Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote:This statement demonstrates a common misconception about evolution. Scientists do not claim that every behavior or trait is necessarily selected for because it provides some advantage. This is especially true for complex human behavior.

My post was intentional ironic comedy.

sandy_mcd wrote:Popular culture and science are full of "just-so" stories which attribute nearly every facet of human behavior or characteristic to evolution. Not so.

This would be my position as well. There is just no limit to what mutation and natural selection can accomplish [in their minds anyway]. In effect it has the power of a god to form specific arrangements of matter.

KBCid wrote:My post was intentional ironic comedy.

Sorry, i missed the irony. I'll take the 'right?' as an indicator next time.

Hello,
I have always questioned science and evolution or a Supreme all knowing , all powerful God. I will state that I am a Christian and have no intention of changing my belief in God. I decided to write a 2 page belief of this exact subject that I hope will enlighten, entertain and possibly make more sense to all of this.
I titled this "Did science create God or did God create science".
Here a touch of it:

Okay, lets start with Science and say God is non-existent.
Something happened to began creation and all that we know today was evolved to present existence.
The Sun, Moon, Stars, Planets and everything we discovered and physically invented as far in time as we can prove to ourselves, not a guess, not an imagination, but based on scientific research has concluded that we evolved without Divine Intervention, no God, no supreme spirit or power.

In a nutshell Space created You and I and we created a word called “science”. Now we grew up to be taught by Parents, Teachers or whomever to give us the knowledge to decide if we exist by Science or a Supreme God who we never seen or met. Those who do not believe there is a GOD will lean towards science. WHY? There can only be two answers to this WHY?

(Website removed by moderator)

sandy_mcd wrote:

KBCid wrote:My post was intentional ironic comedy.

Sorry, i missed the irony. I'll take the 'right?' as an indicator next time.

I'm sorry sandy. I'm nearing 50 and somethings from my old point of view just make me chuckle inside. My strength is definitely not in my ability to convey my POV.... obviously but, you can assume that I do look for the comic side of things occasionally.

I'm debating with a new atheist. I usually begin with the argument from design. And from my understanding cells are a good example of such. I already have a few topics that are very good arguments. The brain, Cells, change of evolution, chance of a natural universe. Anything else that would be an addition to this? Oh and I have already added in most of the good points you guys have made. thanks for that. Back to the point, just how complex are cells, and any other arguments from design?

In my opinion the complexity doesn't matter. Function is what matters. Why function? Scissors are about as simple a device as you can find, yet their function preceeds their existance. In fact any device you can list is the same. If it functions, then the function preceeded its existance. It was conceived by a mind and then designed. Ask an atheist if they eye has a function, and then ask them to account for its function in a material unguided universe. Why should an eye function, and at harmony with the myriad of other functions of the human body? How would primordial goo know to code for such functions? If it "knows" then a mind is at play. Period.

The ID people are all wrapped up in complexity and I think it's a dead end argument. It's very sad. I've written to Meyer's people and they seem indifferent.

When you get into arguments of chance, they may strengthen a position, but won't convince. If the odds are .00000000000000000008 that life began through unguided material processes, the atheist will say, "See there is a chance." They are bound to suppress the truth in unrighteiousness. They will take a bet that they wouldn't take in any casino with their own life at stake or money on the line. The anthropic principle is a solid argument IMO, but the atheist is always looking for loopholes. Function doesn't depend on probabilities.

You make a very good point Jlay, thanks for that. But i still find that complexity is a very good support for god. so i will take a bit from what you have told me, but not all. its just i have these debates all the time and it stacks up on me, with no one really to say "yep thats right, nice job on that debate buddy you made factual statements there" i just want to make sure im Saying facts and not Opinions. Its a great concern for me that i will slip up and go on a rant and all of it was Chicken feed so to speak.

So i will continually have this Clawing in my stomach whether or not i said the right words or not. So i hope none of you mind if i may return with childish and sometimes repetative questions. But i just want to make sure that im making a difference with fact not opinion. But perhaps i may come back one day with some good debates that may give us a challenge, because Lord knows that Theists have Toppled more than just one atheistic juggernaught and Good challenges are hard to come by

jlay wrote:The ID people are all wrapped up in complexity and I think it's a dead end argument. It's very sad. I've written to Meyer's people and they seem indifferent.

