I cannot put it clearer any other way than P1) things ( the universe) exists therefore C) god exists. This is not a valid logical syllogism. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Im not claiming "this is how it is", I am saying that from the simple existence of things, you cannot then deduce that a god exists and created those things. This was, unless I have totally misunderstood, your whole claim, its basically a "look at the trees!" argument. The existence of fossils, the pure fact that they exist, tells us nothing about whether a god put them there. If you want to fill in the steps between (P1) and (C), please feel free to do so. I guess thats what you are trying to do in this post, but you fail for example, you say So now consider not just fossils, but existence of our universe: a universe populated by material and immaterial entities which follow – for what reason? – mathematical laws physical, or natural, laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, there are no laws floating around in the universe that guide, force, or make things do what they do. Rather, we observe that things do what they do, and determine patterns in the things they do. We call these laws, but again, they are not laws in the way that , for example, the law against speeding is. Physical laws are descriptions of what we see. There is no reason for things to follow laws, because you are looking at it backwards. you then say which exhibit the remarkable phenomena of life, emotion, consciousness – to which we add the human rational capacity to discover nature's harmonies in the first place. It's quite remarkable! As with fossils, these empirical facts suggest that there is some original _reason_ for the universe being this way Depends what you mean by "original reason" but no, the fact that something is remarkable does not mean that theres a god ( which is ultimately what you are aiming at) The facts about matter and the physical forces of the universe tell us how and why the planets formed, and although we dont know exactly how abiogenesis occured, we have some models and hypotheses, and none of them need or include a god. Once life did start, then again, the facts about matter and the physical forces of the universe tell us how life evolved to where it is today. What do you mean by "original reason"? P1) things ( the universe) exists P2) Life, emotion, consciousness exists P3) I find these things, the universe, remarkable therefore C) god exists. This is also not a valid sound logical argument. No good scientist ever stops his inquiry by saying, "well, that's just the way it is; what exists is not evidence for anything other than itself; we can't ask any further questions." I have never said this, and this is not what I am saying |