Even More Questions! Yay!

From: http://geekychristian.com/questions-for-atheists-agnostics/

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God?
No. I don't deny the existence of gods or Jedi knights or Sugarplum Fairies. What I deny is that there are any good reasons to believe that any of these things actually exist. But I could be wrong on all three accounts.

If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

That's just it: gods don't leave any reliable evidence behind.  If they did, there would be no atheists.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them?

No. I will agree that something can look designed even when it's not.

 If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

No, because you have not shown me what an undesigned universe looks like by comparison.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something?

Yes. That's exactly why I reject creationism.

If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

Well, there are several problems with that. First of all, you can't establish that there exists a "beyond the universe."

Even if you could, you cannot establish that a "cause" for the universe (which i'm guessing you're going to special plead is the "uncaused cause," which opens up a whole other can of worms) even exists.

And even if you could, you cannot make any positive claim about who or what the cause is or was.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

Yes, because we can objectively measure and detect gravity, magnetism and the wind.  We can also objectively study the individual human mind (psychology, neurology, psychiatry)

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

Only if you will agree that just because we can't see invisible unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

The Big Bang theory does not postulate the creation of "something out of nothing."  It states that all of the matter and energy in the universe was condensed into an immensely hot, dense singularity which began to expand roughly 14.5 billion years ago.  Explain to me how that constitutes "something out of nothing."
 
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

Only if the laws of preservation of matter and energy are valid.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

No, because you are basically saying that something that occurs naturally doesn't occur naturally; that the information therein was 'put there" by an outside agent that you can make no positive claims to knowledge about.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give),

This is fallacious and disproven by the fact that a single snowball can cause an avalanche.

then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

If that were the case, then removing parts of your brain would have no effect at all on your mind. But it does. 

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

"Right" and "wrong" are not tangible "things,' they are intangible descriptives and highly dependent upon a number of factors, not the least of which is the truth or falsehood of the starting assumptions.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver,

Stop right there.  Thank you for making my point about the truth or falsehood of starting assumptions.
On what do you base that claim? Scientific laws are based on observations of natural phenomena, not a "lawgiver."
  
does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

Only if your premise is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is.  Even if such a "Moral Lawgiver" existed, I certainly doubt that it is any of the gods people currently worship and is certainly not the god of the Abrahamic faiths who condones slavery, rape, genocide, murder and human sacrifice.

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

 If universes didn't occur naturally, you'd have a check mate. But you have no way of knowing that they don't since, as far as we know, this is the only one that exists.  Come to think of it, as far as we know, it's the only one that is existence.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods?

Yes, because small glass balls don't occur naturally in the woods and we know how they're made.  And since both the ball and the woods are located within the space-time construct of the universe, we know that the laws of cause and effect must be in play.

And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause?

Yes, because of what I just said.

 If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?

If the universe were a glass ball located within the space-time structure of the universe, you'd have a check mate, but it's not. 
So......

-On what do you base the claim that the universe is a glass ball? 

-Cause and effect implies the existence of time (Cause precedes effect in time).  How can a cause for the universe precede the effect of the universe when time doesn't start until the universe does? Are you postulating the existence of some sort of "anti-time" that works in the reverse of time? If so, please show the data or rationale.  

-The only other way this can work is if you have separate and distinct states where the universe exists and the universe does not exist and there exists a breach between these two realities.  This violates your hero Geisler's law of non-contradiction because a breach in these realities would mean that an indistinction between the existence and non-existence of the universe exists, or to put it more plainly, there would have to exist a point where the universe exists and does not exist simultaneously.  This is impossible.  

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

You first must establish that such a thing as "beyond the universe" exists.  You then must establish that we can know anything about this "beyond the universe," and how we can know it. You then must establish that anything such as a "cause" for the universe exists in this beyond existent state of.....existence.  Even then, you still have miles to go before you can tell us what this cause is. 

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

How do you support the claim  that the universe is "fine-tuned for the emergence of life" when life is rare just in our solar system? If the universe were "fine-tuned for the emergence of life," then why do so many places hostile (to the point of fatal) to life exist? If the emergence of human life were "preplanned," why are so many places on earth hostile to human life? Furthermore, why are there so many life forms hostile to humans (bacteria, viruses, hippos)? If anything, this speaks of unintelligent or even malevolent design.