Complexity as referred to by ID people is defined as specified complexity. This is a hallmark of intelligent action. To presume it is a dead argument is to fall in line with evolutionists thinking that there is no way to define an intelligent cause fron natural cause. The entire beginning of Genesis shows the hallmark of design as it shows God making specified complex arrangements of matter into highly functional mechanisms. Specified complexity includes function within its meaning as a part of a whole. To realize a function requires very specific arrangements and precursors to exist before it. Specified complexity covers all these highly unique set-ups that by themselves individually have no function per se but contribute to an environmental setting where a function can occur.
Even Gods advises us to look at the creation to see the work of his hands... what do you suppose we could identify within the creation that would allow us to see his hand in it? I would say its the fact that its not simply a puddle of water. It is the specific complex interaction of millions of mechanisms functioning in harmony that allow us to exist.

K,

Perhaps I'm being overly critical. Let me just state that I think the emphasis should be on function. Complexity may be the result of that particular function.
As we have seen, the secular world is very unconvinced by the specified complexity arguments.

jlay wrote: If the odds are .00000000000000000008 that life began through unguided material processes, the atheist will say, "See there is a chance." They are bound to suppress the truth in unrighteiousness. They will take a bet that they wouldn't take in any casino with their own life at stake or money on the line. The anthropic principle is a solid argument IMO, but the atheist is always looking for loopholes. Function doesn't depend on probabilities.

If you have any intention of being fair-minded, and you're going to try to argue that a creator must exist because it is too unlikely that the universe and life were created without one, then you also have to ask yourself what the likelihood is of a creator existing without having a creator himself... Surely a being that can create an entire universe (and life) must be more complicated than anything he creates. So if you think the universe is too unlikely to form on its own, how can you think God can exist on his own without having a creator himself? God's creator would also need a creator and so on forever. Its a nonsensical argument. At some point, atheists and theists have to agree that SOMETHING (either a creator or the universe/life) was either created from nothing or has always existed. So now you have to ask yourself which is more likely. That an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being was created from nothing and hides from us, not wanting to reveal that he exists just to "test" us (even though he knows the future and knows what we would do after being tested) or that the universe and life came into being without a conscious creator. Personally I think its ridiculous to think that a God can exist without a creator but to think that a human can't exist without a creator. You're really not being honest with yourself if you don't see that your argument makes no sense and actually argues against a creator.

Anyway, if I gave you unlimited, free chances to play the lottery with a 0.00000000000000000008 chance of winning millions, you wouldn't play? I think most people would. People play the lotto all the time, even despite the very small chances that they will win. The lottery will almost definitely not be won if only a single person plays one time, but if enough people play enough times, someone will win - that's why we have lottery winners even though the chances for a single person are extremely small. All you have to realize is that the world is very large, the solar system is even larger, the galaxy is even LARGER and the universe is incomprehensibly enormous. We're not even sure this is the only universe. Then you have to realize that the universe is at least billions of years old. That's a LOT of time and a LOT of space for those small little chances to take place. Just like the lottery...eventually someone has to win. It did take billions of years after all, even with our huge universe. I don't think its a "loophole" or a suppression of the truth to think that life could easily have formed eventually on some planet somewhere in the universe. In fact, no matter how small the chances are of life coming into being without a creator, it is an absolute CERTAINTY if the universe has been around forever (infinite time), or if there are an infinite number of universes in existence (infinite chances) or if there is an infinite cycle in our universe of big bangs and big crunches (also infinite time). No matter how small you think the chances are, if you have an infinite number of chances, you have a 100% of life eventually being created without any conscious creator. That is a pure, simple mathematical truth, not a loop hole.

Just remember that the bible tells you to "test everything. Hold on to the good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21. The word of your "creator" commands you to think and not close off your mind. There are a lot of religions with different gods. What are the "chances" that you chose the right god? If there is one true god, why do people worship so many different ones? Why were the first religions polytheistic? After all, weren't those religions around closer to the beginning of the world? Wouldn't they know better about creation than we do today? Why are smarter people less likely to be religious? Why are religious countries the most poor and the most affected by homicide, STD rates, teen pregnancy AND abortion (according to a study in the Journal of Religion and Society)? Why is god the cause of so many wars and conflicts? How many wars have been waged to spread atheism? How many people have been killed for insulting atheism? How many leaders of American Atheists have molested young boys? How can only 1% of people in prison be non-religious when 16% of US citizens are non-religious? Aren't atheists evil? Shouldn't there be more than 16% atheists in prison and not less ? Why are religious people more likely to end up in prison than atheists? Why are those with psychiatric disorders more likely than sane people to become very religious as their disease manifests? Why does the DSM IV that psychiatrists use to diagnose mental illness specifically state that x, y, and z mean the patient has a mental disorder...unless these beliefs are part of a mainstream religion? Why do we give mainstream religions a free pass? Why does religion share so many traits with mental disorders?

