I would hardly expect any competent scientist to agree with you regarding the simplicity of the universe. And since you confess inadequacy in biophysics and biochemistry, you may want to prepare yourself better for a discussion of these topics which are at the base of your being able to discourse at all. You may also prosper by reading current literature on newer findings in cladistic and dna studies in evolution. I would imagine it easy to be an atheist if one ignores the deeper unanswered complexities of the universe. It seems impossible for atheists to think of the possibility of a creator without thinking of an old man in white robes on a golden throne in Heaven. They just can’t get it.
My position is that the universe is not so complex that it couldn’t exist without a creator. Is this the position you think no competent scientist would agree with? Or were you referring to something else? Please clarify.
I have a decent layman’s knowledge of biophysics, biochemistry, and cladistics and DNA studies in evolution. All recent studies I’ve read and read of seem to only make it more likely that no creator is necessary. Are you familiar with these topics enough to explain to a layman what in them is evidence for a creator? So far, you have repeatedly said that such evidence exists but have offered none (aside from questioning where in basic elements the properties of life and thought exist, which I maintain is a logically flawed question).
I suppose it is easier to be an atheist if one ignores certain complexities of the universe, just as it is easier to be a theist by claiming a deity as an explanation for anything you don’t understand. I do my best to address these issued head on, and I’m asking you to explain your points as best you can to help me understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, although I’m sure you have a good argument in here somewhere, your method of discussion (reasserting your points instead of answering objections, asking questions and ignoring responses that don’t help your argument, continually assigning to me opinions I don’t have, and implying that I am just not able to understand your argument, for example) are all hallmarks of someone with an over-complex theory based on the misuse of facts he himself does not understand. Do you really want me left with this opinion? Wouldn’t you rather try to better your explanations and, perhaps, convince me that you are right?
I also feel compelled to repeat that your implication that you are far more knowledgeable on these topics than I is severely undercut but your past use of the “if one monkey evolved, why didn’t all of them?” argument. It is hard for me to trust that you have a good handle on deeper questions in evolutionary biology when you show signs of not even having the basic concepts firmly in hand.
Finally, I will repeat yet again that I am not an atheist who thinks a deity can only be an old man on a throne. I fully admit there are many, many other possibilities. In fact, it is these possibilities that lead me to say that the existence of a deity is possible. You may find it comforting to believe that atheists are narrow minded and only reject manmade religion, but the fact is this is not always the case.
So, please, can we try and turn this into a straight-forward, directed, intelligent discussion of your argument for the existence of a creator? How about we start with this — name one thing in the field of science that cannot possibly be explained without the existence of a creator (and please define any ambiguous terms).