but you can infer that there must have been a builder.
Of a house, yes. Of living cells no. Current science views evaluational changes in cells as a natural process. Only the religious try to compare it to a house.
but you can infer that there must have been a builder.
The builder argunment is self defeating.
You have to say where the builder came from ad infinitum
A convenient lie
Look, here's a little help for you from someone who sees the world much more clearly than you.
You have three things.
Your belief
Evidence
Logic.
When all three don't align it is probably safe to say that the best candidate for change is the belief.
I realise that christians try both of the other candidates and cling desperately and sometimes heroically to the belief but even they would baulk at someone who did this in any other sphere of life.
So they are not even consistent.
I am embarrassed for them.
For all non-believers (atheists), what evidence would you accept as proof of the existence of god?
Now that all you believers are nodding you head sagely; for all you believers, what evidence would you accept as proof that god does not exist? Also, what evidence do you have that there is only one god? lastly, what makes you so dammed gullible?
I regard to the points in the quoted post, they are simplistic to the point where it is evident that the author has a basic lack of the understanding of science. Therefore, there is no point in responding inasmuch as he would not have the ability to understand anyway.
The illustration of a house representing the complexity of the existence of life on earth is a dullards rationalization...something one would hear from the pulpit or in a children's Sunday School class.
Stunning post and absolute proof that god does not exist