Steve wrote:

jlay wrote: If the odds are .00000000000000000008 that life began through unguided material processes, the atheist will say, "See there is a chance." They are bound to suppress the truth in unrighteiousness. They will take a bet that they wouldn't take in any casino with their own life at stake or money on the line. The anthropic principle is a solid argument IMO, but the atheist is always looking for loopholes. Function doesn't depend on probabilities.

If you have any intention of being fair-minded, and you're going to try to argue that a creator must exist because it is too unlikely that the universe and life were created without one, then you also have to ask yourself what the likelihood is of a creator existing without having a creator himself... Surely a being that can create an entire universe (and life) must be more complicated than anything he creates. So if you think the universe is too unlikely to form on its own, how can you think God can exist on his own without having a creator himself? God's creator would also need a creator and so on forever. Its a nonsensical argument. At some point, atheists and theists have to agree that SOMETHING (either a creator or the universe/life) was either created from nothing or has always existed. So now you have to ask yourself which is more likely. That an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being was created from nothing and hides from us, not wanting to reveal that he exists just to "test" us (even though he knows the future and knows what we would do after being tested) or that the universe and life came into being without a conscious creator. Personally I think its ridiculous to think that a God can exist without a creator but to think that a human can't exist without a creator. You're really not being honest with yourself if you don't see that your argument makes no sense and actually argues against a creator.

Anyway, if I gave you unlimited, free chances to play the lottery with a 0.00000000000000000008 chance of winning millions, you wouldn't play? I think most people would. People play the lotto all the time, even despite the very small chances that they will win. The lottery will almost definitely not be won if only a single person plays one time, but if enough people play enough times, someone will win - that's why we have lottery winners even though the chances for a single person are extremely small. All you have to realize is that the world is very large, the solar system is even larger, the galaxy is even LARGER and the universe is incomprehensibly enormous. We're not even sure this is the only universe. Then you have to realize that the universe is at least billions of years old. That's a LOT of time and a LOT of space for those small little chances to take place. Just like the lottery...eventually someone has to win. It did take billions of years after all, even with our huge universe. I don't think its a "loophole" or a suppression of the truth to think that life could easily have formed eventually on some planet somewhere in the universe. In fact, no matter how small the chances are of life coming into being without a creator, it is an absolute CERTAINTY if the universe has been around forever (infinite time), or if there are an infinite number of universes in existence (infinite chances) or if there is an infinite cycle in our universe of big bangs and big crunches (also infinite time). No matter how small you think the chances are, if you have an infinite number of chances, you have a 100% of life eventually being created without any conscious creator. That is a pure, simple mathematical truth, not a loop hole.

Just remember that the bible tells you to "test everything. Hold on to the good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21. The word of your "creator" commands you to think and not close off your mind. There are a lot of religions with different gods. What are the "chances" that you chose the right god? If there is one true god, why do people worship so many different ones? Why were the first religions polytheistic? After all, weren't those religions around closer to the beginning of the world? Wouldn't they know better about creation than we do today? Why are smarter people less likely to be religious? Why are religious countries the most poor and the most affected by homicide, STD rates, teen pregnancy AND abortion (according to a study in the Journal of Religion and Society)? Why is god the cause of so many wars and conflicts? How many wars have been waged to spread atheism? How many people have been killed for insulting atheism? How many leaders of American Atheists have molested young boys? How can only 1% of people in prison be non-religious when 16% of US citizens are non-religious? Aren't atheists evil? Shouldn't there be more than 16% atheists in prison and not less ? Why are religious people more likely to end up in prison than atheists? Why are those with psychiatric disorders more likely than sane people to become very religious as their disease manifests? Why does the DSM IV that psychiatrists use to diagnose mental illness specifically state that x, y, and z mean the patient has a mental disorder...unless these beliefs are part of a mainstream religion? Why do we give mainstream religions a free pass? Why does religion share so many traits with mental disorders?

