Unrelated note, but I'm curious: are you a Muslim? Most Christians have abandoned these lines of argumentation decades ago, but I notice that most Muslims still use them.
Anyways, the article appears to be a hodgepodge of cosmological and teleological arguments unknowingly cribbed from Thomas Aquinas and other thinkers.
This is going to be a somewhat superficial treatment of the post since it goes in so many different directions, but let's actually dissect it:
quote:
The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn’t write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.
Definitely a cosmological argument... it focuses on the origin of the universe. It's very much a stretch to say that "no atheist has ever been able to counter [this proof] effectively." The reason theologians like William Lane Craig have had to reformulate the premises of cosmological arguments like this one is because it has a central flaw that can be described as the "problem of regression."
That is, if we take into account the premise that "all things that exist must have a cause" and we say "the universe had a cause, called God," two things are possible:
1. God is caused, and this SuperGod is itself also caused, and the SuperSuperGod above this is also caused... ad infinitum. (problem of regression)
2. God is uncaused. However, by allowing for uncaused entities we contradict the original premise of "all things that exist are caused."
.
.
.
quote:
They believe that not only did whole planets appear spontaneously, but also believe that the fact that these planets do not collide as meteors do, that they have gravity, that they contain the proper atmospheric conditions for life to take hold and contain sustenance to sustain this life all happened by mere fluke. Yet the same people would (rightly) denounce as preposterous the notion that the Egyptian pyramids built themselves. They would point to the structure and detailed design of these impressive inanimate objects. Yet they outrageously chalk up to coincidence billions upon billions of times more detail and design in all parts of life found in this universe.
To be sure, someone can build sandcastles in the sky on how the spontaneous coming together of molecules, then turning into bricks, changing further into buildings, culminating in 10,000 perfectly aligned skyscrapers all built with no builder is a plausible scenario. They can form intricate arguments to support this theory. But in the end, the entire proposition remains offensive to logic itself.
A teleological argument, and one that is poorly formulated since it doesn't take into account actual science behind the phenomena it is describing.
Also (and this is a very common mistake), the term "logic" refers to the formulation and grammatical structure of arguments and how they follow certain axiomatic laws of structure and inference. You're misusing the term here.
.
.
.
quote:
Even if this were possible, would the simplest of animals have been able to survive were it missing even one essential organ? Would human beings survive if one organ or cavity was missing or displaced, even after somehow being otherwise perfectly formed with no designer? The simple fact is that even if humans were so perfectly formed, if food, water, sunlight or any one of a host of details necessary for life to exist were somehow missing, human life would have lasted on this planet for a maximum of a few days.
Take a nice, detailed look at evolutionary biology sometime. It'd help answer all these concerns.
.
.
.
Argh. The original posting definitely is much too large, too unfocused, and poorly structured. I'm not just talking about from a standpoint of its arguments, as a paper it needs to be neater and more focused.
You wrote an impressive volume of stuff, but unless you can tie it coherently into a few points you're in danger of using spaghetti logic.
In addition, please go back to the original sources. Read Aquinas, criticisms of Aquinas, as well as the proofs and disproofs of various other thinkers in the Philosophy of Religion. It would really help you.
The ideas you're propagating are hardly new... and they were formulated in a much cleaner, neater, more concise way by others. Please learn from their example and come back to us when you're a bit more organized.