The Engineering Problem in Evolution

The Engineering problem

Stephen J Gould [one of the two scientists behind punctuated evolution] said in his book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory": I recognize that we know no mechanism for the origin of organismal features other than conventional natural selection at the organismic level [pg 710]

Here's a 20-min vid on how punctuated equilibrium doesn't solve the problem

Let's illustrate one of the difficulties with the fish to amphibian transition. There had to be changes from:

1) obtaining oxygen from water to directly from the air,

2) change from permeable scales to impermeable skin,

3) ventral, anal, and tail fins would have to go from steering to a) weight-bearing and b) to providing locomotion,

4) a two chambered, one loop heart system would have to transform into a three chambered, two loop heart.

And all of these changes had to happen 

1) in concert, 

2) on a molecular level and 

3) while that species remained the fittest for its environment. The genetic code had to change in multiple proteins throughout multiple systems within the fish, all at basically the same time.

For example, the Cambrian explosion, the unparalleled emergence of organisms between 541 million and approximately 530 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Period. The event was characterized by the appearance of many of the major phyla (between 20 and 35) that make up modern animal life.

As I said gradualism seemed plausible if there were 100's of millions of years for a system of hit or miss chance, but there is not; take that element away, as Punctuated Equilibrium and the Cambrian explosion shows, then design [a purposeful, intentional, guided process with a goal in mind] is the much more likely candidate than a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal.

This is part of a larger argument that can be found here

The DNA Problem

There are dozens of DNA based micromachines in our bodies like the ATP Synthase which is a dual pump motor. The ATP Synthase has dozens of different parts; each is a protein which is formed from long strings of amino acids – 300 to 2,000 base pairs – which must be in a particular order, so they will fold correctly to perform a certain function.

But are there enough chances for evolution to occur since the universe began for evolution to work?


If every particle in the observable universe [1 × 10 to the 90th power] was a coin that flipped every Planck second [5.4 × 10 to the 44th power] since the beginning of the universe [4.32 × 10 to the 17th power - in seconds] there would be a max of ~ 1.07x10^133 events since the beginning of the universe. An average sized protein of 150 amino acids would take 7.2x10^195 to form via an unguided, purposeless, goalless process. That's more the amount of events in the entire history of the universe.


Note: ~1.07x10^133 takes into account the entire observable universe, but it's difficult to believe that particles outside the earth would affect evolution. Also, it's calculated from the beginning of the time [13.8 billion years] not the beginning of life [3.5 billion years], so the amount of total chances for evolution of life is much smaller. Somewhere around 2.5x10^61.

Also, there are vastly more ways of arranging nucleotide bases that result in non-functional sequences of DNA, and vastly more ways of arranging amino acids that result in non-functional amino-acid chains, than there are corresponding functional genes or proteins. One recent experimentally derived estimate places that ratio—the size of the haystack in relation to the needle—at 10^77 non-functional sequences for every functional gene or protein.

And we have many, many different kinds of these micromachines in our bodies. For instance, the ATP Synthase, the dual motor pump mentioned earlier, is part of the Electron transport chain; four other DNA based, multiple part micromachines.

Sorry, but the math just doesn't hold up for a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal for all those necessary genetic changes in multiple proteins in multiple organs that needed to for the fish to amphibian transition. Not to mention all necessary genetic changes in multiple proteins in multiple organs for the the 20 to 35 he major phyla in the Cambrian explosion.

The design objection

Please don't say that design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] is unscientific, since SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. 

An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed or was natural. An a priori non-design stance for evolution seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

This is a God of the Gaps argument.

A God of the Gap argument assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon. But I’m not citing an unknown phenomenon or a gap in our knowledge. I am using the inference to the best explanation and citing what we do know about DNA, the difference between fish and amphibians, in order to choose between design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] over chance [a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal].

Additional info 

We Have Been LIED TO About Origin Of Life (Renowned Organic Chemist Speaks Out) [Video]

How Organic Chemistry Convinced Me of the Creator [Article]

Finding God through science – an atheist discovers chemical evolution can’t adequately explain the origin of life [Article]

Scientist Explains HUGE Mathematical Problems For Atheism [Video]

Scientists Are Changing Their Minds (EVIDENCE For God!) [Video]

Degrees of Punishment in Hell

The idea that there are different levels of punishment in hell is known by most due to Dante's classic Divine Comedy where he writes of the nine circles of hell. The circles are concentric, representing a gradual increase in wickedness, and culminating at the center of the earth, where Satan is held in bondage. Each circle’s sinners are punished in a fashion befitting their crimes. Each sinner is afflicted for all of eternity by the chief sin he committed. According to Dante, the circles range from the light punishment of the unbaptized and virtuous non-believers to the very center of hell reserved for those who have committed the ultimate sin and thus get the harshest punishment.

