Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)

[kingblaze84]

Your argument fails on a couple grounds

Those are all man made objects you mention in the OP

It injects a bias into the analogy similar to the intelligent design argument

"When I see a watch I know a human made it, therefore the universe has a maker too"

Except watches are human creations

If you had no prior experience to watches, say you were a papoose that had never seen one before, you would not necessarily know it is a human creation

the bias of your experiences with watches informs you that humans made it

Much like it would in your example



Your conclusion that the universe needs a creator because of its complexity fails to realize it's own shortsightedness:

If the complexity of the universe necessitates an intelligent designer then surely the complexity of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being does too.

So then you say what, that God made himself? Then you commit the same alleged transgression you just criticized.

See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.

To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .

If the Universe has a starting point then that being would seemingly need to exist outside of space and time in order to create it. How exactly would such a being function?

It's a huge assumption to believe that it is even possible when as far as I know it is not.

Also, atheism derived from skepticism is not resolved by your issue

If beliefs are to be based on evidence, and there is none for a God, then the belief is not reasonable

I stated the underlined myself. My main point was that most atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. @ the bolded, who knows? Perhaps a multiverse? All speculation. Show me some science or evidence that disproves the existence of a Creator, or that explains the beginning of the universe.

I pose to you the same question that I asked Ruberto, if you're an atheist what reason do you have to discount the possibility of the universe being intelligently designed?

The intelligent design argument was squashed pretty easily by Neil Degrasse Tyson


TLDW: It's an unintelligent design

Furthermore it's an argument by analogy, which is basically the weakest argument that could be made

There is little evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being

Also a lot of the intelligent design stuff can be explained by evolution

But evolution has more proof

So it is the more believable view

I'm not atheist but this is a pretty powerful video. I've always said IF THERE IS a god, it's a fuck up who didn't design the world very well.

 

[zombie]

@stiff you are wasting your time atheist never admit that scientifically backed atheism is not rational

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I'm a believer and all, but believing in God isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.

Believing in God isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of God?

Believing in a God in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a God. At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a God. You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.

A logical argument that supports the belief in a God is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator.

The illogical part of that argument is basically that you're saying since science hasn't uncovered the answers to all the questions of the universe, God must have done all the things that we don't yet have an explanation for. That's tantamount to a Ancient Greek saying "I can provide a scientific answer for where lightning comes from so Zeus must be throwing it."

 

[kingblaze84]

as an aside, science doesn't disprove the existence of god and it likely never will. but it can and has disproved many tenets of religion. historically if a religion doesn't somehow adapt itself over time to incorporate what becomes explainable by science it becomes mythology.

this guy knows this...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...snt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

Nice post, I think most of us here can agree, atheist or not, that science is making religion look more and more silly and backward all the time.

 

[zombie]

for science to prove that the universe was not created, science would have to explain how something can come from nothing without there being a GOD INVOLVED like i explained in my earlier post ( that i don't think anyone here can understand) the laws of science itself show that this cannot be.

 

[Stiff]

I'm a believer and all, but believing in God isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.

Believing in God isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of God?

Believing in a God in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a God. At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a God. You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.

A logical argument that supports the belief in a God is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator.

The illogical part of that argument is basically that you're saying since science hasn't uncovered the answers to all the questions of the universe, God must have done all the things that we don't yet have an explanation for. That's tantamount to a Ancient Greek saying "I can provide a scientific answer for where lightning comes from so Zeus must be throwing it."

To that I say this, I believe that certain knowledge is beyond the realm of human comprehension or understanding. The same way a cat couldn't fathom astronomy, I believe there are some things that the human mind couldn't fathom even at its peak of knowledge. I believe some things are simply unknowable and could never be explained by science. Sure in the time of Ancient Greeks the bar was much lower, but I believe that the bar has a ceiling. I think it's human arrogance to believe otherwise. Just as there are very basic limits to our perception of the world/universe around us, I think there are similarly basic limits to our understanding of it.

