"This explanation is good as far as our universe and our physical laws are concerned. But you can apply it to other universes or outside spacetime."

Actually, it is good period, something CANNOT exist inside nonexistence.

"If you are talking of God, yes."

Very narrowly, broadly it applies to everything. Believing in something simply because of a lack of evidence for and against it is, quite possibly, the single worst reason to believe in anything.

"But that’s not my point in this discussion. I am only saying there is indication of intelligence behind nature."

I don't see ANY indication that there is an intelligence behind nature, quite the opposite in fact, as no intelligent engineer would make a universe as chaotic or hostile as the one we live in. The inefficiencies alone would cause most engineers to flog themselves senseless if they had built it...

"Just because we can’t find the intelligence, we can’t dismiss it off."

You are the only person here who seems to feel the need to look for it in the first place, most of us see no indication of it, so see no need to look for something we do not believe was ever indicated in the first place.

"May be you can say you are still searching for it."

People don't generally spend a lot of time searching for things they don't believe in.

"Weren’t we searching for Higgs Boson particle for so long…although there was no trace of it?

We had advanced mathematical proofs for the plausibility of the theory, can you give the same for your assertions? I thought not...

"I haven’t yet argued for God actually…all God discussions in this thread arose tangentially from hypothetical questions asked by Pragmatic."

You have asserted and intelligence that lives outside our universe that created nature, what the hell else would you call what you have argued for the existence of?

"I am only arguing for intelligence."

You have argued for far, far, more than that.

"Secondly, when you reject the notion of anything outside spacetime exists, you are making a negative assertion there."

I didn't reject the notion of something existing outside our spacetime, just this meddling intelligence you assert lives there, as you have failed to demonstrate it. My rejection of your assertion does not equal a negative assertion.

"You can’t assert even that if you are speaking from total ignorance about realities outside spacetime."

There are things I can dismiss, when not properly demonstrated, which is precisely what I have done here.

"Absolutely. Conditions apply. But unless you can show me what that condition exactly is and how my commonsense can go wrong in those conditions, I have no reason to believe you."

So, you admit that your intuition is worthless outside its native environment, you admit that the things we are talking about are outside your native environment, yet you still pester us about the reliability of your intuitions in those environments? Seems like you are in denial to me...

"First of all, the emergence of life from non-life has never been explained – no matter how much you juggle with conditions."

What you are talking about here is abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution, and actually has a great deal of supporting evidence. I would recommend this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdozVq81gog

"If anything, the known conditions of the world at that time only shows that it was unfavorable for life to have evolved."

The first form of life didn't evolve, evolution is only what happens after self-replicating life exists.

"That’s the reason we had the panspermia theory of life…of life having evolved in some other galaxy where the conditions were right and got transported to earth. Nice imagination!"

This theory is actually based on the fact that a great deal of organic molecules have been found on meteorites.

"This argument is utterly disingenuous."

I would say your original argument is the disingenuous one.

"The reason I take the example of the child is because children are usually known to have smaller intellectual capacities than adults."

Not all of them do, and I am sure there are some children who could build a watch with enough instruction, making your argument rather bad.

"IF you have some exceptional cases of children who can excel in studies or make a watch… all that it points to is that their intellectual capacities are higher than usual."

Actually, it points to the fact that you shouldn't automatically dismiss something without looking at the evidence, which is precisely what your intuition examples ask people to do. It is only reasonable to dismiss claims AFTER they fail to meet their burden of proof, like yours regarding intelligence, not before.

"That’s why you call them prodigies. But my basic argument that only intelligence produces a watch still holds. Please don’t twist examples out of context…making them sound as if I was trying to be disparaging about children or something like that!!!"

Once again, your basic argument about artificial structures being artificial is irrelevant to natural structures.

"Once again you are misdirecting the discussion."

Nope, I would say that is what your false comparison did. That is precisely WHY your comparison needs to be addressed. You are comparing and conflating to dissimilar things, and pretending they are the same. There are things that are produced naturally, and things that are artificially created, and conflating two things from both sides is nonsense.

"I am not saying that living cells and watches are manufactured through the same processes."

I would hope not, even though it would be on par with some of your arguments.

"I am only saying that intelligence is required for specified complexity to arise."

Your "specified complexity" has been utterly and completely destroyed thus far in this thread, so all your assertions concerning it seem somewhat moot.

"A book of poetry and a watch are fundamentally different."

Not in the fact that both are artificial creations.

"The way they are produced and the functions they serve are all very different."

They are both still wholly artificial and are incapable of reproducing.

"Yet, they both indicate to one common theme: INTELLIGENCE."

I have read some poetry that doesn't sit well with that theme...

"That’s all that I am saying about life."

What you have said has nothing to do with life, but poetry books and watches, you have still FAILED to conflate them together in anyone's mind but your own.

"If a child is shown to produce a watch, I would say the child is extremely intelligent!!! He might be a good asset for NASA."

Which just goes to show that your intuition is next to worthless in some situations, so why should we use it at all when there are BETTER tools and methods at our disposal?

"As explained above, these are when conditions changed. When the intelligently designed machines were in place, then flying and so on have been made possible. But that still doesn’t change my commonsense observation that a man (without these things) can levitate. Without showing me how the natural conditions facilitates the emergence of life or their development, believing you would be equal to believing my neighbor who says he levitates in his bedroom every night."

Those things would not have been possible without advanced calculations based on relativistic physics, nor would a plethora of others, I will take good science over flawed and relatively useless intuition anytime!

"None of the naturalistic explanations for the emergence of life are viable."

They are evidentially valid, and being shown to be more and more robust with every discovery. Your hypothesis, however, isn't even known to be possible; and has no supporting evidence whatsoever.

"If you say, we still don’t know, and may be we will find out in future, I can buy that."

We don't know completely, but we do know parts, and no amount of religious pandering will take away what we have discovered.

"But to say that I have to accept your naturalistic explanations riddled with gaps and full of imagination… I am sorry."

At least we know enough to have gaps, yours is entirely imagination, with a void of evidence. I think we need to call the irony police now...

"There is no reason for me to believe until now that life is within the productive capacity of nature."

All life you have ever knows has come from a natural process called reproduction, in every instance in your experience life has been because of the productive capacity of nature, yet you are still firmly in denial about it.

rf