Existence of god

Surely you do not believe the information itself is material? The information is encoded digitally in DNA (which is why it can be carried - I suppose you could compare it to a computer). We observe that digital information always comes from an intelligent source. Dr. Stephen Meyer explains this quite well in this short video - I would like your thoughts on it, of course (it's just over 3 minutes long): I am not arguing information is not carried by a material carrier - it is; however, this does not explain the immaterial information the material carrier is carrying. I am not convinced of your shattered glass analogy; the shattered glass will not be carrying digital information that could create something new. We can observe the double helix of DNA (as we observe the shattered glass), but this is observing its structure and the way it is built (e.g., measuring the height of something) - not the information being carried. As an article from 'LiveScience' explains: 'Similar to the way the order of letters in the alphabet can be used to form a word, the order of nitrogen bases in a DNA sequence forms"genes, which in the language of the cell, tells cells how to make proteins'. Most biologists (perhaps generally all) would agree that DNA appears to be an information and language system. Information is being transmitted (from DNA, to RNA, to protein), translated, and 'read'. The DNA molecule carries the same kind of 'functional' information that characterizes writings, or computer codes. Richard Dawkins said, 'the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like'. And Bill Gates, creator of Windows, said, 'DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created'. To form new animals from pre-existing life (and ultimately, non-life [abiogenesis] in neo-Darwinism), new information must arise. The mechanism of natural selection / random mutations that is spoken about by Darwinians does not offer any rational explanation for how information could arise randomly. The fossil record does not offer rescue for the Darwinians neither, as we observe in the Cambrian explosion, with new life forms suddenly appearing with no pre-existing ancestors; concerning genetics, this is not what should be predicted in naturalistic evolution, as natural selection and random mutations are to act gradually on organisms. Mutations generally cause harm, and to claim they (along with natural selection) can produce brand new life forms is a huge stretch from what we observe in modern science. You seem to be using your presupposition as an argument: 'It seems to be pretty obvious concerning the gigantic amount of information in DNA and the obvious evolutionary history it went through. . .'. What is so obvious about it? Most evolutionary biologists do not fear to admit that the origin of genetic information and the production of mass amounts of it to create new life forms on earth causes them struggle. This is also similar to cellular complexity: cells use miniature circuits and motors, encoded language and even help repair the DNA molecule. Biochemist Franklin Harold proclaimed that neo-Darwinainism has failed to offer explanations for cellular systems - most explanations are pure speculation. If we follow the evidence, I believe the most reasonable conclusion is an intelligence behind such complexities (cells, DNA and information, etc.). We also come to another problem when explaining the origin of DNA, RNA, etc. For you need DNA you make RNA, and you need RNA to make proteins, and you also need protein to make DNA. There are, I believe, too many problems with a purely naturalistic explanation for life and its complexities, and often to much speculation rather than empirical evidence. And the burden of proof, concerning such things as 'abiogenesis', I believe breaks the back of naturalistic/materialistic philosophy due to how much we have discovered in modern science (in genetics, paleontology, origin of life, etc.). The most reasonable explanation for what we have spoken about above I believe leads to a Creator; it is not scientifically honest to assert everything *must* have a materialistic/naturalistic explanation - this is not science, this is just trying to remain loyal to a philosophy of naturalism. 2. I believe it is rational to assume the laws of logic are for everywhere (and at all times). If not, uniformity in nature is not true, and we then doubt if science is even possible. I would like a specific example of how they are dependent on one another. I"m not dismissing this notion, but it would be easier to see what you are getting at with an example. Ultimately, I still believe it is obvious that the laws of logic are the ultimate foundation. For example, Newton discovered the law of gravity with science, but he *had* to presume the laws of logic to do so. Science cannot prove logic, rather it assumes it. However, I still do not believe you have addressed why any of these laws exist; you suggest we have described them (which I agree) but it doesn"t explain their origin in a universe where everything that exists must be physical. And also please further explain how God performing miracles is a contradictions (e.g., "causes without effect"). It appears to me that miracles (I.e., the ones God performs in Scripture) always have causes (God"s will) and effects (the miracle happens). They do not violate the laws of logic. Walking on water is not a contradiction (it doesn"t violate the law of identity, or law of non-contradiction); of course, it cannot happen naturally due to the laws of nature (which we have logic as a foundation for; we must have the laws of logic as a presupposition to discover and believe in the laws of nature - like gravity), but it is not logically absurd (I.e., it is not illogically impossible, but logically - impossible). The laws of logic are not defied when we observe a miracle. (The Christ could not be turning water into wine and turning it into Coca Cola at the same time, for example). Perhaps I misunderstood, but are you asserting that if we believe the world works logically, then scientific descriptions of nature could be false? How so? We must presume logic before we begin observing nature. 3. I believe the laws of logic and nature are evidence for an immaterial logical Creator and Lawgiver (as they are immaterial and logical and "omnipresent" - I.e, the work everywhere). If the universe came into existence naturally, what is preventing it from coming into existence illogically? For there are no rules for it before it comes into existence. There is nothing transcendent determining it should function properly. And this doesn"t explain how they can arise if they are not material (which is opposed to a materialistic worldview). You believe they are here by chance of neciesstiy (or suggest it, at least); this still does not explain how they are even possible in a naturalistic worldview; they are not composed of matter, do not take up space, and are not forces nor energy - they just exist, and the universe obeys them. They cannot come about by physical processes. I believe we are being rational for presuming logic; yet it is impossible to offer a foundation for them (and therefore truly trust their reliability) if we try to explain their origin from material, natural processes alone (as they contradict a materialistic worldview). The only way we can trust their reliability to the utmost is if we have a logical Lawgiver as a foundation for them. Why does the Christian accept the existence of the immaterial laws of logic? Because we have a logical Designer as our foundation for the existence of all of reality (that is secondary; God is prime reality). 4. Concerning the multiverse: No, we cannot physically observe God because he is immaterial (he is not made of matter, rather he made matter). But when the universe appears designed (e.g. the fine-tuning of the law of gravity I mentioned earlier), we are still in the boundaries of *empirical evidence* and using the evidence we have (that is, we have evidence of one universe and evidence of fine-tuning), it is reasonable to accept the existence of a Designer. Right now, we have no scientific reason for believing in the multiverse, and we have scientific reasons to believe in this universe, and scientific reasons for believing in fine-tuning (we"ve observed it), and so, we have scientific reasons for believing in a Creator. We do not have scientific reasons for believing in the multiverse. The only reason we should try to believe in it is if we are denying current evidence and trying to explain it with a naturalistic "god of the gaps"; again, this is not loyalty to observable science, on the contrary, it is loyalty to methodological, philosophical materialism. A Creator does align with current data, as we observe immaterial laws of logic and nature, fine-tuning, complex life, etc. we have no scientific reason to believe such things can arise by purely natural processes, and such a worldview often boils down to pure speculation (e.g. multiverse). Proponents of the multiverse believe in something that is generating/creating these universes; I stated that this "generator" would have to be fine-tuned and logical, to make such universes. When you speak of nothing, you do not appear to be speaking of actually nothing - I.e., the abscence of something. And you state, "If we look to energy which I explained is our entire universe, we see that there actually isn"t any". Do you believe energy ultimately exists, or not? Surely it cannot be both. But I still do not accept you are speaking of actual nothing - abscence of something - rather, you speculate what could have given rise to the universe. And do you believe the laws of nature are embedded in physical things? What do you mean? I"m not convinced information would be an accurate synonym. I"ll have to continue in the next round. . .