They look designed to me. What other conclusion should I be drawing other than there’s a designer?
Please explain how God “came to be”.
Better yet, please explain why we should bow to your demands that we have to explain the makings and origin of every damn thing in the universe without you having to explain jack shit about any of your nonsensical and illogical assertations. Evidence that they are nonsensical and illogical has already been provided in posts #404 and #469.
See posts 467, 471 and 481.
Why did you ask peledre how atoms and energy came to be?
That the phrase “Atoms and energy look designed to me,” is *evidence *of something.
That’s the WHOLE POINT. YOU CAN’T DRAW A CONCLUSION FROM AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE! How hard is that to understand?
If a person who has never seen an elephant calls it a large cow because she just doesn’t know any better, does this turn an elephant into a cow?
That since plenty of things in nature appear designed but come about through natural processes atoms probably are no exception and making up a designer that doesn’t have a designer isn’t reasonable and is hypocritical.
How does energy look designed?
The only statement you can make is “I don’t yet understand how this process works.”
“They look designed to me” is what we, in the business, refer to as an unbacked assertion. A backed assertion would typically be in the form of “they look designed to me and here’s why…”, and people could then attempt to refute your arguments.
That you may not know enough yet to draw any conclusions?
Something can only “come to be” if it some point, it didn’t exist. I believe in a timeless entity that has never not existed. But I’ve explained this clearly. Are you trolling?
Actually, the only demand I am making on you is that you back up your unsupported assertion that existence requires time and space. You have not, anywhere in posts 404 and 469, even come close to supporting it, unless you are claiming this as a solid argument:
Gee, you’ve stumped me there…
Which part have I failed to explain? The building blocks of matter looks designed to me. So does energy. So do single cell organisms. Logically, I am forced to conclude there’s a designer, until someone can posit something more plausible. What have I “not explained”?
That you are wrong, as people who make such claims always are.
And claiming that they “look designed” is an unbacked assertion.
I don’t understand how a large hadron collider works, therefore, no one designed it.
Uhm…
Let me think about this…
No. That doesn’t work.
The only conclusion that you’re forced to make is that you don’t yet understand how this process works.
Atoms show plenty of evidence of design to me. How hard is that to understand?
You’re still making an argument from ignorance, simply from the opposite side.
Solid conclusions, sure. But if something looks designed to me, that will incline me to believe in a designer.
What you refer to as “evidence” is simply a gap in our understanding about how a process works.
So should I conclude no one designed the large hadron collider? I have no clue how it works. Therefore my conclusion, according to you, should be… ?
“I don’t know how the Large Hadron Collider came to be.”