I believe there is an intelligent designer. Look at computers and the internet for instance, one day computers and the internet may become artificially intelligent. Perhaps also, those artificially intelligent computers will also have the same debate as we do about an intelligent designer. If an intelligent designer of a computer is man, by the same logic it is reasonable to suggest that an intelligent designer of the universe is possible.

Science has the argument that all life comes about by random mutation as separate from everything else. This is wrong, for we can view the human body as being a microcosem of the universe, in that if any part of the body decided to mutate randomly and do its own thing the body would quickly collapse into chaos and die. There is an intelligent designer behind the human body that keeps it working in harmony, this is in conflict with the idea of science that does not allow cooperation, harmony and intelligence in systems such as the body, jungles or the universe.

The opening..."If the earth and all living things were created by an intelligent designer - God, who created this designer? And if God just evolved from 'nothing', then it is possible that the earth similarly evolved, writes James Onen."

There is an inherent problem with "design" arguments, that is, to argue that God must exist because of apparent "intelligent" design in nature. REPLY: Intelligent Design does not argue in favor of GOD. It argues for a measurable, scientific approach to whether our universe was deigned randomly or by intelligence...whether that intelligence is the God of the Bible or whether a a force from Star Wars.

Because the rationale behind such an argument is that: "Seemingly complex things need designers, because they can't arise naturally - therefore the universe/earth/life too must have an intelligent designer." REPLY: Okay. I agree with this.

But if this is true, then, by the same logic, wouldn't it also be true that any designer capable of such complex designs would himself have to be extremely complex? REPLY: No it does not. Likely but not assumed.

If so, then who "intelligently" designed the intelligent designer? REPLY: That is not the argument being presented. We are observing our universe and we can leave the ID (whoever he or she or it may be) to His/Her/Its own debate.

Hence the very rationale behind the design argument collapses. On the other hand, if the cosmic designer was designed, then, we'd have to ask, by whom, or what? But if God was designed, then he's not God anymore - is he? It's quite unlikely that any believer would concede this point.

REPLY: Whether believer or unbeliever I do not concede this point. If God were designed (which is not the point of this argument -- or at least not at the beginning -- then how did you become the definer of who God is? "But that is an assumption one is not even entitled to hold."

A believer might choose to insist that God is the only complex thing that does not require design.

REPLY: See above.

But that is an assumption one is not even entitled to hold, given that God is the very thing whose existence one is trying to prove using the design argument! The believer would be guilty of fallacy of circular reasoning.

REPLY: circular reasoning has a legitimate place within scientific circles as well as philosophical. Darwin twisted himself into a pretzel attemtpting to make survival of the fittest result in a benign nature of man...although his writings smack of mankind evolving from primitive tribes to sophisticated tribes by elimination of the weak.

The design argument thus ends up working against theism, rather than for it.

REPLY: Huh?

Thanks for letting me post...this was enjoyable.

Not everyone believes in gods.

Of course, you have every right to believe whatever you choose to believe. I am not against religion. But when Brian Drileonzi (in an earlier article) put forward bad arguments to show that ‘God’ exists, I felt compelled to respond – telling him why I disagree. There is nothing wrong with that, is there? I am glad my article has stimulated debate. My friends, the godless are now among you – even in Africa! You better get used to it. They are not your enemies. They are people who simply possess a different point of view than yours. Nothing to be upset about. We all have differing views on many issues - the 'God' question simply being one among many such issues.

Snickels has basically missed most of my points and portrays himself to have disproved me, but has he really? I don’t think so. I wish to show him why.

SNICKELS said: “Intelligent Design does not argue in favor of GOD. It argues for a measurable, scientific approach to whether our universe was deigned randomly or by intelligence...whether that intelligence is the God of the Bible or whether a force from Star Wars.”

MY REPLY: While it is true that Intelligent Design does not specifically imply God, the author if the article I was responding to, WAS SPECIFICALLY using intelligent design theory to prove god. My critique of ID therefore was in relation to Brian Drilieonzi’s claim that ID somehow proved god’s existence. You can read his article here:

http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/sunday_life/Where_did_everything_co me_from_in_the_first_place_90099.shtml

Having said that, everyone knows that ID theory was devised to provide scientific justification for the Christian god. Please go read the “WEDGE DOCUMENT” from the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute ) for clarification (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf). It was on these and other grounds that Judge John E. Jones in his ruling at the Dover trails THREW OUT intelligent design as religion masquerading as science. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decis ion)

SNICKELS said: “Whether believer or unbeliever I do not concede this point. If God were designed (which is not the point of this argument -- or at least not at the beginning -- then how did you become the definer of who God is? "But that is an assumption one is not even entitled to hold."”

