I'll discuss all of the bio-stuff you posted as best I can, but this the wrong thread. You can go make your own if that's what you want to do.
I didn't request a refutation or assert "bio-stuff" as a subject for conversation. I stated a simple logical conclusion I quite easily come to personally that creatures are more complex than engineered transportation we utilize. For there to be self replication, levers and fulcrums, liquid pumps and a whole host of other engineering principles leads me to personally believe in a designer for things displaying a pattern of design. There are many types of flight, not one, in all the many species of insects and there are instruction sets built into the nano-building-blocks of them all. Books don't write themselves, blueprints aren't accidental, engineering takes work not oopsies.
I'm not asserting you believe this, I'm quite aware many don't. It is quite relevant as I use it to draw a straight line back to what many use the term "bang" when describing the instant creation (insert personal verb here) of what we see before us. The variables I am not discussing, the fact they are complex to an insanely high degree is the flat point I would mention in speaking to "anti-theists."
What I would say to them is the question, I answered that question. Unless you are asserting there are no engineering principles in life-forms or that life is not inherently complex at all, we have no sub-point to address.
The only "bio-stuff" I posted was the fact that there are systems in place that cannot have parts removed without terminating the existence of the life form. I've never heard anyone attempt to hold claim that systems cannot fail from the breakdown of singular components. It would not be a solid argument to make.
You're a new poster with a thin record. I'll wait for more data before ignoring your or any other poster.
With absolutely all due respect, I'm not sure why that matters. What I do and what I say should speak for itself.
You suggested I "take it elsewhere." I simply said no. Now you are mentioning my "record" and telling me how you determine whether you mute people.
This is not relevant.
I made a theist statement, in a question about responding to anti-theists and you told me not to?
Lets just not make unreasonable demands or assertions. My post was relevant. Mute or don't, no one really needs to know.
To address and elaborate on the point I made in which you told me to "take it elsewhere," I simply meant that good and evil is another factor I would bring up speaking to anti-theists. (I'm a bit provocative and playful sometimes.. ehr, most of the time) The dichotomy (religion, ethics, philosophy) exists and are opposed to each other. One being the essence of destruction, the other being the essence of creation.
The universe.. I would note, that evil could not have created the universe whether personal or not, whether alive or not. It isn't in the nature of evil to create anything. All known operational systems in the world require the good to outweigh the evil, the creation to outweigh the destruction. This would suggest there is something, at least in logical terms, good behind, or intrinsic to, its existence.
To say it is self-existent and is so by sheer chance doesn't adhere well to it being "good," as good must weigh heavier in the balance for everything to not implode in destruction.
Evil does exist, and we experience this, and I would claim the universe cannot be self-existent nor accidental simply because of this phenomenon. The darkness can absolutely wake a person up this reality when fully experienced. Mass murder of whole people groups doesn't yell boldly the universe is one big conglomeration, but instead suggests there are deeper foundations and opposing forces are at work within it.
Fear, suggests something to be feared. To pull from C.S. Lewis' "Argument From Desire," there is a reason death is such a powerful control mechanism used on people in the world. It works, because it holds the most potent consequence. Why? Because, according to simplistic natural knowledge, we vanish and cease to exist, which points to the desire for life to go on without ending. This desire for a life in perpetuity is, according to the premise of this argument, an indicator that there are things that exist beyond our perception, likely outside of time even, being that it is a known dimension of reality.
I personally, believe we all give an account to a "Creator" that engineered all life. We have judgment here, and I know much about the spiritual realm's existence, and so do many other people. Often they allude to the "paranormal" if they don't believe in the God of the Bible or another religion. The judgment we have is a subject conversed about in nearly any spiritual dialogue or encounter a person investigates.
This darkness, this judgment, these fears, these desires, the balancing of existence relying on the phenomenon of good being more prolific than evil, all point as indicators to a creative force that seems to be opposed to destruction, rather than in favor of it.
This is sort of like the digital world I would say, in that people who were permanently attached to a virtual machine setup (that exists right now) could easily be immersed fully in that world, and not seeing outside of it (the maps, the worlds, the 3-dimentional digital creation) could assume it was self existent. It would be their reality. But, we, here and now outside of that system, clearly know that those worlds and programs and visual imagery exist in a purely informational fashion and that someone fabricated it and maintains it and built the rule-sets that dictate how everything operates within it.
The "bugs" in the system, the glitches, and the errors... (aka "evil") I would assert, give a person locked in full immersion inside the system an indication that there is more outside of the "reality" they are feeling and experiencing within that created virtual world, even if they never knew anything outside of it.
