I had no part in designing the human body, therefore it would be impossible for me to create the flaws.
I had no part in designing the human body.
No one said you did. YOU created the 'flaws'.
Non-sequitur fallacy. Attempted proof by contrivance.
Never said you did. YOU created the 'flaws'.
Try to keep context.
I observed the flaws in the human body, just as I would observe the flaw with Ford's car if they were to design one with the steering wheel in the engine compartment.
What is that connection other that total mass Prole Control?
The word 'flawed' is totally subjective, it is not scientific, it is not quantifiable, and it's a word that can be molded to suit anyone's agenda.
The connection is! "Before Abraham I AM"!
Just Fuck off with this shyte Man...sell it to you own fam.
"Flaw" is a word with a definition.
Not a scientific definition. It's used by you arbitrarily and subjectively, and without any way to objectively quantify it.
Nope. You never did.
Pivot, Misdirection, EVASION. We're not talking about ZenMode; we are talking about his question. Answer his question, and throw in an explanation of how your deity came to exist so that your other arguments can be accepted rather than be summarily dismissed.
You never stop pretending you are omniscient and omnipotent, pretending to declare what other people know or knew.
1. What is your religion's rationale for your deity creating a random dust cloud and requiring you to refer to it as "well ordered"?
I, and other posters, have asked you the same question, kn about 5 different ways, and each time you've declined to answer, for reasons that are obvious.
There is no such thing as a "scientific" definition. Your attempt at another "No True Scotsman" fallacy was really lame. Learn what science is.
Epic failure on your part. Dial it back. Answer his question. "Flaw" means "imperfection", so anything with a flaw is imperfect, and you can apply the engineering "don't care" to it.
Nope. You don't even know what science is. Science doesn't have principles. Science has unfalsifiable models. You should learn what science is, unless you are too stupid to do so, of course.
You haven't ever expressed anything purely in mathematics.
Correct grammar is "Even if everyone were to agree with you ..."
This is deliberate dishonesty on your part. You know this to be a fallacy, and yet you fall back upon it as a pivot whenever you are desperate.
You need to answer for this position of yours.
Already did.Answer his question!!!
You've already asked this before and I've answered it before.
'Flawed' is a subjective term with no scientific basis, and completely subject to human opinion and prejudice.
Flaw/flawed is a word with a meaning and is being used correctly in this situation.
Correct, but Einstein was raised in a religious culture and liked the idea of expressing the forces beyond our control as "God", i.e. the higher power. You will notice that Einstein never bashed religion as Marxists do, but instead availed himself of the "God" label in referencing Nature.
This is a funny concept. A constant C without any equation! It reminds me of a play I read in high school: Three Constants in Search of a Model
Nope. "Flawed" is a term that works in conjunction with other terms and elements of definition. How do you not know this?
Once again you presume to declare what I think.
I believe you are extremely grateful and marvel at the pleasure your vision gives you. You can be awe stuck by sunsets or master paintings.
Desperate lie. You forfeit.
Of course you are, you have forfeited and are in the process of fleeing to the hills. All of your arguments are summarily rejected as you have abandoned them.
You don't even know what science is, and you are humiliated. Your shame at being an adult who is too stupid to learn has you slinking away in embarrassment.
I bet you have no idea how you are broadcasting that you are no engineer.
Nope. I have asked many times before and you have EVADED every time.
