Ty for sharing Eddie. I think one of the biggest problems is that people have not thought logically and rationally through the evidence (not proof) for God's existence. Here is a list of points that will explain where I am coming from.
I don't want by any means to derail this thread GA, and I do appreciate that you have put these points across to explain your point of view rather than claiming them as positive proof. But rather than having them just sit there unchallenged I thought it worthwhile to push back a bit - from my point of view, you understand.
Do be aware that I am questioning your logic (and in some cases maybe your sources), not your faith.
1. The order and design of the cosmos points to an intelligent mind. Order and design do not come by chance. Order and design point to a designer.
Not necessarily. What you're saying is that what we
interpret as order and design needs a designer, and even that is doubtful. Consider crystalline structure for example. Pure chemistry (and atomic-level physics), beautifully ordered and "designed" but on the other hand a purely physical thing. No need, call, or evidence for a designer at all.
2. The Universe is not eternal because of the Big Bang. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The Universe has a beginning; therefore, the Universe has a cause. The best explanation is an uncaused cause: thats God.
It's an old argument, but not a good one. Causation is complicated enough anyway, but there's nothing to say that "everything that has a beginning has a cause" except for the human tendency to ascribe causes to things, which most of the time sort of works in that it makes us look closer at what happened, but that doesn't make it a rule, not a logical universal one that you can rely on anyhow.
It's a little odd that that you bring the Big Bang, which is after all a scientific theory, into the argument. When I was young this was still a controversial issue.
3. The amount of information packed in a single cell demands an intelligent mind. Every time we are confronted by densely packed information there has been an intelligent mind.
Densely packed is a relative thing. I get pretty astonished a lot of the time at what lizards and spiders can do, let alone dolphins. Ants even. Trouble is that, as they say apparently, size isn't everything. Maybe a Diplodocus would be astonished that something as small as me could think.
Besides, a cell is what it is. Somebody somewhere saying it contains such-and-such an amount of "information" is neither here nor there. It doesn't make any difference to the cell, it doesn't make any difference to me or to the world either. t makes a difference to that guy's research funding is what it most makes a difference to.
4. Charles Darwin pointed out that is something is irreducibly complex (like the cell); the whole idea of evolution by chance and fate falls apart.
I'd really really like you to to point out where Darwin said that. Closest I can get is when he was discussing the eye, and then went on to explain how it could nevertheless have evolved.
If he did say that (and it's possible, though unlikely, that he did), then it doesn't matter anyway. What one person said once, whether in truth or in error, is not good evidence for anything else.
5. Moral Absolutes: The slaughter of innocent children is never good but always wrong. If there is no God then everything is relative. The only way there can be moral absolutes is if there is a moral lawgiver. Moral Absolutes demand a moral lawgiver. If there are no moral absolutes then a person is a moral relativist, and there is no further point to make (since no one is right and no one is wrong since everything is subjective/relative).
Hugely complicated area. But consider for example the Incas where apparently the slaughter of (some) innocent children was considered good, consider the ancient Romans where the slaughter of (many) innocent children was considered good.
Like it or not, moral relativism exists. It is real. Morality varies from place to place and from time to time.
That is not the same as claiming that morality is therefore "subjective" and up for individual choice. It isn't. It is cultural and social. And it varies with the culture and the society and as they change.
So probably there are no moral absolutes, so the argument from moral absolutism isn't a good one.
6. Love: Our experience of love tells us that there is more to reality than simple matter and energy. There is an innate human ability to genuinely care.
I'm kind of minded to grant you this one! Well, sort of. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is
more than matter and energy, just that it isn't simple. And that shouldn't really be a surprise anyway for any generation that has grown up failing to successfully program VHS recorders.
Yeah, it's complicated, but nothing in that says it isn't matter and energy and stuff all the same.
7. Rational Minds: Our rational minds point to a rational God. Why? Because it is preposterous to believe that the rational comes from the non-rational. It is ludicrous to believe the rational comes from the irrational. Epistemological nihilism (that we cant know anything) comes from this belief (that the mind is an accident). Its far more rational to believe that our mind comes from a rational being than it is to believe that our mind comes from the irrational.
All your preceding points have some rational element to them. This one doesn't. It has gone all ranty.
I'll grant that rationality is in need of some explanation (that's not to say that we'll ever find one, but it is sufficiently interesting to attract research grants). But to claim off the belt that rationality can ONLY come from rationality seems a huge step. A huger step. maybe, than claiming that it can come from slightly less rationality - in other words that it can evolve.
8. We as human beings have an innate drive for meaning in life. We are always attaching meaning to life. The only way that there can be meaning in life is if there is a God that created us for a purpose. No God means life is ultimately meaningless. The innate drive for meaning in life is an indicator God has left within each of us that we are created for a purpose and that is why we have that innate drive for meaning and purpose.
Just because we are looking for something doesn't mean we will find it, or even that it exists.
9. None of has seen life come from non-life. An Atheist believes that life comes from non-life. This is a huge leap of faith. Why? This is because all of my observation tells me plant life comes from plant life, animal life comes from animal life, human life comes from human life. We never get the animate from the inanimate. The Atheist is the only one that says that there is one exception to this: In the beginning, life comes from non life.
This is a big old complicated thing and is probably not for this thread. But sure, none of us have seen life come from non-life: but sure also, what we
mean by life and non-life is a bit of a fuzzy thing. Is a virus alive? I don't know. It's nothing to do with the virus, but it is everything to do with how people get taught what "alive"means.
Could giraffes evolve from grass? probably not.
Could giraffes evolve from flu viruses? probably not.
Could giraffes evolve from something a bit less like giraffes? almost certainly yes.
