Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Esquilax]

First we must define what we mean by "design".  I can accept this definition: purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

Given this definition I want to ask you a question as well.  If I write a letter to you that states "Iroscato is an intelligent person." Can you explain to me the semiotics of those words purely on the basis of the physics and chemistry of the ink and paper?  When we see word, language the only explanation is top down not bottom up.

I can have a computer write that sentence; there are programs around that will select for intelligible words amongst randomly generated sentence strings. If I give it sufficient time- and I assure you that the billions of years that the universe has been around for will be more than enough- then I could easily extract that sentence, most likely many times, from a totally random generator. As has been told to you before, complexity is not an indicator of design, and it's certainly not an indicator of intent. You accept a definition of design that refers to planning and intention, and yet when you come to your example you merely assume intention based on complexity, a trait that is not in any way correlated with intention. If I leave a random number generator on overnight I could have a string of millions of digits by the time I wake up, an incredibly complex number, that arose completely without design. If I leave an aquarium out in the rain and then analyze its contents in terms of molecules and the motions therein, I again have a very complex sample size that arose entirely by chance. Your continued insistence that complexity equals design is entirely false.

Hell, in this case you haven't even bothered to justify your assertion that complexity equals design, you just stated that you'd decide it was designed based on that, while ignoring the real reason, which is contrast with the natural. You know that words generally have a writer because you know they do not arise naturally, you know that they are a language of symbols derived by a designer, something that you do not have for the natural world or the universe. In fact, given your particular views, you have no point of contrast at all, as you believe that all of reality was designed, so in your example, you are looking at a designed letter, on designed paper, on a designed table, on top of a designed earth, in a designed cosmos; how is it that you can look at the letter and say that it, in particular, is designed, given this?

Is there any particular reason you seem to be avoiding my rebuttals to your points, by the way? Because I keep telling you these things, and you keep ignoring them in favor of repeating something I've already proven wrong posts ago.

As for the second question.  I have also given great thought to this because replacing one mystery with another is not a helpful way forward.  If you ask this question it shows immediately that you categorize God as created.  So you are talking about a created God.  If Richard Dawkins book was entitled, "A Created God's Delusion", I don't think many people would have bought it because I don't need him to tell me that created Gods are a delusion, we usually call them idols.  Your question is not valid because it rules out the explanation that is most likely to be true.  The question does not even apply to the definition of God, that is eternal supreme being, creator of space, time and all things.  The only way you can get anything out of it then in the negative sense is to assume that everything is in the category of being created which leads to positing in infinite series of causes.  

You say that "who created God" is a legitimate question, I don't think it is.  But let's assume that is.  You believe the universe created you, so who created your creator?

Why do you think that special pleading is a good course of argument? You can't just demand that the thing you're arguing for be exempt from all the rules you wish to impose on everything else because you said so: how on earth do you think that's a compelling statement?