Human beings have this fascinating tendency to ask questions. The thing is, once we start asking the questions, we're going to need very persuasive reasons why our questions must suddenly cease when somebody's chosen religious belief becomes the topic of discussion.
And the persuasive reason is that one needs to take responsibility for one's questions and take responsibility for the choice of person of whom one asks these questions.
These are the points that many people, esp. those who consider themselves atheists, forget. Instead, they ask questions as if merely the fact that a question occured in their mind would be all the necessary justification to seek an answer for it, from anyone who is willing to try and reply to it.
Because that's what the so-called "intelligent design" rhetoric demands.
It demands nothing, except what you project onto/into it and go along with.
It points out instances of functional form in our universe and treats them as problems that must be solved, and hence as arrows pointing towards something other than themselves. ID proponents then introduce various implicit assumptions into the argument, such as the fundamental analogy with human craftsmen that gives the "intelligent design" argument its name and around which it intellectually revolves, guiding the conclusion (very much by design) towards something intended to resemble the Judeo-Christian deity.
So? If someone who claims to be a Christian, tells you to jump off a bridge, will you ask him "Why?" -?
I mean - the atheist stance is often the stance of a victim, an unassertive stance, and the endless philosophical loops it gets into are a consequence of that.
It's as if to say "My life doesn't matter, what I do with my time doesn't matter, what questions I ask and of whom, doesn't matter, so I should lend ear and give credence to anyone who happens to come along."
Like I said in the beginning: there is a basic act of discernment - responsibility - that is necessary when one gets involved in any exchanges with others.
Just like one can physically wander off into a forest and get lost, or fall into a quagmire, or off a cliff, similar can happen in philosophical arguments - one can wander off into mental landscapes in which one gets lost or hurt. And just like one would be careful not to walk off a cliff, so one should be careful not to walk off into the abyss of some philosophical arguments.
If instances of functional form and order in our world need explanations, if they are supposed to point to something beyond themselves, then intellectual consistency suggests that if this hypothetical "God" displays any functional form or order (and "he's" supposed to be the so-called "Logos" after all), "his" functional form and order must also point to something beyond "him".
It's simply the logic of the "ID" argument -- If Paley's watch requires an explanation and somehow implies the existence of a watchmaker, then whatever hypothetical "God" that we imagine would in turn require an explanation too, so its existence would imply the existence of a Godmaker. And the Godmaker would imply a meta-Godmaker, and...
That's the point that Dinosaur made about infinite regress.
Do you think that someone operating out of goodwill (metta) would be concerned about this infinite regress argument in relation to God?
If we are going to employ an entirely different principle when we start talking about God, announcing suddenly that the 'watch requiring a watchmaker' thesis that was supposed to be so devastating no longer applies or even matters, and that we are going to saying instead (simply by theological fiat) that God's existence must be accepted simply as a given -- why not be intellectually consistent and just accept the functional order of this universe as a given, as something that simply is, something that requires no additional external explanation, and leave this hypothetical "God"-being out of our thinking entirely? (I expect that's what my dog does.)
Here's I'd ask
why you are considering the statements of some Christians?
Why do you wander off into what appears to be a quagmire?
Are you thereby showing goodwill for yourself and others?
