Intelligent design vs. the lottery of science

They basically criticize science by saying we haven’t explained from where or what the Big Bang came, when they cannot provide the same answers for God.

An argument you often hear from religious people is that we, the atheists, don’t have an answer as to where or what the universe originated from. They may also try to use mathematics against us by saying the chance of life actually occurring and the perfect placement of the Earth in relation to the sun and such is something that’s so improbable it couldn’t possibly happen… unless there’s an intelligent designer—God. As for the Big Bang, they state everything must come from something else and that something else is God, who apparently doesn’t need to come from something else. They basically criticize science by saying we haven’t explained from where or what the Big Bang came, when they cannot provide the same answers for God.

Disproving our current science does not prove Christianity or any other religion. One cannot assert the validity of their theories simply by shooting down others; they must provide concrete evidence.

Yeah, we don’t have all answers yet, and we may never have them, but that’s okay. Just because we don’t have the answers doesn’t mean we should make up some, to satisfy our need to know our world. Just because something makes us feel good, just because an answer hasn’t been provided, and just because there is a flaw in the science, it does not mean Christianity is true by default. Even if science were a hoax and completely false, which is a silly assertion at best, why would Christianity be the truth? What about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, other religions, or basically any unidentified theory? Christians say they think science is false, so Christianity must be true, but there are literally endless possibilities, especially when exploring supernatural answers. Disproving our current science does not prove Christianity or any other religion. One cannot assert the validity of their theories simply by shooting down others; they must provide concrete evidence. One plus one doesn’t equal three? Then it must be four.

Why must everything come from something else? Even if it must’ve come from something else, why would the something else be specifically the Christian god? Why mustn’t God derive from something else? If atheists are required to provide an answer to what was before the Big Bang, shouldn’t theists have to be able to tell us where their deity come from, no? Surely, God couldn’t have happened to happen? That would be too big a coincidence.

Scientists are not married to their science; they can change their minds—something that can’t be said about theists.

That’s something Christians like to say: “The universe just happened to happen? Life just happened to happen? It must’ve come from something else—God.” That’s just bad reasoning. First of all, we don’t know what caused the Big Bang; it’s possible the universe is contracting and expanding in a perpetual cycle; each time it contracts, all mass in the universe becomes a singularity, which explodes open and all this crap is flung out into space again. That’s one answer, but not the only possibility. Scientists are not married to their science; they can change their minds—something that can’t be said about theists. We just don’t know the origin of the universe, the nature of consciousness, or why the universe is built on a foundation of natural laws. That doesn’t mean that a deity by default must have done it, and definitely not the Christian deity.

We also do not know how life came to be exactly, but it’s been proven that organic compounds—amino acids—can be made naturally (the Miller-Urey experiment). Life evolves because of changes in the genetic material, or in other words the molecules that make up the genetic material. Like life evolves, it's not inconceivable that molecules would, too, even before they are considered to be life. Basic elements combine to form more complex molecules, which somehow begin to replicate themselves, as they perpetually evolve. How they began to replicate is the big question. That’s God, the evolution of atoms into more and more complex molecules, which were then sealed inside a membrane of lipids, which both seals in and out water (like dissolves like, and water and fat are not alike). Or at least that's one idea for the origin of life, which is wrapped in mystery.

To address the argument about the improbability of life as proof for God, think of it this way: there are billions upon billions (...) upon billions of stars, so though a planet like Earth—one that’s perfectly suited for life—is rare, it doesn’t mean it requires divine intervention; there are a myriad of chances one exists. One individual’s chance to win the lottery is small, but if we place all people who gamble in one group, it’s certain they’ll win (one of them). This does not mean a supernatural being did it, though it may seem like it to the individual. Even that metaphor is dumb, because with the lottery, the winners are limited, but in the lottery of life coming into existence, the winners are potentially limitless.

Personally, I believe aliens exist. I don’t mean this in a crazy way like believing in UFOs. I don’t. I think alien life exists somewhere out in space, because of the vast amount of stars. However, the distances between stars and the vastness of space make it unlikely we will ever meet these aliens, if they do exist. They cannot travel to us by any conventional means; the chance they find us is nearly inexistent and it’d take a lot of time to travel. They can’t come here through wormholes; the chance of a wormhole connecting their part of space with ours is also astronomical. However, if, by chance, aliens come here, I wouldn’t claim it was by divine intervention, as there’s a tiny chance it could happen. Those odds may be considered too tiny to be an actual chance, but if we assume all planets that can have life do have life, then even an astronomical chance can become reality. Even if there’s just one other planet with life, it’s theoretically possible for them to find us, by chance. Roll the dice; it must land on something.

Even a tiny chance is a chance; no matter how small, no odds are actually negligible. This is especially true in such a vast universe.

It’s true that the chance of life happening MIGHT be so tiny it is practically negligible, but the universe is vast, with innumerable opportunities; even an astronomical chance can become reality, at some point, somewhere, somehow. It doesn’t necessarily point to God. It COULD point to God. It could point to any other religion, but it probably doesn’t point to anything other than random chance. Even a tiny chance is a chance; no matter how small, no odds are actually negligible. This is especially true in such a vast universe. The only reason why scientists consider some odds negligible is because it isn’t practically feasible to hope for something with a chance of ten to the power of minus ten billion to occur in any useful way.

If the opponent isn’t rude, you’ve no reason to be rude; if the opponent is rude, you still have not got a reason to be rude, as being civil and using logic will mean others view you as victorious.

Now, just to add some hypocrisy: can we (mankind) stop talking about this? Atheists and theists discussing chances and unknowns is utterly pointless. The arguments yield no results other than insults and hate from both sides. Nobody changes their mind. And even if we must keep doing the discussions, which we will, as we (including I) enjoy them, can we, at least, be civil? This means you, as well, liberal atheists. Yes, it is annoying when people don't listen to logic, but remember this: If the opponent isn’t rude, you’ve no reason to be rude; if the opponent is rude, you still have not got a reason to be rude, as being civil and using logic will mean others view you as victorious. Besides, even though we’re most likely right and there is evidence for science (to be more correct, there isn't evidence for science, per se, because science is evidence) and none for religion, it is arrogant to think you’ve got all the answers and to say there’s no god. Logic and the countless plot holes in the Bible say Christianity is (most likely) untrue, but that doesn't mean there isn’t any higher power. All I can say is, trust the evidence and don't be an ass, as it perpetuates the stereotype about us. You don’t have to, and shouldn’t, respect the theology, but you should respect the theist, unless they use faith to spread hate and bigotry.

Most Christians are probably as embarrassed by the rude ones as I am by the few rude and childish atheists. Please, grow up and realize that name-calling and foul tongues are highly counterproductive. All too often do I see atheists calling Christians idiots and worse words, when all said Christian did was to express their view of the world, without being rude. This is unacceptable; it is no way to conduct oneself for a supposedly adult and intelligent human being. Yeah, they are probably wrong about their faith, but we could be wrong about some of our science, as well. But most importantly, remember the simple fact that we are all people.