I fully expect this to end all debate on this issue

...or so says @benfromcanada, who apparently thinks that half-baked questions for Christianity = an end to the debate over whether theism is true. Not only is it badly reasoned, it's a category error; Christianity != theism.

Anyway, here's the comment I left.

Hi Ben,

Several things I'd like to comment on here:
How is it possible that such a concept can be true and yet not proved after millennia of people trying to prove it?

Um, well over 90% of all humanity that has ever existed has believed in one or more gods. Atheism is not going to win any popularity contests.
Besides, proof is not the same as persuasion.


there is no way that there is a designer that cares about life, and if there is, s/he is an idiot...the basic gist is that if any god existed and created this universe in order to house life, then they could have done a much better job.

1) Prove it. Do it yourself and let's see how far you get.
2) How do you know what trade-offs the Creator had to make during the creation?
3) Once you've accounted them (I'd guess they'd be in the quadrillions, so you better drop everything and get started soon. Pack a lunch, too), how would you do better?
4) Once you've figured how you'd do better, could you produce a prototype for the rest of us to examine? You know, subject it to peer review?
5) Make sure to use your own raw materials, by the way. Don't use God's.
6) How do you know the purpose of the Creator in creating the given "stupid design" that way, that you know that it was "stupid"? Do you know His mind such that you can know He had a good idea but implemented it poorly, or had a bad idea?
7) If naturalism is true, to precisely what standard, what teleology, do you compare this? There is no designer, therefore no design. There is no "good" design and therefore no "bad" design. If the designer had _____-ed the _____, who are you to dictate that that would definitely be better than the way it is now?
8) Maybe the designer tried really hard and managed to design life more or less as it is but couldn't get all the minutiæ down pat, like he wanted. (Not a Christian view, but you can't overturn it.)



Clearly, if any deity exists that cares about or likes life, there would have been either less space, or more life in that space.

But, again, to what standard are you comparing?
How do you know this is true?
What if the Creator wanted humanity to multiply of their own actions and fill up more space gradually?
How do you know how much life would be required to "like" it sufficiently for you? You're really reaching with this one, and so is Christopher Hitchens,.



1: Why is there so much uninhabitable space?
2: Why is the earth so inhospitable to life, especially human life?

1: B/c God wanted there to be.
2: It's not - you may have noticed that there are 6+ billion people on Earth right about now.
Your objection flies in the face of the typical leftist whine these days anyway, that people are too numerous. How is that possible if "the earth" is "so inhospitable to life"?



Snakes lose their legs and have to drag themselves on their bellies

That particular serpent, specifically. No word is given about ALL snakes.


(the Fall) doesn't account for the creation of disease, not being able to breathe under water, not being able to survive in extremely cold or hot areas, etc. That's what I'm talking about.

If there's no death, how could there be disease?
And the others are accounted for easily by remembering that Adam and Eve had to leave the paradisical Garden of Eden, such that now they'd have to run more risks with their physical environment. Water deep enough to be submerged in, cold and hot areas, etc.



I fully expect this to end all debate on this issue.

Then you haven't thought about this very much.

Peace,
Rhology