I'd say that for parsimonious reasons we should not posit a designer if we can have a simpler explanation - in this case evolution - but here you go, not only positing a designer, but evoking the designer's intentions as well, thereby stacking one unparsimonious assumption onto another.
Officially, my position is that there is the genuine logically sound conclusion Ned stated, that there is no designer required for evolution. (similar words.)
It is not mutually exclusive and it is also logically sound, to hold that a God could exist, with intentions for the universe he would have made.
No arguments thus far, have refuted logic itself, which soundly permitts that a God could exist.
Yes - you can posit the pink unicorn, but you ASSUME God is "made up". The P.U. IS MADE UP. First prove God is made up.
I have highlighted it for you;
So that's exactly why we have the principle of parsimony: to curtail our fantasies on what might and might not be elements of our explanation. Best to keep it as short and simple as possible.
BUT we are only talking about evolution.
If you think the conclusion that evolution needs no designer somehow has a baring on the possibility of God's existence then I'm confused.
You can't officially infer anything about God's existence, from this issue. "Fantasies" doesn't prove that God is a fantasy. It must be assumed he is. This is why epistemology allows for "truth" outside of human knowledge. This is why atheists will not grow to their correct agnostic position in life, because biases such as "fantasies" don't come from the principle of parsimony - they come from the atheist ideology, which is Dawkin's error.
That I
mention God doesn't mean I am saying that God is involved - I have not argued
for God. I merely hold that God possibly exists.
..As for the boring post bit, just humour, as I thought you might read my post.
The list of things we could consider is endless, and it goes from bad to worse if we allow combinations of those things to enter into it.
ONLY pertaining to the direct
claim.
Unless there is a theory of everything, your comment can not be applied to the "whole" picture. Nobody is involving God - as I have agreed that God is not required.
We are not scientific beings that live in a scientific bubble, only concluding scientifically. I observe many beliefs that are reasonable. My only reason to not allow the possibility of God, is atheist argument. No objective reasonings require this.
(I'm just trying to be clear in this post, sorry if I come off as an asshat who thinks he knows everything, I assure you, I fall woefully short in many areas.)