MY REPLY: Who am I to define God? I haven’t. I’m simply critiquing the arguments for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, as has been defined by those that worship it (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3917) - the God that inspired the Bible, including the Creation and Flood story. If that definition of God is wrong then thanks for pointing out this fact. I suppose no such entity exists anyway. I’m sure no Christian will agree with you, though.

SNICKELS said: “Darwin twisted himself into a pretzel attemtpting to make survival of the fittest result in a benign nature of man...although his writings smack of mankind evolving from primitive tribes to sophisticated tribes by elimination of the weak.”

MY REPLY: Can you cite a reference for this please? I think you just made this up. I don’t recall Charles Darwin saying or implying any of these things in his writings.

I’d be convinced if there was good evidence for the existence of ‘God’. I really would. I don’t mean to be impolite, but I just have not seen anything resembling good evidence yet.

Cheers.

James Onen (author of the article)

I will suggest to these "NO GOD" advocates to go read the HOLY QUR,AN, which has the most scientific explaination of GOD and NATURE more than any other. After that, they can come back to us, lets talk, but for now they basically uninformed informers. ALIYU

This Mass-Energy stuff that we are made of is miracle stuff. It assembles itself into conscious entities. The material universe is an evolution machine, and like all machines, an artifact. Religious people have a 3 letter word for and entity capable of creating it: God. The fact that that begs the question is irrelevant- we have to beg the question somewhere. According to the astrophysicists, all the matter and energy came about all at once in a gigantic flash of light. Where have you heard that before?

Evolution is far more a proof of God than an alternative.

STEVE KLABER said: "The material universe is an evolution machine, and like all machines, an artifact."

MY REPLY: For this to make any sense, I would need to know how, in this context, you are defining the word 'machine'. I ask because the word machine comes saddled with the implication of 'intent', so that by calling the universe an 'evolution machine' you are somehow implying that the universe exists for the PURPOSE of facilitating evolution.

From what we currently know, there are about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million stars up to giants with one trillion stars. While it is obviously possible that life might exist on other planets in the universe (an idea which religious people actually REJECT), so far we know of only ONE planet (out of possibly trillions) on which 'life' (by our definition) has successfully evolved. This planet is ours, Earth. Which is why it is hard for me to understand on what grounds you are calling the universe an 'evolution machine', especially when you consider that most of the universe is actually hostile to the evolution of life. If the universe were indeed an 'evolution machine', shouldn't it be cranking out more life-permitting planets than we could possibly count?

Retrospectively, we should consider ourselves 'fortunate' that there was a part of the universe that was conducive for our kind of life to evolve. Theologians usually point to this as evidence of a cosmic 'fine-tuner', even though the available evidence warrants no such conclusion. Many without a belief in 'God' are comfortable accepting life as a cosmic 'accident'. It didn't have to happen this way, but it did. But is that so surprising? Given the staggering numbers of galaxies, stars and planets that we currently know exist in the universe, the fact that life could have arisen naturally was not only possible, but also probable. Isn't it for this very reason that we entertain the possibility of there being life on other planets?

Going back to the question of machines, Mr. Klaber, you are yet to prove that the universe is a machine of any sort. Claiming that the universe is a machine is like saying clouds are 'machines' for creating rain. Clouds were not 'created' to produce rain but they are simply the rearrangement of water molecules undergoing condensation. When water vapour condenses into droplets, and each droplet is surrounded by billions of other droplets they become visible as clouds. When droplets combine to form even bigger droplets, the resulting droplets get heavy and fall to earth as rain. The water then evaporates again, and condenses at a certain altitude, and the process repeats itself over and over again. Does this imply that clouds therefore are rain making machines? No - all it says is that clouds are simply one of many stages in a cycle that water molecules undergo when subjected to natural forces in a given environment.

Evolution, is similar in the sense that it is driven by these same natural forces. There is no valid justification for claiming that creating life was the universe's ultimate goal. On the contrary, life, as far as can be observed, is simply a stage that certain bundles of molecules of certain configurations interact with one another and others outside that bundle until they change to other forms and other configurations when subjected to natural forces (there really is no good evidence to assert anything more than this). That at some stage these molecules comprised the body of a self-aware physical entity that came to be known as James Onen or Steve Klaber is of no 'cosmic' consequence to the universe.

My advice (which you are under no obligation to heed) is - you exist - make the most of your life, for your own sake, for the sake those you care about, and for humanity. Let your actions be geared towards increasing the well-being of your fellow man, woman and child. Preserve the beauty of nature. There is no afterlife - no heaven, nor hell - the happiness you derive from these actions will be your reward.

I really can't see what could possibly matter more.

STEVE KLABER said: "According to the astrophysicists, all the matter and energy came about all at once in a gigantic flash of light. "

MY REPLY: This is NOT TRUE at all.

