A hodgepodge of words is a hodgepodge of words regardless of who says it. You can take any arbitrary position and defend it without having to actually prove it existentially. Existentialism without staying within the parameters of laws of nature is like talking about building a soccer field with water. Sure, you can do it. With words alone. Which is what people used to do some centuries ago when they didn't know shit.
You could split moon just by talk. You could ride a flying mule just by talk. All it ever took was talk –– it's just that flying horses or moon splitting are now kinda universally silly talk (well, except for Muslims) –– it has now been replaced by "design" and "fine tuning", but underneath it is just a modern spin of that same talk that completely ignores the nature and creates a rabbit hole of vague, obfuscating verbiage rehashed through misplaced ontology.
You could split moon just by talk. You could ride a flying mule just by talk. All it ever took was talk –– it's just that flying horses or moon splitting are now kinda universally silly talk (well, except for Muslims) –– it has now been replaced by "design" and "fine tuning", but underneath it is just a modern spin of that same talk that completely ignores the nature and creates a rabbit hole of vague, obfuscating verbiage rehashed through misplaced ontology.
