Again? Not Again:
1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
Well, I'm not as sure there is no god as I'm sure of gravity, but am just as sure there is no god as I'm sure there are no unicorns. I can't see any reason to look for unicorns, can you?
2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
Well the initial idea of the man walking in the forest who finds a watch, pretty much tells it all. The watch is obviously designed because we know watches are designed, because we know the designers are people. The trees in the forest didn't strike the walker as designed. Why not? Because designers generally build rather than let grow organically. We differentiate quite readily between natural and man made. That suggests strongly that nature isn't designed, at least not in the sense of a planner/builder.
Nature is however, often complex and functional. Does that imply a designer? Not really. Nature is complex but odd in that it uses reoccurring themes to the point of madness and includes useless bits from other "designs. That is explained easily by evolution, but no so much by a designer.
3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
I find both the idea that stuff has always existed and stuff came from nothing equally improbable. I find the idea that a being capable of causing stuff to come from nothing always existed or suddenly sprang into existence even more improbable than stuff suddenly springing into existence.
4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
Sure, but we can tangibly verify all of those things in one way or another.
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
Sure. But the fact that we can't tangibly verify him at all in anyway, does strongly suggest he doesn't exist.
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
Neither. We don't know what came before the big bang.
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
See answer number three.
8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
No. Even sedimentary rock contains scads of information about the past. But it wasn't written, just accumulated.
9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
Um how did you come to the conclusions that minds are greater than matter?
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
Our sense of right and wrong is evolutionarily driven and is the result of empathy.
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
Every law does need a law giver or givers. But to talk of moral law is a misnomer. Humans do not agree about what is moral. That suggests it's just us chickens and our empathy.
12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
Um no. The Grand Canyon is complex and mapping it difficult. But a river with no intelligence whatsoever created it.
13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
About that man in the woods. . . see answer number 2.
14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
No necessarily. It would have to be beyond this universe.
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
No. That's like saying I won the lottery, so the lottery must have been finely tuned just so that I in particular would win.
1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
Well, I'm not as sure there is no god as I'm sure of gravity, but am just as sure there is no god as I'm sure there are no unicorns. I can't see any reason to look for unicorns, can you?
2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
Well the initial idea of the man walking in the forest who finds a watch, pretty much tells it all. The watch is obviously designed because we know watches are designed, because we know the designers are people. The trees in the forest didn't strike the walker as designed. Why not? Because designers generally build rather than let grow organically. We differentiate quite readily between natural and man made. That suggests strongly that nature isn't designed, at least not in the sense of a planner/builder.
Nature is however, often complex and functional. Does that imply a designer? Not really. Nature is complex but odd in that it uses reoccurring themes to the point of madness and includes useless bits from other "designs. That is explained easily by evolution, but no so much by a designer.
3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
I find both the idea that stuff has always existed and stuff came from nothing equally improbable. I find the idea that a being capable of causing stuff to come from nothing always existed or suddenly sprang into existence even more improbable than stuff suddenly springing into existence.
4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
Sure, but we can tangibly verify all of those things in one way or another.
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
Sure. But the fact that we can't tangibly verify him at all in anyway, does strongly suggest he doesn't exist.
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
Neither. We don't know what came before the big bang.
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
See answer number three.
8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
No. Even sedimentary rock contains scads of information about the past. But it wasn't written, just accumulated.
9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
Um how did you come to the conclusions that minds are greater than matter?
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
Our sense of right and wrong is evolutionarily driven and is the result of empathy.
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
Every law does need a law giver or givers. But to talk of moral law is a misnomer. Humans do not agree about what is moral. That suggests it's just us chickens and our empathy.
12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
Um no. The Grand Canyon is complex and mapping it difficult. But a river with no intelligence whatsoever created it.
13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
About that man in the woods. . . see answer number 2.
14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
No necessarily. It would have to be beyond this universe.
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
No. That's like saying I won the lottery, so the lottery must have been finely tuned just so that I in particular would win.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
