You have completely missed the meaning behind pascal's wager. First of all it does not present a dichotomy or attempt to pose a provable solution but instead attempts to make the best "ignorant" (if you will) choice when no option truly outweighs another from the skeptic's perspective. Thats why it's call pascal's "WAGER" not theory or model. It is not a dichotomy because it poses no mutually exclusive possibilities. There are in fact infinite possible outcomes anyone with a brain can realize. But pascal's wager says that even though the possibilies are indeed endless, the human element is limited. There are choices we have and do not have.
Thus, When the problem in question is: whether or not you should take a course of action when failing is theorized to destroy you... Inaction or refusal for the sake of inaction or refusal is an unwise decision.
The mousetrap is not merely a knockoff on a previous theory, And does not only mean complexity infers design, let me explain per your statements.
Infinite regress in built in to every statement, every action, every thought and every twinkle of existence that falls within the minute boundaries of the human perspective. Put simply there is doubtable fallacy in everything, because everything can be complicated to a level beyond human understanding. Literally, the only reason the mind can successfully function is by ignoring the impossibility of the universe around him. By arguing infinite regress you might as well be selectively choosing the theories you are choosing to ignore while accepting others just because you can.
No but complexity in purpose does require design. Here is a poor example that attempts to explain the logic. I'm sure you've played the game sim city. Well if you start up the game and leave it running on your computer you have the possibility and vehicle of the growth of a city (evolution) but until the user inputs design, there is no method to facilitate development (Conscious input.) This is the point of Behe's mousetrap, not simply that the complexity of an item implies design, but that elements of the complexity of an item require design to function. And I'm curious as to the "evolution" that has proven complexity doesn't infer design.
I'm unaware of any documented exaptation that is not purely theoretical and circumstantial. But this arguement has ties to the above. Specifically concerning extremely complex organisms, species must evolve complex structures gradually which is contradictory considering the process of evolution is to strengthen a population and the force endangering a species would very likely kill it off before the gradual change of evolution could facilitate saving a species. And furthermore, why and at what point does the functionality of a trait necessitate the removal of an appendage?
Point of reference.
That's all it's meant to imply. The rest is still speculative and mostly the product of man made religion.
It's just an example. But it implies that in fact there is no distinction between designed artifacts and natural. The distinction instead is in the designer. From that perspective, as you said above, perhaps if a creator exists, he is not the perfect god religion opines, but simply an existence above our own.
eh i know the arguements
Are you listening to what you just said? Give me any statement you would consider "true" and i'll show you something you only say is true because you cannot prove otherwise.
We shouldn't exist because every observable force in the universe opposes life. There are none that support it. Please don't respond with a statement referring to the fact that the earth supports life. things on earth die and everything is damaging to health. Every breath you take causes your body to decay. The earth is not a healthy cradling place but simply a less hostile place than others.
