@ GabrielSerafin

Yeah what's your point please, you'll have to post the gist in your own words, as I'm not watching a video link that is highly likely to be some angry theists giving another disjointed diatribe against RD because he's dared to question the empty bag of monotheistic belief. probably replete with assumption after assumption, and logical fallacies lined up in tandem.

As always, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Oh dear, it's petunias time again (readers of The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy will understand the reference) ...

The fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is a big fat clue that the source and cause of the universe is rational.

No it isn't. This is a basic fallacy that every mythology fetishist commits at some point or other. It's nothing more than the projection of our own intent and capabilites upon our surroundings, which was the means by which humans generated mythologies in the first place. Furthermore, several of our mythologies not only contain assertions to the effect that various fantastic magic entities exist, they also contain assertions to the effect that said magic entities can tell the laws of physics to take a hike, whenever it happens to be administratively convenient. Which, if that second assertion is true, means that the laws of physics are no longer the laws of physics by definition. But I'm familiar with the supernaturalist practice of trying to have one's cake and eat it simultaneously.

Quite simply, all that is needed for a set of interactions to be comprehensible, via mathematics or any other tool, is that they be reliably and repeatably mechanical. Gravity is pretty much as mindless a force as one could wish for, which at bottom only generates one interaction, namely, attraction between masses. But when the masses in question are large enough, other interactions can then come into play. Hello, nuclear fusion!

The problem is that you don’t go to a biologist to seek answers to your questions about astronomy

No kidding? Did anyone here ever assert that they did?

Theology is the study of God

This presumes that there's something to study, other the products of the rectal passages of the authors of mythologies. We're still waiting to see this presumption supported with something resembling genuine evidence, instead of the usual apologetic fabrications and attempts to conjure magic men into existence with rhetorical spells.

and it’s branches of Teleology and Ontology

BZZZZT! Elementary error!

Ontology is the philosophical inquiry into the nature of being. It has little to do with theology, as any reasonable course in philosophy will tell you, if you pay attention thereto.

Furthermore, teleology isn't a "branch of study", it's a blind assertion abut the world. Another of those blind assertions we've been waiting for millennia for supernaturalists to support with something other than apologetic fabrications and rhetorical spells.

study areas that biology does not

This once again presumes that there's something to study, other than the products of the rectal passages of the authors of mythologies.

But biology in itself is a testament to the harmony and order of nature.

Bollocks. Any actual tenured biologist will tell you that biology is possibly the messiest of the empirical sciences. A prime example of said messiness being the disjoint between Linnaean taxonomy and modern molecular phylogeny. Said disjoint starting to appear the moment palaeontologists started looking systematically and analytically at fossils, and becoming a yawning canyon the moment molecular phylogeny was seriously launched. Whilst the basic idea of a tree of life as embodied in Linnaean taxonomy was sound, he made the mistake of making his system a ranked system, though of course taxonomists had to start somewhere, and Linnaeus achieved much with what he had to start with. But by making his system a ranked system, the resulting taxonomy clashes badly with phylogeny. Of course, Linnaeus didn't have modern data to guide him, and I suspect he would have chosen a different approach to the higher taxonomic categories, if he had. But the mere fact that he accepted the relatedness of the members of the biosphere as an implicit fact in said taxonomy, was a major step forward, and of course, he also made valuable contributions to the discipline of comparative anatomy.

Trouble is, modern biologists are acutely aware, that the biosphere keeps throwing curve balls at us, with respect to the taxonomic desire to slot living organisms into neat and tidy categories. HeLa cells provide a particularly juicy example, of a single celled life form that has now achieved an unexpected degree of autonomy inside cell culture labs, but whose ancestors were cervical cancer cells from one Henrietta Lacks. Interestingly, despite that well-documented human origin, those cells have gone on to acquire wildly variant chromosome numbers, and in the process, they have acquired the ability to smother other cell cultures out of existence. Quite a few scientists experienced a "deep shit" moment when that was discovered. Some scientists now argue that those cells have achieved sufficient biological autonomy to warrant their own taxonomic designation. Adding to the fun and games are the various transmissible carcinomas found in some other species, with CTVT being possibly the canonical example. This is now a free-living sexually transmissible pathogen of dogs, but which started life as external carcinoma cells in an ancestral dog population. I'll leave prions aside for the moment, as these warrant an encyclopaedic treatment, such is the volume of data we now have on them, and I don't propose to turn this post into a 50,000 word dissertation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

Harmony is not accidental

Ha ha ha ha ha. I'm aware of developments in computer science that flush this assertion down the toilet.

and such order requires logic.

Correction, it merely requires reliably repeatable mechanical interactions. Which can sometimes deliver surprises, as those computer scientists I've alluded to above will tell you.

"It’s a 3 minute audio link. Listen to it, it’s quite constructive."

Your supposedly loving god made me profoundly deaf.

No, don't bother belatedly providing a text.
Judging by the written comments it appears to be the same old apologist claims I am all too familiar with.
The evil is that your supposedly all-encompassing christian benevolence doesn't extend to providing text for those with handicaps even in this age of instant telecommunications.

I console myself that nature was being kind in sparing me the 3 minute aural waste of time.

You present nothing that tells me to believe in a god. I would like to believe in something that will take care of me and tell me I will live on for eternity...who wouldn't. But your reality is never what others tell you it is. Having committed to religion and fought for my faith, I understand where you are coming from...however my delusion was revealed by learning what was true, and what is not...not by ignoring reason. You may or may not shed your bias to be able to reason again without barrier...I hope so, as it seems humanity depends on it. If I were you, I would just monitor how many die from religion...especially on this day.

@MarylinC FFS - I hate it when I snort my morning coffee out my nose and onto my keyboard. I'm stealing that one from you.
ROFLMAO!!!!