The existence of a caring and active God is unlikely

"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"Haha, I don't mind at all, But I do wish that you would neaten up your writing a bit. "I think we can both agree that Occam's razor is a very useful tool in debate and in academic thought as a whole. "I agree, But it shows that something is more likely to be true, Not simply true period. "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. "I disagree with your logic here. You are essentially saying that not only do we have to assume the existence of God, But we have to assume everything about his nature. However, The only assumptions necessary are simply that he exists, Is self-sustaining, Omnipotent, And omniscient. By your logic, Evolution has an infinite amount of assumptions because we must assume everything about it, including things as insignificant as the position of certain atoms or particles. I hope you see what I'm saying here. "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). "What I was trying to say was "how can multiple patterns emerge from an explosion? " For example, All planets are spherical in shape, But how can such a pattern emerge from a cacophony of particles bouncing around endlessly? "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. "I agree that that is a flaw. However, I would reword it to be that the fact that the hundreds of variables necessary for a planet to be able to create life makes the possibility of intelligent design likely. For example, Did you know that the position of our Sun and solar system within the spirals of the Milky Way Galaxy is important to life? There are hundreds more as well (I suggest that you look them up, They're very interesting). "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. "This is true, But wouldn't you agree that an omnipotent (and self-sustaining) God would be more likely? An intelligent being which sustains his own existence seems to make much more since than a random explosion that came from nowhere. "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. "Again, If we make the assumption that God is omnipotent, Wouldn't it make more sense for him to be able to create something out of nothing than something coming out of nothing for no apparent reason? "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. "Haha, I don't mean that God sets the standard individually sets what good or bad is for each thing, But I mean that if he created us, We then have an inherent knowledge of what is good or bad. For example, A cute dog vs. An ugly cat. 99% of the time, Someone's going to describe the dog as cute and it becomes more "lovable" because of that. "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. "Allow me to clarify. I mean things within certain genres. For example, I myself am tone deaf, So if I were to be compared to Ariana Grande, A VERY large majority would say she has a better voice than I do. That doesn't mean that everyone has to like her music, I'm simply saying that we know something good from something bad (or not as good) inherently, Which makes more sense from the perspective that a God who creates us gives us the knowledge to know the difference between the two. "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. "You are right, My response is that God gave man free will. This doesn't ignore God's omnipotence, It simply means that he chooses not to control the free will of the people he creates. In fact, He's promised not to quite a few times in the Bible. "If you program a computer, And the computer malfunctions, You don't blame the computer, You blame yourself. "This example is not comparable because computers do not have free will. God created Adam and Eve knowing full well that they would sin. He gave them a choice to deviate from His plan. Computers don't have a choice, They do entirely what you tell them to do, And whether you make a mistake in the code is your fault. "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. "Everyone has the proclivity to disobey. Adam simply chose to in the moment, But the way he was born does not make him make that choice. Lastly, I will add my final point. I won't add any after this so that you don't have a LOT of stuff to respond to. The Age of The UniverseIt is frequently said that the universe is abotu 14 billion years old by scientists. However, Numerous scientific facts refute this. For example, Did you know that the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth? Scientists can actually calculate the rate at which it moves. One person decided to reverse the formula and found out that, If the moon had started out literally touching the Earth, The maximum possible age of the Earth would be 1. 6 billion years! Remember, This is the maximum value, because the moon probably didn't start touching the earth, So it fits the Christian view, Not the evolutionary one. Another is the presence of blue stars in the sky. Scientists know that blue stars can only exist for millions of years, Yet they claim that the universe has been around for billions. In case you'll say that they were simply created, They are made of gas, And since gas expands to fill it's container, And space has no boundaries, It is impossible for them to be formed. However, They are still shining in the sky, So that fits the Christian worldview, Not the evolutionary one. There are others, But I'll let you respond now. :)