If no God or no designer exists, then it'd be more likely that we would exist in a world of chaos than in a world that behaves logically that can understood by science.

This post was edited by Ephesians61213 on May 13 2022 11:10am

Facts, science, but mostly: Much humility and caution.
To not let religious people too much far behind it's probably better to say you are an Agnostic.

What are you basing that on? We don't have a pool of designer and designerless universes to compare, so I don't understand how you can support that claim

It's more plausible than not that an object or a process that possesses a logical structure or that behaves logically had been designed.

Everybody knows this. Everybody accepts this. Except the atheist, who mysteriously refuses to apply the rule to the universe itself.

The universe behaves in ways that are much more complicated (and still logical) than any video game. Yet, the atheist doesn't think there's a mind behind it? What's the point of intelligence then if things that are infinitely more complex and interesting than video games or computers can can arise from chaos or nothing (not anything)?

This post was edited by Ephesians61213 on May 13 2022 11:33am

no

Yes.

I can show you many examples of things that look and are in fact designed, that we know came from minds. Computers, video games, rocket ships, etc.

What can you show me that looks like it's designed, and yet we know it isn't actually designed? Evolution? A snowflake? We don't know if these things weren't designed. You're assuming that they weren't designed. But the examples I gave: computers, video games, rocket ships, etc., are in fact designed. We're not assuming. We know... because we made them.

This post was edited by Ephesians61213 on May 13 2022 11:43am

it's very simple. got made humans to his own picture. he's omnipresent and his knowledge is endless.
he lacks knowledge of only 1 thing, and that's finances. therefore you have to donate money to church cos they transfer it to god

What if all possible universes have to behave in intelligible ways?

Your argument seems to rest on "you can't prove these things aren't designed".

Not very strong.