Comment 6 by Quine

Comment 9 by Quine

I am wondering if the invocation of "purpose" was more specifically directed at living beings in a manner similar to the argument from design. Perhaps it would be worth addressing this: say, that the apparent purposefulness of nature is derived from a non-random selection process that favours traits better fitting to whatever else is around, including other traits and copies of itself.

Comment 11 by Alan4discussion

Their "evidence" is inevitably simply a denial of science, speculation on areas of uncertainty, or comparing the different "philosophical, hypothetical towers on their theistic "castles in the air" - which have no physical connections to the material universe or objective observations.

The more obvious "evidence" used more often is circular reasoning. They presume without evidence that a deity exists as part of the explanation, which is the point of contention. They presume a deity is necessarily connected to morality, which is the point of contention. They presume a human being was designed, which is the point of contention. In not one case do they cite real world evidence that would justify these assumptions. To them, it's just intuitively self-evident.