1. To which nasty design do you refer?
2. Even the Buddhist, who does not believe in God, admits that "if our bodies were our own there would be no suffering, no death." Our bodies are our own, we have simply lost full control of them.
3. Whether or not there is a scientific "first cause" does not negate the fact that such a cause would have to be uncaused itself. This is the only assertion I made in this argument. (God, as an infinite being, would fit the need)
4. I dont doubt the validity of your argument here. However, that does not account for those who believe later in life, as opposed to brain-washing as a child.
5. I have read a number of the arguments for the contradiction of God, and find that I already have answers for each of them. There is no contradiction yet put forward that cannot be refuted. I do not ignore arguments that challenge my belief. I encourage them, for I strive for truth, and if I am wrong, I'd like to be shown that I am. Yet none have shown me yet to be wrong.
6. You're right, animals do not have need for God, since they are not like humans, intelligent animals. As intelligent animals, we have a need for the Infinite, due to our infinite capacities that the intelligent have.
7. As I said before, I never explain what I cannot by saying it is from God. The so-called coincidentals in my life are certainly not unexplainable. I simply choose to see them as significant of God, since even the explanation of such coincidences would not deny the possibility. Where you might see chance, I see purpose.
8. Again, as of yet, I have said nothing of the Bible. Your inclusion of it here is irrelivant. The Bible is not a book about God, but about man. It is meant as a guide to good living, and final end. You may point to many of the horrific acts in the Bible which are supposedly wrought by God and say, how is this a guide to good living? I would agree that such horrific acts certainly were not from God, but that what is being displayed in those stories is a reality of human thinking. Such thinking most certainly is to be avoided. The teachings of Christ in the NT are meant to contrast against the illogic of much of the OT thinking. I do not use the Bible as basis for my belief in an infinite being.
9. I would agree with Einstein in such a description of God, but would also say that it is incomplete. To say that God is the aggregate of all the laws of physics and then deny a personal God is incoherent. The Laws of the Universe must include the Laws of Thought and relationship. If God were an aggragate of the laws of the universe (or physics), then the laws of thought and relationship would also be contained therein.
10. God is not a "sky-daddy," and I would never consider God in such a way. Nor is the help of the supernatural a reason for life. (I have given my explanation for the reason for life in another thread, in General Philosophy I believe)