haha someone has been reading Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris' books havent they? I myself just recently finished The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation. I'll respond after I finish my last final for college

Steve wrote:If you have any intention of being fair-minded, and you're going to try to argue that a creator must exist because it is too unlikely that the universe and life were created without one, then you also have to ask yourself what the likelihood is of a creator existing without having a creator himself... Surely a being that can create an entire universe (and life) must be more complicated than anything he creates. So if you think the universe is too unlikely to form on its own, how can you think God can exist on his own without having a creator himself? God's creator would also need a creator and so on forever. Its a nonsensical argument.

No, your argument is nonsensical. It happens when people with no knowledge, let alone expertise, in philosophy or theology try to formulate "arguments". It happens when people try to apply their failed evolutionary teachings to God. You admitted yourself that God, if He exists, would be a creator of everything. Well, "everything" involves time as well. God is timeless in His nature, and as such, doesn't need a cause - He exists in a timeless eternity and, having created time, He exists outside of it and is not subject to it. So yes, God has always existed, but not in the sense of infinite past - He started the time itself, as seen in 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and most importantly Genesis 1:1.
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/wh ... d_god.html

Furthermore, the Kalam cosmological argument claims that whatever begins to exist has a cause. We know that the universe began to exist, but not God. He has always existed, and as such, doesn't need a cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m ... l_argument

I also suggest checking this thread about divine simplicity:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=37190

Steve wrote:At some point, atheists and theists have to agree that SOMETHING (either a creator or the universe/life) was either created from nothing or has always existed. So now you have to ask yourself which is more likely. That an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being was created from nothing and hides from us,

Again, God wasn't "created from nothing", He has always existed. That's a big difference.

Steve wrote:not wanting to reveal that he exists just to "test" us

I believe that the evidence for God is solid. Unless, however, you want to deny Him, in which case no evidence would be quite enough. If God waved at us from the sky, people like you would attribute it to a hallucination... even if hundreds of people saw the very same thing.

Steve wrote:(even though he knows the future and knows what we would do after being tested) or that the universe and life came into being without a conscious creator. Personally I think its ridiculous to think that a God can exist without a creator but to think that a human can't exist without a creator. You're really not being honest with yourself if you don't see that your argument makes no sense and actually argues against a creator.

Well personally, I think it's ridiculous to think that the entire universe could just pop out of nowhere, along with its finely tuned laws that allow life, then randomly assemble a planet with conditions and atmosphere that would allow a cell to randomly assemble itself, then evolve over millions of years of random mutations into humans who think logically... not randomly. How do you know your thoughts aren't just a random "dance" of chemicals?

Steve wrote:Anyway, if I gave you unlimited, free chances to play the lottery with a 0.00000000000000000008 chance of winning millions, you wouldn't play? I think most people would. People play the lotto all the time, even despite the very small chances that they will win. The lottery will almost definitely not be won if only a single person plays one time, but if enough people play enough times, someone will win - that's why we have lottery winners even though the chances for a single person are extremely small. All you have to realize is that the world is very large, the solar system is even larger, the galaxy is even LARGER and the universe is incomprehensibly enormous. We're not even sure this is the only universe. Then you have to realize that the universe is at least billions of years old. That's a LOT of time and a LOT of space for those small little chances to take place. Just like the lottery...eventually someone has to win. It did take billions of years after all, even with our huge universe. I don't think its a "loophole" or a suppression of the truth to think that life could easily have formed eventually on some planet somewhere in the universe. In fact, no matter how small the chances are of life coming into being without a creator, it is an absolute CERTAINTY if the universe has been around forever (infinite time), or if there are an infinite number of universes in existence (infinite chances) or if there is an infinite cycle in our universe of big bangs and big crunches (also infinite time). No matter how small you think the chances are, if you have an infinite number of chances, you have a 100% of life eventually being created without any conscious creator. That is a pure, simple mathematical truth, not a loop hole.

If there is an infinite number of universes in existence, they must come from somewhere. There should be a random universe generator that continuously alters the "dials" i.e. cosmological constants and creates new, different universes. How do you account for it? It just popped out of nowhere, I guess?

