The existence of a caring and active God is unlikely

Occam'z Razor: I don't think I made my point very clear when I talked about the Boeing 747 argument, So I'd like to put it in terms of Occam's Razor. You likely already know what this is, But it's essentially a rule of logic that, When trying to decide what is the truth, The option requiring the fewest assumptions must be true. We use this way of thinking in almost every area of life. Let's take aliens visiting earth and abducting cows as a quick example. The amount of assumptions that must be made in order to believe that aliens are coming to earth and abducting cows on a wide scale is enormous, Whereas the alternative requires you to assume a very small amount of things. I think we can both agree that Occam's razor is a very useful tool in debate and in academic thought as a whole. You yourself used it when referring to the testimony of people claiming to have had religious experiences (i. E it requires fewer assumptions to believe that these people were all telling the truth as opposed to the required assumptions necessary to believe that they were not telling the truth). Now let's apply this to the comparison of life coming about naturally versus life coming about via intelligent design. It would be intellectually dishonest to claim that there aren't any assumptions or extrapolations which must be made to believe that life came about naturally, But we can categorically work through these assumptions and analyze just how reasonable these assumptions are. But when you try to consider the number of assumptions which must be made in order to believe in an active and caring God, It's impossible to even begin to break down the magnitude of them. The number of assumptions which must be made to believe in something that is infinitely complex and infinitely unfathomable is itself infinite. So if you believe in Occam's Razor, If you believe that that which requires the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true, Then the natural conclusion is that human life coming about naturally is much more likely. The reason for this is because you are comparing something with finite assumptions (naturally occurring life) to something which requires infinite assumptions (life via intelligent design). So you see there really isn't any way of stepping around this. You are comparing the probability of something that is infinitely complex to the probability of something existing which has finite and totally comprehensible complexity. Laws of The Universe: I do admit that you were not at first talking about evolution, But I couldn't help but take on your claim of "how can order come from chaos. " I assume you mean "how can there be set rules to the code of the universe which fostered sentient life? " (please correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption). Have you considered the possibility that the current laws of the universe seem to be friendly to sentient life solely due to sentient life revolving around these laws of the universe? Let's take a common intelligent design argument which is the "goldilocks" argument. Basically, The fact that the earth is the perfect distance from the sun indicates some form of intelligent design. I think there's a major flaw to this argument, And also a major flaw to the over all argument regarding the order of the universe, Which is essentially assuming that if the sun were closer to or further from the earth, Or if gravity were just a little bit stronger, Then life itself would not exist because of just how sensitive life is. Unfortunately, There is no alternative universe which we can observe to test this hypothesis, So let's look at the next best thing: currently existing life. Take starfish living near the bottom of mile long oceanic trenches, Which, According to David Attenborough in Blue Planet II, Reach levels of pressure equivalent to multiple jet planes stacked on top of each other. Another example of this is microbes living in extreme volcanic temperatures, And even thriving in micro-gravity (https://cosmosmagazine. Com/space/microbes-in-space-concerns-raised-about-bacteria-in-the-iss). This indicates that life is anything but fragile, And indicates further that we require the "laws" of the universe to be the way that they are because obtaining sentience in a way that is incompatible with the laws of the universe is impossible. You see, When there are certain requirements for thriving in a given environment, There is only one path to thriving in that environment, Which is adaptation. Your argument from first cause: I find your argument from first cause very stimulating and I've actually spent a lot of time pondering this issue. Here is the conclusion that I've reached: the fact of anything existing at all, No matter the meta-narrative you believe in, Is incompatible with the law of cause and effect. I'm guessing you already know what the law of cause and effect is, But let me rehash it just to make sure we're on the same page: the law of cause and effect states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Everything that exists must have had something which set it in motion. Every output has a corresponding input. But there's a major problem with this. Everything that exists can be traced back to whatever preceded it, And if you keep tracing back this chain of causes and effects you eventually get to the ultimate meta-narrative, Which is what so many people disagree on. But here's the problem: the universe being set in motion defies the law of cause and effect. Let's take the existence of God, For example. He is an effect without a cause, A reaction without an action, An output with no input. He exists without being set in motion, And this goes directly against the law of cause and effect. Now let's take the big bang. It is also a reaction with no action, An output with no input, And etc. And really when you get right down to it these two general narratives are the only possible ways to think about the universe coming into existence. Either the thing which set the universe in motion existed for all eternity, Or it existed spontaneously out of nothing. Either way it is a cause without an effect. So the fact that anything exists at all is extremely puzzling, And any theory at all about how the universe came to be falls prey to this unavoidable paradox. But the fact remains that one theory, The theory of life coming about naturally, Requires the assumption that something came about spontaneously from nothing, Whereas the theory of intelligent design requires the assumption that not only did something exist for all of eternity without being set into motion, But that something (god) made everything that currently exists out of nothing. So either way something comes from nothing, But in the latter case something comes from nothing at the hands of an infinitely complex being. Your Argument of Degree: I feel like this argument sort of falls flat because there isn't really an objective and universal standard for beauty or goodness. You used the example of singing and I find a few flaws with this. First of all, You can't really claim that God can be used as an objective standard of good solely because there is a standard for a good and bad singer, Because neither you nor I have ever heard God sing. Additionally, Different people find different singing voices attractive. Some people really like Mongolian throat singing, But I personally do not. Some people think that Jackson Pollock's work is "good" and "inspired, " but I think it's not. Different people enjoy different things at different levels, And really what is "good" can essentially just be broken down to mean what is the most enjoyable, Which does not require some supernatural explanation to rationalize. Chaos out of Order: Now I think your question of "how can order come from chaos? " Can actually be asked in reverse: "how can chaos come from order? " According to the entirety of the bible, God is the ultimate being with absolutely no imperfections, And He created all things with the intention of order and goodness. And at first this took place with Adam and Eve living together in harmony with all the animals of the Garden of Eden. How then did absolute chaos result from this? I suspect your response would be because God gave man free choice to do with it what he will, But this ignores the fact that God has 100% control over all things, Or else the bible's claim that God is omnipotent is a bold-faced lie. He is, According to the bible, The sole proprietor of the universe, And had complete say over the nature of mankind. If you program a computer, And the computer malfunctions, You don't blame the computer, You blame yourself. Or, Since intelligent design theorists love to use the analogy of a clock and a clock-maker so much, If a clock malfunctions, You don't blame the clock, But instead you blame the clock-maker. Humans cannot predetermine their own virtue or venom. I never made a conscious decision about how much to care about other people, Or how sad I would be when I learn of horrendous acts committed by horrendous people. And those horrendous people never tweaked how horrendous they should be. The difference between the level of control a sociopath has over their personality disorder is comparable to how much control a generally immoral person has over their immorality. This is also true for Adam. He never decided in the womb how moral or immoral he would be, Or whether he would have a proclivity to disobey. This decision is completely in the hands of God. Note: I hope you don't mind that I essentially stole your idea of splitting up my arguments into different tidbits. I have some more things to say but I'm running out of room to say it so back to you my guy