Existence of god

I will first finish off the point concerning biology which will I think answer some of the problems you see. DNA is a kind of information but to call it immaterial is somewhat misleading. DNA in itself is a material and as with all other information the DNA is just the carrier of the information. I can"t see any example where there is information without a material carrier holding it (also consciousness isn"t immaterial as it is dependent upon brains). Now the question is in the case of DNA whether information can be created by natural means. And the clear answer to that is yes. Let"s look at an example. If you take glass and throw it on the floor it will crash into many pieces which scatter over the floor. What is build is actually information. If one would look at each piece of the glass and where it has landed you can calculate from there many things reaching from the properties of the glass itself to the height from which it fell. This is information and it is build by natural means. The same happens actually in DNA. All the time there are mistakes in the replication there is some new information created. The question is now whether the DNA resembles more a Chinese symbol or a natural process of information creation. It seems to be pretty obvious concerning the gigantic amount of information in DNA and the obvious evolutionary history it went through from very small DNAs in early single celled life to our human DNA today, that the building of the information is at least throughout the evolution itself a natural process without intelligence. The start in an abiogenesis is, as already stated, so far not observed, but that again doesn"t even in the slightest point in the direction of an intelligent design. Evolution is a process taking enormous amounts of time and as I have already said, all our current hypothesis concerning the beginning of life, whether by self replicating RNA or a combination of those with enzymes (which by the way seem to be able to self assemble too, because of the properties of the amino acids), take way more time than we can test or even have been testing for. Therefore no scientist is actually surprised that we didn"t build life so far, as also all our knowledge shows that it only happen very few times. Therefore to say either that DNA and its information or the lack of life synthesized in the laboratory show the need of a creator god is not scientifically honest. Coming back to the question about the laws of logic as well as nature. Without a physical surrounding the laws of logic firstly have nothing to apply on and they also can"t be taken as applying for sure anywhere but in the context of our laws of nature. You can say in one way that the laws of logic are a necessary ground for the laws of nature but in a different view point, we can only have our laws of logic under some specific laws of nature. The laws of nature as they are the information embedded in all physical things are one possible set off rules which are working with the laws of logic. The laws of logic therefore are also implied by the laws of nature in a interdependent relation where with different laws of nature, logic wouldn"t work (as we build the laws of logic also in context of the observation of our nature which seemingly fitted the description by the logical laws) and with a different kind of logic the laws of nature as we know them right now would be impossible too. If we now look especially at miracles we see always a suspension of the laws of nature. This result in contradictions as for example it would result in causes with no effect as well as material effects with an immaterial cause which as the laws of causation are building upon the laws of logic also infringes on them. Also if you say that the world is looked at as though it were logical such things would imply that our scientific description of our nature wouldn"t work either. Therefore god suspending any of those laws would give rise to a good amount of contradiction in all our observation. The question why our universe works by with natural and logical laws is another important one. You again as with the thought of morality just set god as the reason for the laws of nature and logic, which would work (in theory not observation). The thing is that if you take the laws of nature as starting point (they can be build without intelligence as I show later) they will build automatically a logical universe as we can see that the laws of nature actually comply with the laws of logic and wouldn"t allow for an illogical universe. How the connection works that our laws of nature only comply with a logical universe, is in our current point impossible to answer as the implications of the laws of nature are to complex to extrapolate from them reasonable and to mark the observed connection. The connection could therefore be both chance or to necessity (the laws of nature being possible just in that way). To take a supernatural explaination though possible would still have to be grounded in clear evidence as it else would be a circular reasoning. Now whether science is founded by people expecting supernatural design isn"t of any importance. Where the laws can come from can actually be explained by the multiverse hypothesis in a purely natural way. The multiverse as I have already explained is a theory which is seemingly not directly testable by our means. It is important to not forget on your part that god too is just such an untestable hypothesis. It isn"t even that, because, in contrast to the multiverse ,which is build on our observed data inside the universe as a kind of necessary thing once you look at the laws of nature and take them seriously, the god hypothesis is not based on our observation in the universe but just a pure believe. We can therefore say that the theistic hypothesis, even if the naturalistic one isn"t provable (at least not direct), is clearly not aligning with our current data and is therefore not a good hypothesis (yes again you can explain data away but I have addressed that already). As you say it is also the answer to the fine tuning. Contrary to your statement, there is no reason to believe that the multiverse needs so many different attributes (especially not intelligent (I don"t even know how a multiverse is supposed to be intelligent). It needs some basic rules with which universes are build (which we with inflation have a model for) and those are surprisingly easy. Additionally to say that our universe even is fine tuned I find an astonishing claim especially if saying it is fine tunes for us. The universe shows no sign of being designed for life as it is in the vast majority uninhabitable. The claim that just those constants would give raise to life as we know it I agree with but this doesn"t say that other life would be impossible (for that claim you need to show what is actually needed for life). Even if accepting fine tuning it wouldn"t at all entail a designing god, because in theism life isn"t purely natural and therefore god should be able to make life with all different masses of the electron etc. Only in naturalism you expect that there is some necessary condition to build life. Concerning the properties of nothing you seemingly haven"t gotten my point. What I am saying is that if you look at our universe and see what it is actually made of, you will see that it is always made of two separated parts which together always give if added zero. If we look to energy which as I explained is actually our entire universe, we see that there actually isn"t any. Therefore to say that we are a configuration of nothing is absolutely reasonable to say. Whether the human brain can think of it as reasonable is again an absolute non sequitur as our brains have not at all the purpose to think about it. Then again you describe the laws of nature as an immaterial thing, while they are closer to information embedded in physical things (again I haven"t ever seen immaterial information). IF you as Dr. Kraus say take nothing as physical it is well possible to have the information of the laws of nature or as described earlier give rise to them in the act of coming to a specific configuration of nothing in for example an infinite multiverse. If we now come to the question whether it is reasonable to not know certain things about god, I have to say that it is really an extraordinary piece of special pleading. If you are persistent about gods logic it actually is impossible to have free will and also have an omniscient being. The two stand in a direct contradiction and therefore you would have to except either lacking omniscience or face the problem of evil in the world. In this case again there is actually a major problem. If we postulate a all loving god and one that cares especially about humans, we would expect to see either a perfect world or a world which is perfect to bring people to god. The problem is that we don"t observe either possibility (that it isn"t the best is pretty obvious and therefore contradicts omniscience as you quite rightly stated) as even if there where one way of bringing one person more to him, (and there as earlier stated clearly is) this brings about a contradiction and shows that our universe doesn"t go along with a all loving and all knowing god. To say that it needs a god to sustain our existence is again just a mere claim where I also can"t see any reason for why it would be needed to have such a sustaining source (why must existence be sustained) To conclude you can say that, in light of not needing god for either the complexity of life, or the building of information and also the impossibility to combine of omniscience and free will, or a suspend of the laws of nature without breaking the laws of logic, there is no need for a god, nor any evidence pointing in that direction, making a god not reasonable. To the ontological argument and the argument concerning morality I hope to come to the next time.