(October 3, 2021 at 3:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(October 3, 2021 at 3:26 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: In neither case is a supreme designer required, or present. However, you not understanding this isn't the main problem. The main problem is that you cant seem to understand what evidence is. There's nothing about a fish that makes a god evident in the same way that there's nothing about a fish that makes no-god evident. We know why color patterns on animals exist, and those facts remain regardless of whether or not some fairy is dispensing advice from on high. I think this is a failure of islam in the present. Rather than seek to explain what we know about the world - as it did when it was building, the cult insists that what we know is wrong. That's a losers bet.
I already mentioned the problem with this. The fact that you understand patterns is only a small part of the explanation. The appearance of design warrants a designer, period. Understanding patterns and formulating theories only means we understood some of the designer's work. You can't pretend that scientific explanations are full explanations.
Dude, ya can't just point at a pretty fish and declare it evidence of God. You have to demonstrate why God is the most likely explanation for that pretty fish. And since mundane explanations are the preferred explanation for mundane phenomena, the God explanation automatically loses the position of 'most likely'.
But you keep trying (it's very entertaining, how you squirm). If you get tired of pointing at pretty fish, you can move on to try demonstrating why bone cancer in children is evidence for God. But that's gonna have the same problems.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson