> On what grounds is your position on God different than the argument from Ignorance?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
> 
> In short, because of how complex the universe is, you cannot fathom that it couldn't be created by an intellect; therefore an intellect must exist. Going further down on the page, we have "Argument from incredulity." How does your position differ from this kind reasoning? 
> Why do you see this kind of position as cogent/sound?
> 
> I can't mine Adler for his reasoning, but I do have you.-We are not ignorant about the universe or about God.- First, the universe standard model is based upon a slew of very elegent studies. The universe certainly 'looks' designed, which doesn't prove it is. We are certainly a 'goldylocks' universe in the multiverse conjecture. Going back to Leslie, either there is a God and/or there is a multiverse, to paraphrase. So far, the latter portion of the Leslie conclusion is unproveable. We are stuck with one universe when there is no reason to have anything (Leibnitz). The metaphorical odds against this are enormous. These are psychological odds for me, not mathematical odds. Is this universe an accident?-Two, we have an enormous amount of information about evolution, but none of any consequence about the origin of life. The universe provided all the necessary substrate for life. It appeared, with no obvious reason to do so, considering how giant is the step.-Three, we can follow evolution and not truly understand how it happened. If one does not live history, it cannot be fully understood, partially yes. Why did evolution proceed to the very complex, when bacteria have been around since the beginning of life and are still very successful. Did nothing drive evolution? Gould's explanation that evolution could only go toward the more complex IS an argument from ignorance, a default position. With great success why bother?-Four is Neo-Darwinism, which is a mess. The latest studies of the genome refute it completely. That is why the Altenberg 16 met. Like Global warming hysteria, which is now logically disappearing, so will Darwin's chance mutation-natural selection theory. What is coming is genome directed evolution, with natural selection making final selections actively from its passively available choices.-Five, is the human brain necessary? Clearly no. All the other primates have done fine for 6+ million years. The brain is an extraordinary development, in a tiny species (in total number on Earth) compared to the numbers of insect and bacterial populations. -That is a short form of my book: we know lots of 'the how' it happened, but not all. We no nothing of 'the why' it happened. We know it had to happen, because, by the weird reasoning of the anthropic principle, we ARE here. If one wants an answer in the present, one then has to recognize we can make a conclusion based on Occam's facts. We can see design when it exists. We know that very complex codes are the result of intelligence. We can see developments that offer no reason for appearing by chance. Am I reasoning from ignorance? I don't think so. Am I incredulous? Yes, but that intellectual/emotional response is not driving me. I'll change my mind EASILY if I'm disproven. I want an answer for me for now. Am I straining for a God to support 'poor me' struggling to survive life so I can go to my 'rest' in heaven? No. I love living. It has been a blast. I don't ever want to die, but I have to. So it is either an unending unknowing dreamless sleep or a romp in heaven. Neither is bad.-Do we know there is a God? No, he is concealed. How do you 'see' intellect? You don't, but you recognize it from its works. Do you know you love your wife from ignorance? It is a feeling from the brain. There is no substance you can test! I know my first mother-in-law is my guardian angel, an emotional feeling from my brain. I 'know' my current conclusion is correct because it 'feel's' right. And for this moment it fits all of Occam's facts.