And let's face it, you have an advantage in perception because there are infinite questions you can ask which humans have not yet figured out the answer. And when we stumble around trying to answer you get to say "AH-HA, fuckers! Can't answer, can you? That's because GODDIDIT!" That may make you feel vindicated and more than a little smug, but it is meaningless. Our ignorance does not validate your myths. Goddidit explains nothing
When all attempts of explanation through natural processes lead to a dead end, its perfectly rational to look somewhere else. Namely, as the only alternative, to a intelligent agent. Thats exactly the case when we examine the possibility of abiogenesis :
Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Book Publishers, 1988), p. 8
"When Watson and Crick discovered the helical structure of the DNA molecule and the general way that it coded the formation and replication of proteins in cells, there were great expectations that a plausible scientific explanation for the origin of life was just over the horizon. The laboratory synthesis of amino acids from basic chemicals further heightened the expectations that man, with all his intelligence and resources, could synthesize a living cell. These hopes have also been dashed with the failure to generate life in the laboratory, and researchers are stating that new natural laws will need to be discovered to explain how the high degree of order and specificity of even a single cell could be generated by random, natural processes."
George Howe, expert in biological sciences
"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are approximately zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words'."
There is a whole universe of question that are hidden with assumptions when you say "goddidit". Where is god? How did god do it? Why did he do it? Where did god come from? What is god's environment like? Are there other gods? Since almost nothing is designed by just one person, were we designed by a team? Since design and manufacturing are separate departments, were we manufactured by a different god? And who financed all this design and manufacture? I know, that sounds absurd. But these are all questions that should come up and you conveniently sweep under the rug. Plus, all possibility of answering any of those questions is conveniently and permanently out of our reach.
These are questions that make perfectly sense, and should be asked. Fact is however, that we will never be able to find empirical proof to ultimate reality. So we will enter the realm of philosophy and religion. Should we conclude based on the fact, that no empirical proof for God exists, that he does not exist ? No. We can infere a author of hamlet , because we recognize complex, specified information in a book. Same with a partiture. Same with a morse code. Same with DNA. We do not need to know who the author was. Its fingerprints are evidence enough.
And you take for granted literally every other question that has
been answered. Why is that?
No sir. That shit don't fly here.
What do YOU think is needed to recognize when something is designed ?
But I need to know if you accept that definition, and if you don't, what you use instead.
sure, i accept it.