Secondly, even if you assemble a cell from all the possible ingredients, it still won't come to life. If that was possible, we'd create new life in a lab in no time. And even if that happened, evolution requires a net increase in genetic information, something that we have never witnessed. I already wrote about this not long ago - I suggest looking at this post:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 90#p119137

Steve wrote:Just remember that the bible tells you to "test everything. Hold on to the good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21. The word of your "creator" commands you to think and not close off your mind. There are a lot of religions with different gods. What are the "chances" that you chose the right god?

There are no "chances". I use my reason to pick my worldview, so I choose the one with the most credibility. I understand, however, why you brought up "chance". Unlike you, I don't believe that my mind is a series of chemical reactions in my brain, because that would ruin any credibility and trustworthiness my mind would have. It would be self-refuting, just as atheistic materialism in its core is.

Steve wrote:If there is one true god, why do people worship so many different ones?

Matthew 24:24

Steve wrote:Why were the first religions polytheistic? After all, weren't those religions around closer to the beginning of the world? Wouldn't they know better about creation than we do today?

Those weren't the first religions. God's original message was corrupted, which required it to be written down so it doesn't get lost again. That's how the Bible came to be. More here:
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html

Regarding the "borrowing" from ancient pagan sources, there are a few articles about that as well, such as:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/babgenesis.html
http://christianthinktank.com/gilgymess.html

Steve wrote:Why are smarter people less likely to be religious?

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/re ... tupid.html

Steve wrote:Why are religious countries the most poor and the most affected by homicide, STD rates, teen pregnancy AND abortion (according to a study in the Journal of Religion and Society)?

A good standard of living makes humans more self-reliant and less in need for God, unfortunately. It's a part of the human nature.

Steve wrote:Why is god the cause of so many wars and conflicts?

Instead of copy-pasting loads of questions in order to confuse or discourage from responding, why don't you name a few recent wars in the name of Christianity? I'm not interested in other religions, I'm a Christian apologist, as other people here.

Steve wrote:How many wars have been waged to spread atheism? How many people have been killed for insulting atheism?

Good question. Atheistic regimes that killed millions of people, did very much exist. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... Need I say more?
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

Steve wrote:How many leaders of American Atheists have molested young boys? How can only 1% of people in prison be non-religious when 16% of US citizens are non-religious? Aren't atheists evil? Shouldn't there be more than 16% atheists in prison and not less ? Why are religious people more likely to end up in prison than atheists? Why are those with psychiatric disorders more likely than sane people to become very religious as their disease manifests? Why does the DSM IV that psychiatrists use to diagnose mental illness specifically state that x, y, and z mean the patient has a mental disorder...unless these beliefs are part of a mainstream religion? Why do we give mainstream religions a free pass? Why does religion share so many traits with mental disorders?

This is just nonsense - completely unworthy of a response. I spent an hour writing this response not because it will convince you - you'll probably ignore everything I wrote and keep on repeating your same old recycled "arguments" that mean nothing to anyone even remotely familiar with philosophy and theology. The reason I wrote this is so that people who read this don't assume that your rant has any credibility whatsoever, because it most definitely doesn't. I've been a member of this forum for over a year, and whenever a know-it-all atheist like you comes here thinking that (s)he knows the truth and the rest of us are deluded, (s)he always repeats the very same arguments you brought up now, like a broken record. Don't you ask yourself why senior members of this forum, such as the moderators, didn't respond to your rant? It's because they've seen it hundreds of times and have lost the patience with repeating themselves over and over again. Everything you brought up can easily be refuted. It's a matter of, as you said, being honest with yourself. Well, I advise you to try that.

Sincere regards to everyone.
"Reactionary"

If you have any intention of being fair-minded, and you're going to try to argue that a creator must exist because it is too unlikely that the universe and life were created without one, then you also have to ask yourself what the likelihood is of a creator existing without having a creator himself... Surely a being that can create an entire universe (and life) must be more complicated than anything he creates. So if you think the universe is too unlikely to form on its own, how can you think God can exist on his own without having a creator himself? God's creator would also need a creator and so on forever. Its a nonsensical argument. At some point, atheists and theists have to agree that SOMETHING (either a creator or the universe/life) was either created from nothing or has always existed. So now you have to ask yourself which is more likely. That an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being was created from nothing and hides from us, not wanting to reveal that he exists just to "test" us (even though he knows the future and knows what we would do after being tested) or that the universe and life came into being without a conscious creator. Personally I think its ridiculous to think that a God can exist without a creator but to think that a human can't exist without a creator. You're really not being honest with yourself if you don't see that your argument makes no sense and actually argues against a creator.

