My guess as well is that Korihor is tied up with Nehor’s community in some way, although one can’t really tell that from the text. If so, then that has to inform how we read Korihor. I just think treating Korihor like a 20th century secularist is pretty dubious.

Now perhaps you wish to argue that Alma is making the argument you’re more comfortable with. This requires first that you flesh out your argument and second show how it lines up with what Alma or Korihor say. I’d simply note that Korihor never brings up probabilities or the like. So it seems doubtful he’s making that argument.

The attempt to shift from properties to categories seems odd, since I can always make a category out of the things with property P. So I don’t see how this gets you much at all.

Finally, you say “I point out that Z does not have the property Y.” But of course that’s not what you said at all. You said,

Most proteins do not self assemble into their biologically relevant tertiary or quaternary structure (emphasis mine)

Of course saying most don’t have a property isn’t at all the same as saying that one doesn’t have the property. Indeed in the normal usage of “most” you were actually conceding that some do have this property. But my argument only depends upon some having it.

What you need to argue for is the proposition “there exists no X such that X has the property of self-organization.” But, as the link I provided shows, that’s a ludicrous proposition to assert given the huge amount of scientific literature on self-organization. That’s why I ended saying, “even if you think all scientists are simply deluded on the subject, they take it for granted as a feature of the universe.” You’re of course free to believe anything you want. If you are arguing that self-organization isn’t a major aspect of scientific theory then I think you’re left denying was is easy to demonstrate.

Let’s try again.
There exists a category of things X that have the property Y, an example of this is item Z.

If I point out that Z does not have the property Y, then you should add an asterisk or cross-strike item Z because it does not represent category X. You instead say, ” I meant item Z” , a subset of X, which I admit is strikingly rare.”

Further, since you are trying to disprove the existence of God using item Z” (an item that does actually fit into category X, and this time actually has property Y), it is valid to to question some of the assumptions going into your argument.

For instance, what if item Z” was designed to have category X with property Y. You have merely assumed that the fact of property Y precludes designing.

An example of this would be slinkies and toys. The category is “toy”; the property is “able to walk itself down the stairs”; and the Z” is a slinky. Most toys do not posses property Y, they are not able to walk themselves down the stairs. Slinkies are fairly rare in the toy world, only a small number of toys are slinkies. It would not be wise, therefore to assume that because slinkies are able to walk down the stairs on their own (or after a slight bump), that they were not created. This, in my view, is your exact argument, you see a statistical anomaly that you think proves that no one designed, or manufacturered, the slinky.

It’s a poor example, remove it from your list.
It’s a poor argument. Emergence doesn’t disprove God. It just disproves your assumption that “God doesn’t design things with emergent properties.” Faulty assumption and argument.

I have no clue what the boiler plate society is, but you have made a stupid argument. Now own it and come up with a better one…

I think Peirce’s argument when one gets technical is wrapped up in his notion of abduction. That is we are due to our experience good at guessing. As we continue to progress in our inquiries bad (incorrect) ideas become less believable and are discarded. He meant this as how science works as a general type of inquiry as opposed to other types of “knowledge” like authoritarianism, traditionalism, or so forth. So the god thesis is a response of the community to the phenomena as people entertain it.

There are obvious arguments against Peirce here that I didn’t engage with. (Such as why scientists are believing in god less, not more) But I was more curious about Alma.

But I like the Neglected Argument for God, even though I’m not sure I totally understand it. Isn’t it saying that the evidence for God comes, not from the object of our contemplation, but arises from the way in which our mind interprets the object? God exists because we believe Him to exist. Is that what it is basically saying?

While there are some forms of molecular self assembly, most are accidents of geometry that did not require precise placement with angstroms of precision of gazillions of iterations. In fact, most self assembled monolayers are full of defects which would be u unacceptable if life depended on uniformity.

Iow, the puerile examples listed as supposed proofs to refute the watch example are fairly specious and faulty.

What evidence do you have
That there is no God?
Or that Christ cometh not?
I say unto you:
You have no evidence save it be your words only.

Look:
I have all things as a testimony
that these things are true.
And you also have
all things as a testimony to you
that they are true.

Will you still deny the testimony of everything?
Will you deny the evidence of all things?

Will ye say: “Show unto me a sign,” when you have
the testimony of people everywhere
and all the prophets
and all the scriptures?
These should be “signs” enough.

All things denote there is a God.
All things stand as a sign and a witness that there is a God:
even the earth
and all things that are upon the face of it
and its motion
and also all the planets which move in their regular form.

All things witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Will you deny all these witnesses?

[Alma 30:40-45 ed. ]