 

[LUClEN]

The dominant theories do not say the universe came from nothing

 

[zombie]

The dominant theories do not say the universe came from nothing

if the universe did not come from nothing then it had to come from something which means it had to be created and science has disproved the eternal universe

 

[Stiff]

I hate to oversimplify things.....but are we really still debating about shit that can't be 100% proven as fact?

be·lief

bəˈlēf/

noun

noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1.

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

"his belief in the value of hard work"

something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

"contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language"

synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion

"it's my belief that age is irrelevant"

a religious conviction.

"Christian beliefs"

synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More

2.

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

"a belief in democratic politics"

synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence

"belief in the value of hard work"

antonyms: disbelief, doubt

Faith is belief that is not based on proof.[1] It can also be defined as confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste.

That's the thing though, I'm not trying to debate the existence of God. That'd be an epic waste of time, because of what your post laid out. I'm basically trying to demonstrate how atheism is just as illogical as most religions are. Not a single atheist in all of their infinite wisdom in this thread has been able to answer this simple question, and they all want to ignore it: if science has not disproved the existence of God and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does? Instead people keep dropping Neil Degrasse Tyson references like he got all the answers lol.

I don't equate agnosticism with atheism, and truth be told I find agnosticism to be the most reasonable view because it's the most open minded. Atheism seems like an emotional rejection of whatever the prevailing religion is at the atheist's time that they feel oppressed by. It also seems like an emotional reaction of disillusionment with the suffering's of the world, which is why so many atheist's arguments are something like "you see? How could there be a God if he allows something like this to happen?".

 

[Stiff]

If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove shit now does it?

Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.

DERP

English please.

Arguments by analogy are trash

look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain

Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined

It's well established in logic and philosophy

Subjective. The first comments in this thread were varied

Abiogenesis is a completely different topic

even if it is not true it does not prove a God exists, which is the topic of the thread

Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.

Basically, you feel a god exists so you think it's true

that's fine

I don't think with my feelings though

Straw man much?

The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.

How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.

 

[LUClEN]

The dominant theories do not say the universe came from nothing

if the universe did not come from nothing then it had to come from something which means it had to be created and science has disproved the eternal universe

That in no way means that a God is that something

 

[LUClEN]

If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove shit now does it?

Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.

DERP

English please.

Arguments by analogy are trash

look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain

Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined

It's well established in logic and philosophy

Subjective. The first comments in this thread were varied

Abiogenesis is a completely different topic

even if it is not true it does not prove a God exists, which is the topic of the thread

Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.

Basically, you feel a god exists so you think it's true

that's fine

I don't think with my feelings though

Straw man much?

The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.

How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.

The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.

I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a God.

I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism

Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing

Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death

 

[Stiff]

If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove shit now does it?

Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.

DERP

English please.

Arguments by analogy are trash

look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain

Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined

It's well established in logic and philosophy

Subjective. The first comments in this thread were varied

Abiogenesis is a completely different topic

even if it is not true it does not prove a God exists, which is the topic of the thread

Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.

Basically, you feel a god exists so you think it's true

that's fine

I don't think with my feelings though

Straw man much?

The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.

How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.

The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.

I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a God.

I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism

Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing

Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death

You're debating religion which is the flaw of your argument. There are various descriptions of various deities throughout numerous religions that have been practiced throughout human history. That's not what we're talking about here. It seems like your whole stance has been against the God described in the Bible, which is not what this discussion is about.

There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea of intelligent design ( the complexity of DNA, the uniformity of the laws of the universe, etc). You however can present no evidence that debunks the idea of intelligent design, just the argument "the universe isn't perfect like how i would have designed"

And then you dedicate multiple posts talking about how analogies are the weakest form of argument -- and then you come back and argue your point with an analogy. LOL that's silly. Stop ducking this question:

If science has not disproved the existence of God and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does?

 

[SneakDZA]

That's difficult to answer because you're using science and atheism almost interchangeably but they're actually completely unrelated.

An atheist can believe whatever they want - their beliefs aren't bound by science anymore than a Christian's would be.

