GreyWolf: Sophisticated? I was writing tongue-in-cheek. What makes you think that what I've posted above is the extent of the arguments I could make against creationism? And you say I shoud "do some good reading"? That is so funny. You should see my bookshelf. I probably have more books supporting "your side" of the debate than you do. Although, granted, I haven't read the two you mention. I probably would if I had any reason to think that they simply weren't going to rehash the same old tired creationist arguments. And in regards to Anthony Flew, I am well aware of the reasons he changed his mind regarding the existence of a god... and they're dumb. Consider this quote from a letter to Ricard Carrier on SecWeb:
"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."
He makes a simple argument from ignorace. He is obviously quite unaware of the discoveries of modern biology. You do realize he had "help" writing that book, right? From Wikipedia:
In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article by religious historian Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book. [ 4 ] His book praises several philosophers (like Brian Leftow, John Leslie and Paul Davies), but Flew failed to remember their work during Oppenheimer's interview. The article provoked a public outcry, in which atheist PZ Myers called Varghese "a contemptible manipulator." [ 23 ]
So... well, check yourself before you start tossing around that "naive" word. And the very fact that you call Richard Dawkins "ignorant" about the philosophy of science, well it says alot. Take your own advice: Do some reading outside of you comfort zone.
BTS: I can't recall if he used it as a "proof" for atheism, and that might be taking it a bit far if he did. But the main crux of his argument was similar to the point I made above, in that creationists tend to use special pleading so that God himself does not require a designer, but all other life does. Which is a very valid point.
DD: Ummm... well, according to physicists, it's possible that quantum fluctuations are essentially "uncaused". But regardless, the argument you allude to assumes that the universe cannot always have existed in one form or another. So you could say that it's the present state of the universe that had a beginning. At this time, we have no way of knowing what came before that. And we certainly have to reason to assume it was a God that started it all.
