I was sparked into feeling intellectual today, and as such followed my own advice and googled "Proof of God". What I found was this. I'm going to pick it to pieces, though it won't be as well done as my last vulturing. I'm typing this as I'm reading it, where-as my last one took weeks of preparation. I apologise for my low insight in advance.
The first point: Earth. Apparently, earth is too perfect to be true. It's exactly the right size, so the gas that stays is just the right mixture to support us, while others float off into space. This isn't true, Venus is the same size as Earth, and it's atmosphere is uninhabitable. It's worse then New York. Being any smaller or larger would change the size of the atmosphere, potentially losing lighter particles or gaining heavier ones. The effect this would have on life's evolution could potentially be dramatic. If nothing else, the differing gravitational pull would change bone-density and muscle strength.
Despite what the website says, Earth is not in the absolute perfect distance from the sun. It resides within the habitable zone, which is the distance from the sun where life as we know it can exist. Basically this means that within this zone, liquid water can remain on the planets surface. Earth could be anywhere between 0.725 and 3.0 Astronomical Units. An Astronomical Unit is approximately 149,597,870 km, which is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. So Earth could be about 41139414 km closer to the sun, or about 299141740 km further away. Don't know about you, but that's a huge distance to me. More than the exact distance of 1Au suggested.
The Earth doesn't keep a perfectly circular orbit. At some times of the year it is closer, at others it is further away. It's closest at during the time of Northern winter, or southern summer, and furthest away during the opposite season, thus defeating another part of point 1.
I'll leave the last point alone, as I have no research available to refute it. All I can say is, if the distance, or size, were changed, the effect on the tides would be dramatic. Not enough to cancel life entirely, just enough to change the outcome up to this point.
Point two: Water. It's shape and polarisation mean it's God's work, designed solely to permit life on Earth. Sorry creationist, that's not the case.
It's true that all life needs water. It's not true that being mostly made of water keeps our body a perfect temperature. Our temperature is kept constant though a series of internal chemical reactions, most of which don't require water.
Water is not a universal solvent. If it were, it would mix with oils, grease and other non-polar chemicals. As it is, most polar chemicals, and very few organic non-polar chemicals with mix with water, and the rest wont. This is a very important biological point, as phospholipids contain a polar and a non-polar end, causing micelles and lipid bilayers, aka cell membranes. If water were a universal solvent, life could not exist.
Water has little to do with the transport of food throughout the body. It has pH7, most of the time, but that is of little help to life, as most blood is slightly basic, meaning too much water causes death. It's surface tension has little to do with being brought out of the ground and up a tree, there are specific proteins designed to let water go up, but not back down. It's part of the beauty of evolution.
Liquids freeze from wherever the temperature is coldest. It only seems like it freezes from the top because ice is less dense than water, so it floats. As for water recycling... I don't know. I have no knowledge of weather, and won't claim to here.
Point three: The human brain. This isn't a point for or against, but an explanation of the sheer awesomeness of the brain. I like it.
Point four: The eye. First off, this isn't an argument for God, but against evolution. Second, it's a bad argument. A mutation occurs that allows a cell to sense photons, now you can see night and day. Another causes more to be created. You get a sense of the time of day. These curve, allowing basic sight. With 3 mutations, a basic eye is formed. Irreducible complexity is a silly argument, given the time evolution has had to work. As for not understanding the original eye, I just pointed out how the most basic eye could work. Other mutations could give it more defense, or more acuity, but that means little over the very basic photon sensing cell eye.
This is an argument for initial state planning, or a first cause. This is a silly argument. Whether or not the Big Bang was caused by anything other then quantum mechanics is irrelevant in this argument. If it was, there are a plethora of possible explanations that don't need God. If not, then God wasn't needed anyway.
Physical laws exist therefore so must God. No. In random environments/situations, like the random generation of numbers, patterns WILL occur. This isn't a perhaps/maybe/sometimes type deal. They WILL occur. If they didn't, the simple fact that there is no pattern is a pattern. It's inescapable. A random universe is compatible with spontaneous order, despite the claims of theists like this one.
Of course, the Atheist's riddle. I will not disprove this here. It has been effectively debunked here. Alternatively you could google Atheist's riddle, and clicking the first link. It's the same thing.
A stab at atheists. The writer even claims he was an atheist at one point. Whether or not this is true, he isn't now, and shows no evidence of having been one. He doesn't fully research his points, and uses logical fallacies without care. His biggest mistake, as far as I can see, is that he assumes that disproving scientific theory automatically proves God. Sorry, mate, it doesn't work that way. Now he's a misleading liar. I say liar, because he says he used to argue against God, which is clearly false, judging by his prior points, and the amount of research evident. Can anyone say copypasta?
Oh Christ, another argument for the divinity of Christ. Jesus was a magician, performing magic tricks that pale in comparison to the tricks of modern street performers. He did claim to be God, but so did LOTS of people in his time. Which vaguely leads to my next point: There's no real evidence for Jesus' existence. Jesus is mention in scripture, the bible and several books written by Christians, sometimes hundreds of years after he died.
If I had the time and patience I would research every single point of this tripe, and pick it to it's bones, then bury them... I have respect for the dead. As it stands I have metaphorically found the carcass, taken a finger and left the rest to the birds.
Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.