>>20663463>Creation has designWrong
You only can distinguish design as design because *it is not found in nature*
That is how you know something is crafted, you are able to say "well this trinket doesn't look like anything else around these parts, it's obviously crafted"
You cannot say that about anything in nature. Nature looks like..... nature.
What you fancy that you see is merely the illusion of design, because mankind was originally too dumb to conceive of how anything with a degree of complexity might exist without some smart monkey making it.
>Creation has lawsThis is equivocation on what is a law. There are prescriptive laws and descriptive laws and the theist likes to deliberately confuse the two. The former is a "you can or cannot do that thing" law. The latter is merely a description of the physical properties being exhibited.
"There's a law of gravity, that's design"
No, the law of gravity is merely the description of the properties of objects. God isn't ordaining that gravity attracts. He isn't holding a gun to the head of matter and saying "go over there or I'll blow your fucking brains out"
Nothing like that is occurring.
The theist is reduced to having to argue that things have properties when they otherwise could just be chaotic, but fails to realise that things wouldn't then be things. It's a weird fucking argument to be making. "God must exist because if God didn't exist then this rock over here could be blancmange"
Really?
This actually fucking convinces you?
If this argument actually fucking convinces you then I'm sorry, you're a literal retard.
The trouble with theists is they're full of silly arguments like this.
As philosopher George Smith points out - the trouble with theists is their arguments are all so stupid that eventually and INEVITABLY they always have to retreat into postmodern nonsense arguing against the validity of logic, reason and evidence itself.
And he's right.
