Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Angrboda]

I haven't rejected the principle of causality. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Because we know nothing about any predecessor universe, we cannot say that such a universe began to exist and therefore the assumption stated in premise one of the cosmological argument does not apply to that universe. I haven't rejected causality.

Well, you don't get to assert that the cause of our universe is a universe in the first place. If we assume that this is the case, then, for the same reason mentioned above, it can't be eternal. An infinite duration must have elapsed within this universe before it suddenly, somehow, caused our own, which is clearly impossible.

I never suggested the existence of an actual infinite, which is what was Aquinas' objection, and so no, you haven't provided a valid reason. You neither know nor can demonstrate that an infinite duration must have preceded the creation of this universe in the absence of a god. You are simply mouthing ignorant articles of faith. On top of which is that Aquinas' opinions about change are mere ipse dixit and so don't necessarily hold. But by all means, present your argument against actual infinities. Until then, your objection is groundless.

Theists suggest that a supervenient reason can explain why a good god allows evil, but when the same is applied to a malevolent god,

The word "evil" itself is meaningless outside theism, I am not sure what you're driving at here. The observable state of affairs is that we have, on average, a moral compass and a sense of justice, that's how we managed to form societies, and we are endowed with things like maternal instincts, empathy, altruism, etc. The instances of evil or malevolence are exceptions of these rules, and exceptions don't invalidate a rule, they confirm it.

An exception can prove a rule of convention, not a rule of logic, an inference, or a law of physics. In such cases they are called counter-examples and falsify that being claimed, as here. As noted, the existence of good isn't a bar to a malevolent deity.

"You can't give what you haven't got," is simply invalid as a rule.

The rest of your drivel about morals, evil, and societies, is, well, drivel. Evil has plenty of meaning outside of theism. You're simply mouthing inanities.

  First, the universe is not in any significant way like a machine, and so your analogy is as close to being useless as it can be. 

You're right, the universe is not like a machine, it's far better than it, so much so that we design insect-inspired helicopters. And if you really insist on this disingenuous nonsense, here's a challenge for you: replace your natural body parts with their artificial equivalents. I'll wait for visual confirmation.

Until you do that, this analogy is as strong and useful as it can be.

You have moved the goalposts from arguing that the universe was designed to arguing that life was designed. An insect's virtues is a red herring given what you were arguing. And life could be designed and the universe not.

An insect isn't like the universe in that its wonderful adaptations could have plausibly evolved through natural means and required no god. We don't know how the universe came about. Not so with an insect. If you want to argue that life was designed, feel free to make your case and be proven wrong once again.

As to your moronic challenge, it's a non sequitur and I won't waste my time attempting something that would prove nothing even if I failed. The fact that I can't design an artificial human proves nothing about design. Hell, I can't even cook a decent meatloaf. That tells us nothing about God, except perhaps, that there isn't one.

In so much as your analogy is about the universe, as it was, it is wrong as an analogy. In so much as you make an analogy with an insect, you are wrong on the facts and are presenting a flawed argument. You don't get points for being doubly wrong.