Bad Arguments for God

[yoda55]

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of poor and inconsistent arguments for the existence of God.
I wrote an article on my website which points out the flaws and incoherence of the teleological and cosmological arguments.
Check it out at http://www.blazingtruth.com/2011/07/god-...-universe/
Is there anything I missed? Discuss it below.
Thank you for your time,
D

Perhaps the logic used in the link should be re-examined:
teleological -
The lame quoted "discussion" (about scientist-discovery vs. Christian-argument) of gravity values... The problem with the quotation and your conclusion is that gravity (for any celestial body; earth in particular) are approximations. Gravity, as it exists, is EXACTLY what it needs to be. The numbers appearing in the quotation are the results of rounding errors, stemming from the mathematical approximation model used to generate it. Using a single value for gravity is incorrect (though convenient). Gravity varies over the entire earth, susceptible to terrain irregularities and non-uniform mineral deposits. The latest *approximation* to earth's shape is an oblate spheroid... Example of the problem - recite the value of Pi... No, don't approximate. Just start listing the decimal places.
Darwin's *theory* of evolution. Again, the human being (finite and fallible) is attempting to describe, through approximations, an exacting universe. The text is trying to contrast a God (omniscient, omni-present, omnipotent, etc.) against a thinking individual furthest from that. Is the latter *theory* been proven? No. As yet, claimants point to the lack of contradiction as justification for its "truth". But, the *theory* was postulated by an individual with no access to the very building block blueprints which cause a living organism to become what it is (DNA)... Be that as it may, just because the contradiction has not yet been uncovered does not validate the *theory* as FACT. Anyone with some knowledge of mathematics and logic should recognize that point.
Paleantologists (sp?) search through acres of dirt to determine a timeline. They use radioactive carbon dating as their tool to assign age to objects found. However, upheavals in geologics over the centuries have re-arranged the radioactive carbon material. And, by so doing yield a false reading to any sample. Unreliable tools contribute to errors in conclusions.
The statement made (assuming ID were true) points to the possibility of "at least one" god. That would be enough to debunk atheism (by its very definition).

cosmological -
The rule of "cause and effect" is a quality of the universe which we occupy. The logic error is trying to confine a god within a very universe he made. The universe (of the Judeo-Christian god) didn't exist prior to the creatione event - it was made and set into motion by the creation event. Therefore, that god wasn't subject to the rules of that universe - the rules didn't exist and that god is not bound by them.
This universe is subject to a LAW of entropy. That supposes a beginning at the opposite end of that spectrum. If the 'big bang' is a human attempt to explain the beginning of all universal matter, then there's a glitch. Science claims that the *theory* is discontinous with the Singularity which pre-dated it. The *theory* has not been able to bridge the gap between the two. A Singularity is a static condition of a 0-D system. Flow of energy from kinetic to potential (and recirculation back, in this universe) requires a sink to collect the potential. It happens that the Singularity kinetic source would have to co-exist with the potential sink... Does that contradict? Yes. The Singularity (by accident) cannot give birth to a 4-D universe, behaving by the rules we see. So, science has a contradiction problem with the *theory* of 'big bang', and another explanation for the universe is still out there.
Another idea to contemplate - human beings were not present at the beginning. There are no witnesses. As the universe beginning pre-dates human existence, humans do NOT have the answers. So, rejecting a possibility out-of-hand is to emphasize the statistical error problem. Too few observations runs the risk of Type II error (embracing falshood, accepting something as true when it is not). Going in the other direction of too many observations runs the risk of Type I error (rejecting truth, ignoring something when it it true).

To ignore the answer that a god exists, out-of-hand, is to risk a rude awakening (with consequences that have lasting effects) - so ends the atheist, no option of mercy. Keeping an open mind, and seeking truth, permits mercy to be granted.