Steve,
You really have read more into my statement than you should. The anthropic principle is a solid argument, but it is an argument in probability, and thus, as i already stated, has an inherent weakness. It is certainly not an argument I soley rest my faith on.

The problem of nothingness, for you and Dawkins, is that nothing begats nothing. Even if you had any evidence of mulitple universes (which you don't) it only pushes the problem further down the line. I'm sure you know the problems with infinite regress. Also, i'm sure you've considered that if there is an unlimieted number of universes, then there is also one where God is not hidden, and is eternal, immutable, has asiety, etc. Or, perhaps you havne't.

You also show a fundemental lack of understanding in what is meant by a creator. So, in one sense you've created a strawman when you say, "...all-loving being was created from nothing...." The eternality of God, the asiety of God, and the infinate nature of God certainly make sense of a creator that is perfect uncreated being. All things with a beginning have a beginner. Since our universe has a beginning, it has a beginner. So, why do you assume that God has a beginning? If God has a creator, then we should worship that being. But, then of course your argument regresses, "the creator of that creator, and the creator of that creator," and so on. If God has a beginning, then He is contingent and changing, and that would be a direct contradiction to what the Bible reveals and also what is revealed through natural theology.

Lastly, what purpose is their in being fair minded? Now, understand, I do believe in being fair minded, but I'm curious why you think it matters. If there is no creator, then you and I are merely products of our DNA and a mindless, unguided universe.
Steve, I suggest you read through the board guidelines, and I suppose you will be sent a pmail stating the same. And, then decide if this a place for you or not.

I think there are a few flaws in your views. I'll try and show why I disagree:
1) You don't need an expanation of the explanation for it to be the best explanation
William Lane Craig says, "in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer."
This response seems to answer anyone who says things like "Who created God then?!" I think questions regarding the origins of God, if God was created, where He came from, is He infinte etc are all excellent questions. But just because we don't have the answers in NO way means that the argument does not stand. Its just an open question. If you didn't have an infinte number of explanations for 2+2 would that mean that we don't think 2+2=4? No, thats absurd. But then why do you think that just because we don't have an explanation for God that God is not the best explanation?

2) God is a spirit, not a material thing. So by definition God cannot be complex because he has no parts.
Alvin Plantinga has writtten quite a bit on this subject. He points out that Dawkins is using circular reasoning or begging the question: He is assuming what he is attempting to prove. He assumes matter/energy is all that exist. God, to Dawkins, is a complex being with many parts that are put together. But God by definition is a spirit and does not have any parts. Plantinga says, "To reach his desired conclusion Dawkins begins with materialism in order to arrive at materialism. He tries to define God under a materialist definition of complexity that includes improbabality in order to arrive at his conslusion." William Lane Craig goes on to say, "Dawkins' fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth."

3) Even if God is complex, the God hypothesis may still be the best explanation
This is one objection I personally have never understood. So what if the explanation is still complicated or complex, if it explains the date and evidence at hand then of course its the best explanation. Again, William Lane Craig says, "This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations; for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, and so forth." If an explanation (God for example) explains the existence of the Universe, the Law of nature etc, then its the best explanation even if you assume God is complicated. Saying God is complex does not refute the argument at hand. it just asks a question of the origins of the explanation.


There are a lot of religions with different gods. What are the "chances" that you chose the right god?
I dont know the "chances" but It would seem that thought research, study, and an open mind one could potentially find the "right god".

If there is one true god, why do people worship so many different ones?
Probably for the same reasons that people have so many different political views. The number of people who believe in the supernatural could be argued for or against the existence of God. To me both sides seem fairly weak.

Why were the first religions polytheistic? After all, weren't those religions around closer to the beginning of the world? Wouldn't they know better about creation than we do today? If you are talking about Hinduism then yes. But that would be assuming Hinduism is true. If Christianity were true than it would be the oldest religion (or Islam, Mormonism etc)

Why are smarter people less likely to be religious?
This says nothing about the existence of God. Its an interesting point but considering I would see myself as a deist this doesnt bother me at all.

