>>but if there is no God, who designed everything around us? It all clearly has design, so it actually makes the most sense that the mind who is above all existed eternally. Emergent order. Nature follows a pattern of moving from less to more complex, like an acorn growing into an oak tree. It's not always biological, but energy itself likes to form patterns, like how lightning follows the same fractal pattern as a river system or veins of a leaf. Looking at fractals, you can see how very simple mathematical rules can make extremely complex (and beautiful) systems just by recursion and time. It doesn't violate thermodynamics anymore than lightning does, the pattern is a function of the energy dispersing. Once there's no concentration of energy left to disperse, there's no possibility of the pattern that is life to exist. >>Even in their worldview, who created the energy? No explanation. It seems unlikely that one could ever be proven. >>honestly evolution is laughable when you get down to the mechanics of it We've had proof of DNA for more than 60 years. The mechanics are the same as selective breeding, but done without human intervention. If evolution was impossible, then we never could've turned a wolf into a Chihuahua no matter how long we tried. I've heard many of the counterarguments against evolution, but funny enough most of the rebuttals were already written by Darwin in the 1800s. For example, he already addressed irreducible complexity before anyone else had brought it up. I recommend reading at least one of his books, they can be entertaining, especially when you realize how much this man knew even about species around the world even though he gained much of it by writing letters that would take months to arrive. >>Perhaps most damning to the atheists worldview, how can they give account for morality, right and wrong, and truth? Truth is what can be verified by every sane person. No one denies that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Morality is a set of unwritten laws that people agreed on to make their lives collectively better. One man may gain by lying, cheating, stealing, and killing, but if everyone did that everyone would be worse off (like in Africa). Many of these moral rules are not objective, they tend to lump things together for simplicity, but if you tried to argue about too many details you end up with no moral boundaries, so it's usually better to keep your moral rules simple and general. The converse of this is the kikes wrapping a string around Manhattan and calling it a building, or inventing a light switch that supposedly doesn't violate sabbath. >>If there is no God, there is no standard of objectivity, truth, and morality. I'd argue the opposite. God is "good" because he is powerful, not because he is consistent. Consider Job. If a human were to kill the wife and kids of a man to test his loyalty, that person would be called a deranged murderer. If he were to infect him with terrible diseases and destroy his house, he'd be guilty of torture. Unlike Canaan or the world of Noah, they weren't wicked people being punished but instead the good, and not for anything they did but instead to satisfy God's curiosity. Consider also the firstborn of Egypt, who were killed because of something their King did, which they had no control over whatsoever, and many must have been babies, innocent of any sin. Yet one of his most famous commandments is Thou shall not kill/murder. So he's not following his own rules, only imposing them on us, and not consistently but arbitrarily. >>We have a conscience that tells us there is right and wrong, we all know it and don't need to be taught that It's easy to forget what it's like to have young kids, but probably the main thing you do all day is teach right from wrong. Stop hitting the cat. Ask nicely for that. Don't steal from the fridge. Etc. We were all taught this because we would be unbearable to our parents if we weren't.