oh, we don't? well, just don't go about telling evolutionists that....because, y'know, single-celled organisms didn't originate from the depths of the ocean near volcanic vents or nuttin'......

but, i think the term "life" should be replaced with "existence".....since, although life consists of both the metaphysical and the physical, you can have both realms without life (for instance, a unicorn [metaphysical]; a rock [physical]) but not existence...

yes it can....Descartes' cogito ergo sum was used primarily to prove the existence of God....i think therefore i am = i think/concieve of God, therefore God exists.....now, the counterarguments against this reasoning are a little more valid than Descartes', but nonetheless, his logic can still be applied today...

and following an absurdist line of thought, it does work....for, although a unicorn does not exist physically, metaphysically such an entity does, for i (as well as many others) can concieve of such a creature....therefore, such a creature exists (just not physically; nevertheless, it still exists).....ERGO, i (and many others) can concieve of a Christian diety known as God, therefore He exists.......

that's a dangerous assertion to make....

ontological arguments, teleological arguments, cosmological arguments (not to mention arguments i mentioned earlier) are all acceptable philosophical and theological theories......there are arguments both for and against said theories (and although i sit on the side against said theories, they are nonetheless justifiable arguments...)



all in all, in the end, to sum up, your argument was mediocre at best.....having definate potential though, but a little under-educated and biased if i would say so myself (me having a philosophy degree....big-whoop!)

um, for one thing you have an evident distaste (or so it would seem) against Christianity (or any mode of religion worshipping such a diety) and although i myself hate such a religion, that does not mean it isn't without merit.....but that's beside the point....the real issue i have with this is that you took the term "intelligent design" and immediately applied "God" to it.....as far as i know, from what courses i did take on the subject, "intelligent design" doesn't necessarily dictate God....nor does it dictate religion......it says nothing about the creature being moral.....although, in the end, intelligent design is obviously some form of religious propaganda....

HOWEVER, despite the theories against intelligent design, there are still many justifiable theories stating the existence of a "necessary being".....but said being DOESN'T (note: doesn't, not isn't, but doesn't) have to be sentient (self-aware/intelligent/moral) in anyway shape or form, but may indeed exist all the same......unless, of course, you want to take the stance that circular time (infinity) exists.....

but yeah, nice effort, nice argument, but it's more of a personal qualm/rant than a philosophical argument.....but keep it at it.....