Mike

Here's one for atheists who can do maths:

The Sun's diameter is 400 times that of the Moon, and happens to be about 400 times as far away from the Earth. This permits the Moon to just barely cover the Sun in a total eclipse. Now, what's the probability of this ratio occuring for any planet? And what's the probability of it occuring for a planet on which there is life? And what's the probability of it occurring for a planet on which there is life, and life that can observe it?

Let's see the maths

So often atheists claim that science makes the concept of God obsolete because it will eventually explain everything in material terms (and therefore make "God" redundant). But how does that argument work? Like this (?):

Science has explained a few things (relatively speaking) without need of the concept of God.

Therefore science will explain all things without need of the concept of God.

Doesn't look like a valid inference to me! In fact it is more like a good example of the fallacy of induction!

Let's look at the logic another way: if I say to you "one day a Catholic cathedral will be built just where you are now living".

Can you ever prove my theory false? Of course not. At any point of time I can always say "if it isn't built yet, it will be in the future." So the theory is unfalsifiable - and any scientist will tell you that an unfalsifiable theory is no kind of empirical theory at all.

In fact, your theory is no better than a matter of faith.

If there is no God or intelligence responsible for the laws of nature, then what is responsible for the order? Why isn't the universe in a constant state of chaos? Don't bother with answers like "that's just how it is." etc, etc. That's just another way of saying that you don't have an answer!