Theist "You are Evidence" argument.

[Athene]

I would counter the "You are the evidence" argument with...

"You lazy sonofabitch."

[truth_seeker]

I love this weird, inverse argument from ignorance, because it's so easy to debunk. While I agree it's no good to assume complete knowledge of a given field at any point, I also must point out that we can only form our conclusions based in the data available at the present time. Saying "yeah, this looks like bad design, but we don't know, maybe there's a good justification!" is exactly as fallacious as your Kelvin quote there: Kelvin assumes there's nothing more to discover, and you're assuming that there is a specific thing to discover. You're both doing so on the back of precisely zero positive evidence for those propositions, which is what makes them irrational.

All am saying is, especially when discussing the presence/absence of evidence for something, it is best to keep an open mind and take into account the very real possibility that we don't really know everything that there is to know about the topic. This is how human knowledge increases and progresses further. And that's how true objective science is made. Child-like inside-the-box arrogance gets you no where.

[popsthebuilder]

My usual counter to this type of nonsense is to ask what a non-designed universe would be like, or non-designed life forms.

If they produce an answer, ask them how they possibly know this. "Source: my ass"

If they can't produce an answer, which is the most common outcome, then ask them how they determined that you are evidence with nothing to compare you against.

We recognize design by comparison to non-design. If they can't produce any example of non-design, they are simply making an unnecessary assumption that "everything is designed". It is well established that we evolved, in a way that is consistent with no intervening agent. All that is left is abiogenesis, and if they want to yell "it's magic" then leave them to it.

If we were evidence of design (which we are not) it would be a designer who is incompetent, and goes about things in the most laborious manner possible to allow the greatest number of things to go wrong in the process.

All the theist is really saying is "I can't imagine all this coming about without a designer". The argument from personal incredulity. Truth doesn't depend on who can imagine it.

Your argument of assumption isn't in your favor given the complexity and mathematical truth behind existence on every observable level. To assume chance or change from nothing or void is nonsensical. Evolution in no way refutes a source/ watchmaker/creative force/cause.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[Cecelia]

"I know I'm perfect, but how am I the evidence that people were created by god--specifically your god. I'll be waiting, but I wont' be holding my breath."

[robvalue]

"You don't understand how claims and evidence work."

A claim must be falsifiable and testable, or else it is useless. It amounts to an unecessary assumption.

I will explain why in more detail if anyone is unsure about this.

[Esquilax]

All am saying is, especially when discussing the presence/absence of evidence for something, it is best to keep an open mind and take into account the very real possibility that we don't really know everything that there is to know about the topic. This is how human knowledge increases and progresses further. And that's how true objective science is made. Child-like inside-the-box arrogance gets you no where.

I do have an open mind: if evidence shows that there's something new to know about the subject, I'll amend my views to encompass that new knowledge. I will change my views to fit the evidence, every time. What I won't do is seriously entertain unevidenced claims about a subject just because it'd be really convenient for someone elses' position, least of all because they'll call me arrogant if I don't.