Nice first try, Ryan, but as I predicted, there are equifinality issues with each approach. I'll detail these below. PLease don't take my comments as a personal attack, or as an attack on religion; neither of these is intended. Instead what I'm suggesting, as I mentioned in our previous discussion, is that the belief (or lack of belief) in the existence of God is not one that can be reached rationally, but must be the result of a "leap of faith." This shouldn't be controversial, as the vast majority of Christian traditions emphasize the centrality of faith. : THE UNMOVED MOVER
This argument relies on the nvestigator reaching an arbitrary point in his/her investigation beyond which s/he feels it is unproductive to search. Since different researchers have different degrees of patience and/or imagination, this point can not be fixed, except on an individual level. For instance, a more dillegent researcher might add one more question to your list, namely "ok, then, where did God come from?" The answer "he always existed" is not an answer at all, but an avoidance of the question.
: THE FIRST CAUSE
Suffers from the same weakness, ultimately.
: THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
You mentioned Occam's Razor, so I'll apply it to your conclusions. The assumption that two particles (actually contemporary "Big Bang" cosmology doesn't even require particles, but for the sake of argument...) existed at the Big Bang is quite parsimonious. We see particles today, and we understand how they act. However, we do not see God today, and do not have any clear understanding of how "he" acts. It is therefore more parsimonious to trust a purely naturalistic explanation than to trust a "supernatural" one, since it only includes variables that we know to be present. A naturalistic explanation does not, in other words, assume the consequent, whereas a supernatural explanation must. Since it is the existence of God that you are trying to demonstrate, it is not logically valid to include his existence as one of your fundamental premises.
: THE OBJECTIVITY OF VALUE
(SNIP)
: To sum up this argument, if there are differing values of perfectness then there must be an absolute perfect cannon which we are using to compare. This we call the Tao or God.
There are two major problems with this argument. First, the argument assumes that "values" (ethics, standards, morals, etc.) exist on a "ratio" scale with fixed intervals between different degrees of value, and a fixed, known "zero point" (technically, you assume a fixed, known "maximum" point, but that necessarily implies a fixed quantity against which all else is measured, so it works out the same). There is no a priori reason why "values" should be on a ratio scale, rather than an interval or ordinal scale (neither of which assume absolutes), and therefore no eason to posit a god in order to explain the existence of values. In many ways, informed self-interest is sufficient explanation, and again this phenomenon does not require the acceptance of untestable premises.
Second (and see below re: "RIGHT AND WRONG...") this argument assumes that all people in all times and places have exactly the same moral code as western Europeans and Euro-Americans. This premise is demonstrably false.
: THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
Again, several issues. First, "highly improbable" is not the same thing as impossible. Many highly improbable events happen. In fact, each one of us is the result of a single sperm, out of millions, fertilizing an egg. The one single sperm that "succeeds" is not more likely, before the fact, to be the lucky one. It nevertheless is. The odds are less than one in one million that the sperm that resulted in your existence would be the one that did so. This, multiplied by the odds of your mother and father meeting, multiplied by the odds of each of them being that one lucky sperm, multiplied by...ad nauseum, make your existence an extremely improbable event, and yet here you are. My point is that very, very unlikely things happen, regardless of their precise statistical probability.
Second, the apparent "perfect fit" between us and our universe is most likely due to the fact that this is the universe in which we developed. In a universe that had different properties, other types of life (if any) would also perceive a perfect fit of their universe to themselves. If humans had gills and were born underwater, we would perceive water to be perfectly designed for life and be unable to imagine how life could ever exist on land. Environmental adaptation is entirely sufficient to explain the appearance of a universe designed "for us."
Third, the appearance of design does not necessarily imply a conscious designer. Waves lapping the shore of a lake sort pebbles and sand by size, based entirely on the relative strength of the wave at different points in its course up the beach. This type of size sorting can be nearly perfect, and yet it is not reasonable to attribute intent to the waves, nor to the lake as a whole, despite the near perfection of the pattern it creates.
Fourth, the argument from design ignores the evidence that in many cases, the universe appears to be cobbled together out of ill-fitting spare parts. The way my lower back feels right now, for instance, is evidence that I was very poorly designed. The fact that I am wearing glasses suggests that my eyes are poorly designed (in fact, Dawkins' excellent book Climbing Mount Improbable dwells in some detail on the poor design of the eye in particular and the argument from design in general). I do not conclude, on the basis of my bad back and failing eyesight, that God is an inept designer however. Instead, I conclude that there is sufficient imperfection apparent in the universe to suggest that it was not designed at all, and that the patterns we see, like the size-sorting of beach sands, are the result of undirected processes falling into the most easily sustained patterns.
: LEWIS’ THEORY OF THE LOADED COIN
(SNIP)
: Lewis goes on to say, “And the question whether miracles occur is just the question whether Nature is ever doctored.” That person who is able to doctor the universe is what we call God.
Certainly any entity that was capable of altering the laws of probability at will would appear godlike to us. However, the "question" Lewis posed is not sufficiently answered. Again, to assume the active interference of God as one of your premises is not logically valid. Lewis, although he was an excellent mathematician in his time, really did not understand all the implications of the Gaussian distribution of events. While it's statistically more likely that an event will happen close to the "average" for that type of event, this is not a causal law, but an empirical observation. The reason that events tend toward the average is that this is how the average is determined in the first place. In addition, by discounting the highly improbable, Lewis undermines his own argument, since it is only the rarity of these non-normal events that makes the modal category relevant. (Besides, as you mentioned above, it is exactly an extremely improbable event that we are trying to understand in the first place!)
: RIGHT AND WRONG AS A CLUE TO THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE
This approach assumes, once again, that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic moral and ethical codes with which we are familiar are the only moral or ethical codes in existence. Once again, this is demonstrably false. In addition, this argument misplaces the source of these codes of behavior as something inherent and instinctual, when in fact they are learned. Children are not born with a knowledge of the Ten Commandments, any more than they are born already knowing Tort law or campaign finance regulations. These rules of appropriate behavior are taught to children and conformity to these rules is (more or less) consistently rewarded, while violation is (more or less) consistently punished. The apparent homogeneity of these rules of behavior in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic societies is a result of similar sources of origin. Because you grew up in a civilization that was based, at least in part, on Biblical teachings, you believe that Biblically inspired rules for behavior are appropriate. Had you been born to an Aztec family 600 years ago, your ethical codes would no doubt have been different.
In short, despite your noble attempt, you have not presented a convincing argument. While each of your arguments is, in itself, interesting, each ultimately begins with the assumption that the Judeo-Christian deity exists. Since this is the point that you are trying to prove, your arguments are insufficient.
Again, this has no bearing on whether or not your God exists. It demonstrates merely that a belief in God ultimately is founded on a leap of faith, and not on a rational assessment of the empirical evidence, as Lark pointed out to you earlier.
Still, I enjoyed reading your arguments, you are quite eloquent. Thank you.
-Floyd
