Integrated design? What's that? I don't see anything in reality that requires an intelligent designer except some of the design of intelligent animals. That beaver dam couldn't form naturally. It's irreducibly complex, like a the 747 that never appears following a junkyard tornado. Nature couldn't have done it unconsciously.
But the rest? The sun and the moon and the stars, the oceans and the air we breath, the rock we stand on, the rain and the clouds. This is a god of the gaps moment. What about life? We don't have a complete theory of abiogenesis yet, but we once didn't have the Big Bang or evolutionary theory, either. Back then, the gaps weren't nearly as narrow. We already knew that the universe ran itself day-to-day without evidence of or need for intelligent oversight, and so the ruler and creator god of Abraham became the creator (only) god of deism, but we didn't have a theory for the assembly of the universe yet. Now we do except for first life, and that problem will likely have a naturalistic solution.
Not if you're informed. There are only a few logical possibilities. The first two are much more likely than the third, which is more likely than the fourth:
Life formed by naturalistic abiogenesis on earth.
Life formed naturalistically on another heavenly body and was delivered to earth by an impact.
Life was intelligently designed on earth by advanced extraterrestrials who themselves arose naturalistically long before earth existed.
Life was intelligently designed by a god - a conscious agent preceding, creating, and transcending nature.
I think this list is exhaustive and its elements mutually exclusive, meaning that the correct answer must appear on it as one of the choices. But I don't think one can say more at this time, and maybe never even if a path (or several) for the chemical evolution of life is elucidated.
Some people are virtually always correct when they think they are. There is a way to confirm ideas before believing them, and if one masters it and applies it faithfully (don't go there!) to every instance of deciding what is true about the world, then when he thinks he has a sound reason for belief, it's because he does and is correct in that belief. Empirical conclusions are testable.
On the other hand, faith-based beliefs are untested and often not testable (unfalsifiable). Such beliefs can make one wrong most or all of the time.
I think that this is incorrect. The Old Testament messiah has never appeared. Jesus doesn't fulfill prophecy, but that's not possible for a believer who is convinced a priori that his Bible is truth and history and its god good and can't or won't evaluate evidence skeptically, open-mindedly and critically. That path leads to a belief set contradictory to the one that empiricism supports.
We know that happens. We see evidence of self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium, heat dissipating systems in nature, such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Energy causes them to organize from chaotic patterns of molecules typical of a still atmosphere, each moving independently of the others and colliding with one another into an organized funnel of swirling molecules moving together at high speeds. Nobody organized that except nature. And living organisms are also a self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium, heat dissipating systems. The chemicals in a living thing exhibit a complexity not found in the elements before they organized themselves in an egg or womb or whatever nor afterward following death. In between, a living thing is like a hurricane, channeling ambient energy. It's why vortices appear in rivers. They dissipate energy more efficiently.
Not to anybody's knowledge. If you believe otherwise, you believe it by faith, and that isn't knowledge.
A belief is irrational if it is not sufficiently justified by evidence, and the criterion for belief is not 100% proof. Justified belief is always tentative, although the degree of uncertainty can become vanishingly small, yet never zero.
And if I see scripture as weak prophecy, does that not make the Bible NOT worth believing and therefore not reliable.
One believes because reason justifies that belief or he does so with out that. The former is rational by definiton - reason-based. Faith is not. It is ALWAYS irrational, since it isn't generated using reason. It's in the roots of the word:
View attachment 82030
If you mean the Abrahamic god, a lot of people find that deity immoral in the extreme. Rebut this if you think it's incorrect:
"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
You have kidded yourself into believing that it is impossible not to believe things by faith. It's very possible. I have no faith-based beliefs at all. I believe in no gods or other unevidenced creatures. I accept no belief unexamined, just as I don't drive without examining the road. Both can become regular habits, and should.
Why? If they are wrong and you are right, shouldn't you be anxious to reveal that to them? That should be easy if you're correct. Of course, if it's the other way around, and it's you that's wrong, your counterarguments will be ineffectual and you will tire of making them.
That's a logical error. The goodness of a god should be a conclusion derived from evidence, not premise believed before examining that evidence.
Same answer
Likewise, so does a tri-omni god. You added, "your example might have been a bit better if you had God as the manufacturer of the car and the manufacturer of the alcohol." Why does that make it better? It makes it less apt. Those manufacturers aren't omniscient. Nevertheless, if their products are foreseeably dangerous, then they are morally responsible for the harm those product do if not also legally.
Why should I believe you? You're giving judgments, but not providing any of the examples used as evidence to arrive at them. I'm thinking that you used no such evidence. You used the method you've already described. You've chosen to believe something by faith, and seem to think you used sufficient evidence, but if you can't produce it, your claim that the arguments of skeptics are erroneous (fallacious is the correct word) is dismissed as yet another religious belief. Unsupported beliefs are apparently fine for you, but you seem confused or frustrated or unbelieving that others have another standard for belief.
But you didn't do that. If you think you did, please tell me what error you identified and link me to it. If you can't, then you didn't do what you said you did, and once again, you provide no reason to believe your opinions. At this point, they appear faith-based based, meaning imagined rather than discovered.
For a resurrection? Nobody. And yes, it' the event itself, which would be extraordinary. Saying that one saw something that looked like a dead person revivifying is not extraordinary evidentiary support.
