The existence of physical laws themselves. The fine-tuning of the physical constraints that allow our universe (and our species) to exist. The origin of life from inanimate matter. The inevitability of human evolution. Instinctive human morality. The existence of consciousness. The reliability of our senses at detecting truth. The fact that the universe is even comprehensible by humans. The amazing effectiveness of mathematics in describing the universe. When facing these "scientific" arguments for God, ask yourself three questions. One: what's more likely? That these are puzzles only because we refuse to see God as an answer, or simply because science hasn't yet provided a naturalistic answer? Is the religious explanation so compelling that we can tell scientists to stop working on the evolution and mechanics of consciousness, or the origins of life, because there can never be a naturalistic explanation? Two: if invoking God seems more appealing than admitting scientific ignorance, ask yourself if religious explanations do anything more than rationalize our ignorance? Does the God hypothesis provide independent and novel predictions or clarify things once seen as puzzling - as true scientific hypotheses do? Or are religious explanations simply stop gaps that lead nowhere? Three: even if you attribute scientifically unexplained phenomena to God (which has yet to happen), ask yourself if the explanation gives evidence for YOUR God - the God who undergirds your religion and your morality. -taken from the book I'm reading called Faith Vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Jerry A. Coyne. This is by far the most important book I've read in relation to the science vs religion argument. I heavily recommend this to anyone and everyone. @nergal69 you should read this book, I think you will very much enjoy it. #jerrycoyne #jerryacoyne #faithvsfact #accomadatingresistance #accomadationism #religionvsscience