 

[Stiff]

That's difficult to answer because you're using science and atheism almost interchangeably but they're actually completely unrelated.

An atheist can believe whatever they want - their beliefs aren't bound by science anymore than a Christian's would be.

I'm not using them interchangeably. And atheism isn't some abstract concept it has a very basic definition : the rejection of the belief of the existence of deities.

With no solid evidence debunking the existence of a being that created the universe. while there is evidence of the existence of one, how is it logical to reach the absolute conclusion that such a being couldn't possibly exist? It's just as dogmatic as religion is, and that's my point. It's not supported by science either.

 

[LUClEN]

If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove shit now does it?

Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.

DERP

English please.

Arguments by analogy are trash

look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain

Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined

It's well established in logic and philosophy

Subjective. The first comments in this thread were varied

Abiogenesis is a completely different topic

even if it is not true it does not prove a God exists, which is the topic of the thread

Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.

Basically, you feel a god exists so you think it's true

that's fine

I don't think with my feelings though

Straw man much?

The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.

How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.

The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.

I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a God.

I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism

Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing

Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death

You're debating religion which is the flaw of your argument. There are various descriptions of various deities throughout numerous religions that have been practiced throughout human history. That's not what we're talking about here. It seems like your whole stance has been against the God described in the Bible, which is not what this discussion is about.

There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea of intelligent design ( the complexity of DNA, the uniformity of the laws of the universe, etc). You however can present no evidence that debunks the idea of intelligent design, just the argument "the universe isn't perfect like how i would have designed"

And then you dedicate multiple posts talking about how analogies are the weakest form of argument -- and then you come back and argue your point with an analogy. LOL that's silly. Stop ducking this question:

If science has not disproved the existence of God and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does?

There are many arguments against intelligent design

One is that you're injecting a bias of your experience into your analysis of the natural world, and then support that bias with inductive arguments that compare two unlike things

Fallacious

Another is that this is not the best possible world, as shown by Tyson

Intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore not grounded in anything observable or testable

Intelligent design criticizes evolutionary perspectives with some irreducible complexity argument, which you seem to be invoking with your mention of DNA

but evolution has already explained this

There are time lines that show linear change over time which completely refute claims that the universe was made in 6 days by an invisible man in the sky

 

[LUClEN]

The analogy is not the basis of that argument btw

If there is no evidence indicating X is true why would I believe X is true

Same thing but it sounds boring

but in no way is there really a contradiction there

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I'm a believer and all, but believing in God isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.

Believing in God isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of God?

Believing in a God in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a God. At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a God. You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.

A logical argument that supports the belief in a God is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator.

The illogical part of that argument is basically that you're saying since science hasn't uncovered the answers to all the questions of the universe, God must have done all the things that we don't yet have an explanation for. That's tantamount to a Ancient Greek saying "I can provide a scientific answer for where lightning comes from so Zeus must be throwing it."

To that I say this, I believe that certain knowledge is beyond the realm of human comprehension or understanding. The same way a cat couldn't fathom astronomy, I believe there are some things that the human mind couldn't fathom even at its peak of knowledge. I believe some things are simply unknowable and could never be explained by science. Sure in the time of Ancient Greeks the bar was much lower, but I believe that the bar has a ceiling. I think it's human arrogance to believe otherwise. Just as there are very basic limits to our perception of the world/universe around us, I think there are similarly basic limits to our understanding of it.

You may be right, but those are your beliefs not a logical argument. That's my point. Whenever you're trying to build an argument for God's existence, it will alway come down to belief or faith because you don't really have any tangible proof that he exists.

I don't necessarily think its arrogance for people to believe that they can continue to grow in understanding about the world around them. A couple thousand years ago, people didn't understand that viruses were the cause of a lot of sickness and disease. Most of humanity couldn't fathom that a tiny bundle of genetic material could kill of 30 percent of the human population. Now we understand viruses well enough to reverse engineer them and use them to do our bidding.