Why are religious countries the most poor and the most affected by homicide, STD rates, teen pregnancy AND abortion (according to a study in the Journal of Religion and Society)? Why is god the cause of so many wars and conflicts? How many wars have been waged to spread atheism? How many people have been killed for insulting atheism? How many leaders of American Atheists have molested young boys? How can only 1% of people in prison be non-religious when 16% of US citizens are non-religious? Aren't atheists evil? Shouldn't there be more than 16% atheists in prison and not less ? Why are religious people more likely to end up in prison than atheists? Why are those with psychiatric disorders more likely than sane people to become very religious as their disease manifests? Why does the DSM IV that psychiatrists use to diagnose mental illness specifically state that x, y, and z mean the patient has a mental disorder...unless these beliefs are part of a mainstream religion? Why do we give mainstream religions a free pass? Why does religion share so many traits with mental disorders?
haha most of this stuff is taken right from The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian nation. Did you just finish reading these? None of these is relavent to the discussion. It says nothing about the truth or non-truth of God.

Reactionary wrote: I believe that the evidence for God is solid. Unless, however, you want to deny Him, in which case no evidence would be quite enough. If God waved at us from the sky, people like you would attribute it to a hallucination... even if hundreds of people saw the very same thing.

I think God would know what it would take to change our minds, being all knowing/powerful and all. We don't want to deny God, the same way you don't want to deny Santa or unicorns. There is just insufficient evidence.

Reactionary wrote: Well personally, I think it's ridiculous to think that the entire universe could just pop out of nowhere, along with its finely tuned laws that allow life, then randomly assemble a planet with conditions and atmosphere that would allow a cell to randomly assemble itself, then evolve over millions of years of random mutations into humans who think logically... not randomly. How do you know your thoughts aren't just a random "dance" of chemicals?

We don't know how the universe came about. If our thoughts are random "dances" of chemicals, what does that prove? In order to think logically we require a deity? What evidence do you have that the mind is anything but material? How do you account for victims of accidents who suffer amnesia?

Reactionary wrote:If there is an infinite number of universes in existence, they must come from somewhere. There should be a random universe generator that continuously alters the "dials" i.e. cosmological constants and creates new, different universes. How do you account for it? It just popped out of nowhere, I guess?

Again, we don't know how the universe came into existence. Steve set forth a few natural based hypothesis to account for the "small chance" argument. We have no evidence of anything supernatural, and until then, natural hypothesis are better than supernatural (god) hypothesis.

Reactionary wrote:Secondly, even if you assemble a cell from all the possible ingredients, it still won't come to life. If that was possible, we'd create new life in a lab in no time. And even if that happened, evolution requires a net increase in genetic information, something that we have never witnessed. I already wrote about this not long ago - I suggest looking at this post:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 90#p119137

Define "information." In the post you linked, you failed to acknowledge:

Chromosome number can increase potentially by chromosome breakage (or decrease, fusion). Imagine a chromosome that for one reason or another gets broken into two, which then independently evolve.

Another way is duplication. For whatever reason (nondisjunction, for example), a cell might end up with an extra copy of a chromosome. If this does not cause too much of a fitness penalty, that chromosome can propagate and continue down the road of evolution. Because the extra chromosome is redundant, it can mutate much more freely, and thus you'll eventually have a very different chromosome later down the line. This is also a major source of new genes, an event called gene duplication.

Reactionary wrote: Matthew 24:24

Bible quote, that settles it

Quran
22:62 - It is a fact that ALLAH is the Truth, while the setting up of any idols beside Him constitutes a falsehood, and that ALLAH is the Most High, the Supreme.

21:25 - "There is no god except Me; you shall worship Me alone."

Genesis 1:26 us, our
Deuteronomy 10:17
Jeremiah 1:16
Jeremiah 10:11
Jeremiah 25:6

I don't like the "religious people do bad things" argument. People do bad things because of extreme ideologies. Does religion play a strong role in that? Sure. But that doesn't mean a god doesn't exist? No.

SonofAletheia wrote: haha most of this stuff is taken right from The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian nation. Did you just finish reading these? None of these is relavent to the discussion. It says nothing about the truth or non-truth of God.

Also, it doesn't matter where the information came from. I try to refrain from pointing out rebuttals that come from biased religious sources, attack the argument on its own merit. I'll agree with you though, it says nothing about truth/non-truth of god. In terms of morality, they are interesting questions though. Just my 2 cents.