From Wikipedia: "As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and continues to expand to this day."

and

".. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

In short, the Big Bang theory does NOT explain the origin of matter, and nor does it seek to. It only addresses the EXPANSION of the universe from that initial state.

Very little is known about that initial state. The theory of general relativity (upon whose calculations Big Bang cosmology is based) breaks down at that initial state, which is also known as the 'singularity'. As of know the origin and nature of this initial state (singularity) remains unknown, but that is exactly where contemporary theoretical physics is really getting interesting today. Many experts in the field are of the view that quantum gravity will soon solve the problem of the singularity, rendering it unnecessary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity)

If anyone asked me where matter and energy came from, I'd say I DON'T KNOW, because the available scientific evidence does not allow anyone to claim any answers to this question. It remains an open question, and scientists are hard at work trying to find a good explanation.

Think of me as a person 700 years ago living in Europe at a time when it hadn't yet been established that thunder was the result of static electricity acting on ionized water molecules in clouds. Imagine me having a conversation with a friend of mine who worshipped THOR - the Norse thunder-god. He asks me, 'What causes thunder?' I say 'I DON'T KNOW'. My friend says, 'Thunder is caused by Thor'. I say, 'Hmm..Prove it'. He can't. So I tell him 'It's hard to accept Thor is the cause of thunder without good evidence. incidentally, my friend in Rome says its ZEUS'. My friend insists it is Thor who actually causes thunder using his celestial hammer - because there is no other possible explanation. (Indeed, back then there weren't really good naturalistic explanations for thunder) "Thunder couldn't 'just happen' without some kind of intelligent agency" - the Thor worshipper argues.....

The moral of the story should be obvious - having an explanation just for the sake of having an explanation isn't a very good thing. If the available evidence cannot provide a GOOD explanation, it's okay to say I DON'T KNOW.

As I said in my closing paragraph of the original article:

"Precedent shows that most things for which supernatural entities were posited as causes in the past were later found to have natural explanations that better explained them, as our scientific knowledge advanced. It is this precedent which accords validity to the position of increasingly many people - that positing God as an explanation for mysteries is unwise, unnecessary, unjustified and counter-productive."

STEVE KLABER said: "Evolution is far more a proof of God than an alternative."

MY REPLY: Phew, at least you accept evolution. That's a good start!

Keep reading up on it - God, or no God, evolutionary biology is a staggeringly marvellous science. You won't regret it.

Cheers.

James Onen (author of the article)

This Mr James Onen does not know the first thing about God who is the selexistant eternal uncreated one who exists outside of time which he created for life on this earth.

HAPPY ZIMBO said: "This Mr James Onen does not know the first thing about God who is the selexistant eternal uncreated one who exists outside of time which he created for life on this earth."

MY REPLY: Happy Zimbo, what is your evidence that this 'God' even exists? Outside of time? How have you been able to establish what lies outside of time? Please tell me how you know this. Truly, I am curious. What is your evidence?

And YES, I DO know about the 'God' most people worship. I was a born-again Christian for many years, and 'spoke in tongues', and prayed, and saw 'visions', had 'conversations' with 'God', some of my prayers were seemingly 'answered' etc...and above all it felt really good to think I had 'someone' watching over me and 'loving' me. I wasn't too keen on being sent to hell for eternity either - for failing to believe in 'Him'. Oh, yes - I know that 'God' very well. That 'God' is all in the mind - a figment of our imaginations. It was over many years of thought and exposure to REASON that I came to this conclusion. Studying science and human psychology also proved immensely useful in this process.

Interesting strides have been made towards understanding how life could have arisen from chemical processes. Scientists don’t think they’ve quite nailed it YET, but they’re investigating it. Yeah, that’s what scientists do – they investigate, when something puzzles them. They don’t just throw their hands up in defeat. This attitude of trying to find answers even when the problems seem insurmountable is what has made advances in medical science possible.

Already, artificial DNA has been synthesized under lab conditions: (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707091915.htm), and self-replicating enzymes of RNA have also been created under lab conditions: (http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=22137).

It is therefore quite possible, that time will come when simple life (of which DNA and RNA are components) can be synthesized from chemicals under laboratory conditions simulating the conditions that existed on this planet billions of years ago.

I encourage you to catch up on the latest innovations in this area of research. You can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

By all means, believe in gods if somehow it makes you feel better about your life. I RESPECT your right to hold those beliefs. I really do. But if you expect others to be convinced that what you are saying is true, then please provide evidence. I've already said, I'd HAPPILY believe if I could be convinced with good evidence.

Enjoy your beliefs, my brothers and sisters - just don't be surprised if others don't share them with you.

Cheers.

James Onen (author of the article)