 

[alissowack]

I'm a believer and all, but believing in God isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.

Believing in God isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of God?

This is a very good question to ask. It seems like whenever someone makes the case for the existence of God, those against the notion presuppose this conclusion that it means the God of the Bible or the Quran...or any other monotheistic religions. Then it becomes an attempt to debunk religion instead of looking past the teachings and rituals.

Those religions and books came about their conclusions in the same exact fashion as anyone that believes in a God. If those religions weren't around and didn't present the concept, would you independently imagine a higher being that created us? Maybe you would. Before the Abrahamic religions, people thought trees had spirits, and the Gods were many. Christians have no issue laughing their theories off because they are looked at as unsupported fables. It's not a matter of a particular religion but a particular concept presented, and debunked. There shouldn't even be a word like atheism because it gives more credence to theism as if it has a foundation to stand on. You can't be anti what isn't (as in nothing has been presented factually). To even call these presentations theories is laughable. They haven't even gone past hypothesis stage. Or at least it shouldn't default to mean anti belief in God, rather then anti blind acceptance of unfounded ideas presented by other people.

I don't believe the issue is about whether someone imagines God (those it is an issue in itself). It's concluding, given what we know about the beginning of the universe, that God exist. All religions could just be wrong about who God is, but at the very least God should meet those qualifications that were presented...like being eternal among other things.

...and maybe I should try to explain the use of eternal as being a characteristic. The word is not being used to convey power and might. It suppose to keep us from trying to find an explanation for the explanation...or to avoid an infinite regress. On a finite scale, we know not to cross that line. If someone witnesses me making a paper airplane or playing a guitar...or hurting someone...that person is not going to look down my family tree and my family's family tree (and on...) for the explanation. They are going to credit me directly for the cause.

 

[Stiff]

If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove shit now does it?

Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.

DERP

English please.

Arguments by analogy are trash

look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain

Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined

It's well established in logic and philosophy

Subjective. The first comments in this thread were varied

Abiogenesis is a completely different topic

even if it is not true it does not prove a God exists, which is the topic of the thread

Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.

Basically, you feel a god exists so you think it's true

that's fine

I don't think with my feelings though

Straw man much?

The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.

How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.

The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.

I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a God.

I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism

Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing

Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death

You're debating religion which is the flaw of your argument. There are various descriptions of various deities throughout numerous religions that have been practiced throughout human history. That's not what we're talking about here. It seems like your whole stance has been against the God described in the Bible, which is not what this discussion is about.

There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea of intelligent design ( the complexity of DNA, the uniformity of the laws of the universe, etc). You however can present no evidence that debunks the idea of intelligent design, just the argument "the universe isn't perfect like how i would have designed"

And then you dedicate multiple posts talking about how analogies are the weakest form of argument -- and then you come back and argue your point with an analogy. LOL that's silly. Stop ducking this question:

If science has not disproved the existence of God and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does?

There are many arguments against intelligent design

One is that you're injecting a bias of your experience into your analysis of the natural world, and then support that bias with inductive arguments that compare two unlike things

Fallacious

Another is that this is not the best possible world, as shown by Tyson

Intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore not grounded in anything observable or testable

Intelligent design criticizes evolutionary perspectives with some irreducible complexity argument, which you seem to be invoking with your mention of DNA

but evolution has already explained this

There are time lines that show linear change over time which completely refute claims that the universe was made in 6 days by an invisible man in the sky

I pretty much hit on every point in your reply in my preceding post, so maybe you should go back and re-read that. Again, i'll state that this isn't a discussion of the God described in the Bible. You do realize that there is more than one religion in the world right? You also realize that even if EVERY religion was not true that doesn't disprove the existence of a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe?

You're injecting your bias of your experience as well when you support Tyson in the belief of the "non perfect world".

The bolded is absolutely false. Only microevolution has been observed in nature. To date macroevolution has not been observed and has not been able to be replicated. There is no explanation for the creation of genes, which would be required for the idea that life originated from single-celled organisms. Evolution only explains the mutation of such genes.