I really despise these types of harangues, sloppy thinking and faulty logic abound.
First, logic itself proves that logic cannot tell us about all truth. And that’s even discounting the need for starting axioms! (You might want to google “limits of logic”). Logic has logical limits, which means there are some truths that are not provable through logic.
Second, science is not logical. The scientific method is logically flawed. This is not to discount the value and usefulness of science in discovering truth, rather it is pointing out a fact that has to be considered in an philosophical analysis of the ways of discovering truth.
Additional problems include misuse of the word “Scientifically” life does not evolve “scientifically” what you mean to say is that life evolved in a way as predicted by science. This also fails to recognize that the hypothesis of evolution is not scientifically testable because it can not be subjected to control reproducible experimentation. Rather it depends on the weaker Aristole method of observation and conjecture. (This is not to dismiss evolution, as I believe the evolution hypothesis- to my mind it best fits the current observations we have).
Third, logic does not disprove the existence of God. Science does not disprove the existence of God. In fact currently there is no method to disprove the existence of God. Therefore, while the inability to disprove God’s existence does not prove He exists, I would think a little less snarkiness towards believers might be in order.
Fourth, you argue for the creation of life as essentially a random event. This however requires glossing over the fact that we still don’t know how life began. Does order randomly appear out of chaos? Is not the normal flow to go from a high level of order to a high level of chaos? (2nd law of thermodynamics).
Does a functioning Swiss watch randomly form for us just discover? Or does not the order of a Swiss watch suggest construction and thus a Creator?
The argument by design for a Creator is not a weak argument. Is it Scientific? No, since it can not be tested. Logically it is sound, however it does depend on a contested axiom: Order does not randomly come from disorder.
In the absolute sense this is probably untrue, but when we are considering the relative levels of order and chaos in the debate over the creation of the universe… the probability of this order appearing at random must be considered so very extreme, that I do not find the assumptions of atheists to be very persuasive.
After all, we do not have any proof that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe. Even if we did, it would not explain the perfect condition of several universal constants that allowed the evolution of life. To truly argue this is random, you would need proof that several billions of alternate universes exist that do not have such conditions.
No… the argument for Atheism is rather weak at best.
We have also not even considered the personal interaction that many individuals have had with divinity. Will you dismiss all of them as hallucinations? How can you be so sure that it is not your senses that are deceiving you?
