Object X is consistent with the existence of a lifeless, lawless*, eternal universe. It could be a metaphysical cause of such a universe, and therefore would account for it just the same. *Depending on what is meant by this. In one basic sense "lawlessness" is not logically possible, so it exists outside of the one constriction placed on our object.
It most certainly does if the end product can only be created by intelligence.
Now you are just begging the question. It's not "making a point" so much as it is assuming what you seek to establish.
I see Kevin has now expanded into using the Kalaam Cosmological argument. So we can add this in addition to the fine-tuning argument and the classic design argument to his repertoire.
Wes Morriston provides my favorite articulation of why this argument blows.
Dawkins specifically, and explicitly, does not rule out absolutely the existence of God. I've read the God Delusion, and watched everything available on video from him on the net, and he very carefully says that he cannot disprove God absolutely, and so his atheism is based on the observation that there is almost certainly no God, not that there is definitely no God.
If one wants to point finger at someone else for being too dogmatic, then it's the theists who proclaim that there definitely is a God who deserve it more than Dawkins, who only claims that there is almost certainly not a God. He allows that he cannot disprove God, while theists cannot admit any possibility that a God does not exist. Or, if they do, it's only flippantly in a Pascal's Wager sort of way.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
I think Dawkins can be naïve about how he justifies a relatively strong atheist stance, but in Kevin's bigotry, he tends to reduce all atheists views into his characature of Dawkins and then dismiss them because he'd dismiss breathing air if Dawkins favored it.
(And yeah, "the pile of rocks on the moon" is so straightforwardly Paley's watch argument, it need only be pointed out once.)
I guess it's the fine-tuning argument or nothing, now.
Whoopty f'ing doo! Get back to us when they have something concrete.
The plausibility of the RNA world hypothesis IS concrete. That's all that needs to obtain for the last foothold of biological design arguments to be refuted.
JohnStuartMill wrote:The plausibility of the RNA world hypothesis IS concrete. That's all that needs to obtain for the last foothold of biological design arguments to be refuted.
Who is the decider that tells us what is lacking? Somebody did the undoable mathematics and knows all demants? BALOGNA This magic act will not make God disappear.
You work with truthdancer over at 50 East South Temple in LDS security special ops. RIght? I see your "tells" Do you call yourselves the PROVOKATEERS? What then? Hows my old pal Daniel Burt? Still cleaning offices around SL and spying on people?
JohnStuartMill wrote:The plausibility of the RNA world hypothesis IS concrete. That's all that needs to obtain for the last foothold of biological design arguments to be refuted.
Who is the decider that tells us what is lacking? Somebody did the undoable mathematics and knows all demants? BALOGNA This magic act will not make God disappear.
You work with truthdancer over at 50 East South Temple in LDS security special ops. RIght? I see your "tells" Do you call yourselves the PROVOKATEERS? What then? Hows my old pal Daniel Burt? Still cleaning offices around SL and spying on people?