Again, we are talking about a god/creator that had EVERY option at its disposal. He could have designed stars and the humans body differently, right?
Explain exactly what these options are, or this just becomes mental masturbation.
I am amazed and flabbergasted at the elegance and irreducible complexity of biology, cells, the entire biosphere and the cosmos itself.
So are many atheists themselves. You are an outlier.
Again, you're missing the point. Why would a god, who created a universe and planet SPECIFICALLY for one type of primate, design the universe, planet and primate in such a way that just existing outside is deadly?
Explain that.
Now you are revealing that what you're really angry about is Christianity. You're not really a detached and dispassionate free-thinking atheist. No Taoist, Buddhist, Pantheist ever claimed that this universe is supposed to be designed entirely for the benefit, convenience, and comfort of humans.
Agree, but cells, DNA and neurons didn't HAVE to be the solution. A god, with ALL options at its disposal, could have designed everything in a way that DNA, cells and neurons never existed.
Explain exactly what these options are, or this just becomes mental masturbation.
Again, we are talking about a god/creator that had EVERY option at its disposal. He could have designed stars and the humans body differently, right?
Again, you're missing the point. Why would a god, who created a universe and planet SPECIFICALLY for one type of primate, design the universe, planet and primate in such a way that just existing outside is deadly?
Explain that.
Agree, but cells, DNA and neurons didn't HAVE to be the solution. A god, with ALL options at its disposal, could have designed everything in a way that DNA, cells and neurons never existed.
None of your arguments are convincing, firstly because they are basically complaints about Christianity, and not a take down of religious belief as a whole.
But more importantly, your arguments aren't convincing because they are based on subjective opinion filtered through a lens of egocentric self-interest.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is an unspoken assumption that everything has to be beneficial and convenient for humans, and that we are entitled to have all serious risk removed from our life path.
I see nothing inherently evil, diabolical, flawed about black holes, UV radiation, volcanoes, floods. They may or may not benefit you personally (although I argue they do), but any serious student of science can explain why they are necessary for a biosphere, a living planet, or the overall net energy balance of the cosmos