soundness.
Actually, you are the disastrous, misinformed part of the discussion, and you already exhibit grave ignorance of our basic philosophical arguments for God, there:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleo...arguments/

Quote : "4.1.1 No explanation needed

Three approaches have been taken to undermine the demand for explanation presented by fine-tuning.

4.1.1.1 Weak anthropic principle"

And bingo! The anthropic principle is actually a response to fine tuning. In particular, nobody uses it to prove fine tuning. Got it?

And that's fucking disastrous, sir.

Yes, it's a silly world, full of magic.  A world where the natural reality that water drinking creatures require water is subservient and subject to the whims of an all powerful djinn who does not follow those natural rules.  That is precisely the point.  Our scientific method -can- explain why we are water drinking creatures, and why there is water here.  It certainly couldn't explain..if we found ourselves living on the moon, how that was possible. 

This really should be written on the skyline : Only a silly, illogical world would convince atheists of God. That's where atheists are prepared to go to avoid the unavoidable truth.

What you're missing here is that, what shouldn't follow natural rules is the all powerful djinn, and the djinn only, everything else, every shred of existence, every atom, should be subservient to his divine commandment i.e. physical laws.  Your scientific method, by the way, is not your invention, the universe endowed to you made such a method possible and efficient.

You present such an enthusiastic partner, though?  Still, I'm glad that you no longer reject the anthropic principle as meaningless, as you did not one short post ago.  What other parts of the things you've said are you willing to abandon as easily?  Let's take care of all the low hanging fruit and rotten limbs.

Meaningless isn't equivalent to false. I suggest you stop this dishonest, cheap strawman game, and address the real issues we're discussing.