For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

I think it was difficult for you to read because you aren't viewing it from the required context. It made perfect sense to me, I was enraptured and thought it was written beautifully. But I also have the requisite beliefs to address the subject matter - sorta like trying to grok algebra without understanding division or multiplication.

>The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it.

This is a misunderstanding, I think, because the author was saying Hume and Paley are examples of natural theology, they weren't trying to disprove it. They were embedded in their own cultural and theological context, just as we are, and if they could view us (as we view them) then they'd understand just as little of our context as we do of theirs.

>Arguments about 'proving' god using end up being arguments about what 'kind' of evidence qualifies as proof, which is not explored here.

Right, because the piece was written to show the differing definitions of "proof" - how do you prove something immaterial using a material context? You can't, because that'd be attempting to connect two disconnected fields. It's like using math to define a word in the dictionary. The argument between spiritual and atheist people was never "does god exist", but rather "what is god's will (in relation to this phenomenon) / what is the scientific nature of this phenomenon", which is two ways of saying the same thing.

This isn't an attempt to say "Ha atheists are dumb and they suck, god rulezz" it's more of a peace offering - "Hey can we agree to focus on the authoritarian patriarchal evangelical zealots who want to condemn our children to a life of ignorance?"

>Paley's infinite regression of watches doesn't sidestep God, it moves God into the watch. Paley's argument about a stone being ultimately purposeless depends on knowledge he doesn't have.

I think you misunderstood Paley here - essentially he's saying the difference between seeing a rock by the side of the road and a watch is that with a rock you wouldn't presume any ultimate purpose, because it's just a rock. But a watch is intricate, it's mechanical, it clearly has purpose - therefore we can view other things with unclear purposes - like earlobes or mosquitos or geologic processes - as having some kind of purpose, even if we don't understand it. Therefore we shouldn't (I dunno) extinct dodos or something, because clearly there is some purpose in them simply because they exist at all.

I think it's important to note that "purpose" doesn't necessarily imply forethought, as discussed later in the article when they talk about how evolution and such is the most germane and lucid presentation of god's will.

>As soon as you start arguing logical propositions, they have to end somewhere and it's always God if pushed far enough.

Well, by arguing so, you're pushing them in a specific direction. Are you really surprised they end at the polar edge of their reasoning?

>Douglas Adams' parody argument is fun, but is just wrong as a serious theological argument.

Then give the author credit and take it as a fun burst of levity, and not as a serious theological argument.

>The 2005 version of intelligent design the article discusses was rejected from schools because it was an undeveloped young-earth creationist style religious proposition. Stephen meyer spent the rest of the 2000s debating phd scientists (buried in youtube) and found they couldnt challenge his claims and he also developed the idea into a scientific philosophy. That's the face of intelligent design the author should be addressing.

Yup. Almost as if we share a common enemy.

>It would be better for the internet community to have a wiki-like or myspace-like battleground for theological interpretation so that we can all skip to the most recent developments and see the history of it like a git changelog, without having to endlessly quiz a Dominican monk about the arguments Aquanis conquered.

That sounds good to me, but how do you distill it? I think nearly as much effort would be required in administrating and preparing the presentation of the conversation as would be in actually making them. And making arguments is the fun part.

As a Muslim, Islam's stance is quite nuanced. God does lay out rules that govern our world (called Sunan in Arabic, plural of Sunnah - path or way or method, etc.), and we accept causality in general. At the same time, we believe that God is the ultimate root cause of everything. If He wills, He can break these laws (e.g. we have the narrative of how Abraham Peace be upon him was thrown into the fire when he denied and destroyed the idols of his tribe, only for the fire not to harm him because God ordered it not to: https://quran.com/21/68-69), and nothing happens without God's knowledge or permission. This is why we have bases such as: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2517

As you point out, we have had many Muslim scientists in our history that pushed the boundaries of discovery and knowledge. We're proud of our history and their achievements.

Nothing. But you did a strawman there by changing the subject about what you care or don't care about. If you don't care about relgion then why are you commenting? If you do enough to criticize and take time to comment then don't strawman and address what i said not what you implied.

We are talking truth and belief not impact on ones life.

That doesn't seem like holding incompatible religious beliefs at the same time ("… possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time…"). That seems like picking one religious belief over another, on an ad hoc basis.