Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.  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.

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.

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.

An insect isn't like the universe in that its wonderful adaptations 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, it is wrong as an analogy.  In so much as you make an analogy with an insect, you are wrong on the facts and presenting a fatally flawed argument.  You don't get points for being doubly wrong.

His challenge actually undermines his case actually as we have no observed examples of any intelligence creating a human. Let alone a nonphysical intelligence creating a human with magic. Would like him to show us an example of that. Hell let's be generous and ask for a microbe to be created from scratch in this way in case his god is feeling winded 

---

All kinds of models exist. Until they have experimental confirmation, they are nothing more than thought experiments, and so they can't be used in an actual argument.

Cosmological models are at least mathematically coherent, but, as you imply, such does not make them true.  J.J. Thomson's model of the atom is one example; the ultraviolet catastrophe is another.  What these models imply, however, is that an appeal to a creator god is unnecessary.

But somehow he gets to use theological fairytales as arguments