@NewSkeptic

I am not trying to hurt you but wake you up. Were you expecting arguments that not only you but others on the atheist forum were given shots at, but collectively failed to paraphrase and point out a flaw with? Your response could be that you have seen responses that have pointed out a flaw and the problem was that I did not acknowledge them. If you believed that then that is fine. If you were just another disingenuous atheist though then it is not. So here is what I will do. I will re-post the arguments and an explanation to make it easier to understand them. Then you, if you are not another disingenuous atheist then point out the problem, because I think both argument (1) and argument (2) would qualify as ID arguments. Obviously even an atheist would realise that rebuttals to other ID arguments do not count as rebuttals to these unless they were appropriate. Presumably you can comprehend that. So go ahead Dorothy paraphrase the arguments, and point out a flaw. Guess what: I predict you won't. One reason is that you didn't do before http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=7... . Another reason is that it was open to all the atheists on the forum and basically no one had done better than you. That isn't something to be proud of by the way. The bar was sooooo low. Basically your failure defined it.

Just to help readers notice if you pathetically try to make out a straw man argument that had already been pointed out, I will link to a synopsis for new readers http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=7... and provide a the synopsis for the reader's convenience:
---
) The fine tuning of the experience.

With physicalist theories there is no reason to have favoured the expectation of any particular physical activity to have correlated with experience over any other physical activity, or to have favoured what the experience that correlated with physical activity would be like.

Whereas theist theorists can explain why the experience that correlates to certain physical activity is like it is rather than being a flash of light every time a neuron fires for example. The latter wouldn't have been fit for purpose (making moral judgements based on it).

So it is a fine tuning argument, but the fine tuning of the experience, rather than the fine tuning of the physics constants, or the fine tuning of the planet's proximity to the sun, which could be explained by a multiverse, or the number of planets respectively. The fine tuning of the experience seems to me to be taken for granted and thus ignored, yet it part of the most telling arguments for design.

2) Our ability to respond to the experience.

A theist theorist can explain it without it being explicitly observed (quantum randomness, and fluctuations of kinetic energy, and a being (God for example) which knows the fine adjustments that can be made (explainable by chaos theory) and the means to make them). Whereas with physicalist theories there is not (there is nothing that knows how the brain is configured). The theist theorists can therefore explain how it is that my form can express that the person experiencing having it is infallible when it comes to the statement that "reality is not one in which none experience", for example.

Explanation:

Both arguments (the first, and the reworded second) are about comparing theories. Theist theories and physicalist theories. The theist theories are obviously theories involving the existence of deities, whereas the physicalist ones aren't. It is not assumed that the theist theories are correct, so there is no question begging that they are. The first argument uses a fine tuning argument to argue that the evidence favours the theist theories. The second argument examines the compatibility of the theist theories and physicalist theories with the evidence, and points out that none of the physicalist theories are compatible. So the favouring of the theist theories is done by argument. There is no assuming the conclusion, and as mentioned no question begging. Also neither argument concludes that it is not possible that physicalism could be correct, as neither perform an argument from ignorance such as arguing that because we lack physicalist theories which would change the evaluation, that physicalism *must* be false. They are just evaluations of where the evidence currently points to with respect to theist and physicalist theories.
---