Although the Bible does not specifically say there are different "levels" in hell, it does seem to indicate that judgment will indeed be experienced differently for different people.

The biblical authors are clear that hell is a place of divine judgment on sinners. Furthermore, many authors speak of more and less severe degrees of punishment, dependent on several factors in one’s life, which indicates that some will bear a fiercer measure of the wrath of God upon them.

The biblical writers and our Lord himself describe hell as a place of divine judgment on sinners. In multiple passages the ideas of punishment, wrath, retribution, and vengeance are prominent (Matt. 5:22; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 24:51; 23:33; 25:30; Mark 9:43–48; Luke 13:28; 2 Thess. 1:5–10; Rev. 20:10–15). The purpose of hell is not that of rehabilitation of the sinner or even the obliteration of evil. The purpose is retributive justice—the punishment of God on sinners.

The biblical writers are not content, however, to speak of hell broadly in terms of divine justice and retribution. They go further and insist that the divine justice in hell will be specifically fitted to the guilt of each individual offender. We will explore this teaching here in four steps: 

Biblical Evidence for the Degrees of Punishment Concept of  Hell

Below are some passages of Scripture that speak directly of degrees of punishment in hell. Here we will just cite the verses to establish the teaching in principle; then we will draw on them for specific exposition and application.

“Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town” (Matt. 10:15).

“But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you … But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Matt. 11:22, 24).

“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:36–37).

“And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more” (Luke 12:47–48).

“But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom. 2:5).

“How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:29)

What is Meant by Degrees of Punishment

These statements of degrees of punishment in hell are not meant to suggest that there shall be anything less than perfect misery for every soul in hell. For every person in hell, it will be a place of “weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12), and this suffering will be forever (Rev. 14:11). No one in hell will have it easy. Hell will be a place of torment and misery for all who are there. Precisely how the degrees of punishment will be given out is not told us.

The Reasons for Degrees of Punishment

The infliction of punishment proportionately in degrees is an outworking of divine justice. Scripture repeatedly affirms that God will judge “in righteousness” (Acts 17:31) and that it is a function of God’s justice and glory to avenge every wrong (Rev. 16:1–7; 19:1–6). It is in the interests of divine justice that punishment will be given out according to the nature of the offense. We see a reflection of this, for example, in the Old Testament law which prescribed more severe punishment for premeditated murder than for accidental homicide. So also Moses’s law prescribed measures for restitution for various offenses. The nature of the crime, the attending motivations, and the varying circumstances all determine the measure of punishment.

This explains why Scripture repeatedly insists that judgment will be “according to works” (Rom. 2:6) and that in judgment “the books”—record books—will be opened (Rev. 20:12). There seems to be no point to this other than that of determining the measure of accumulated guilt, and that for the assigning the appropriate measure of punishment. This is why God the Judge will take into consideration the works, the words (Matt. 12:37), and even the thoughts and motives (Rom. 2:16) of sinners. Judgment is not merely for determining who is in and who is out; it is for measuring guilt and assigning punishment that is exactly what every individual sinner deserves.

The Basis for Determining Degrees of Punishment

What, then, will be the basis on which degrees of punishment will be determined? Scripture sets forth at least three considerations.

A) The Extent to which a Person has Abandoned Himself to Sin

The first consideration is the extent of the "abandonment to sin". This concept is entailed in Matthew 5:21 and other passages that indicate degrees of sin—worse sins result in worse punishment. This seems clearly to be the point in Romans 2:5—“Because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” What can this mean but that every sin committed is like making a deposit in the bank and that in the day of judgment it will all be withdrawn in judgment? In judgment, every last sin will be taken into consideration in fitting each sinner for the exact degree of punishment deserved (Rev. 18:6–7).

It is the fool who reasons, “Well, if I’m going to hell, I might as well have my (sinful) fun in the meantime!” Every day given to sin, every venting of lust, every untruthful word, every next sin committed only adds to the punishment that will be assigned. It would be better for that man to die young than to live only to accumulate a lifetime of sin that will return to him in divine wrath.

B) The Extent to which a Person by Example and Influence has Led Others to Sin

The second consideration in measuring judgment is the extent to which a person who by example and/or influence has led others to sin. See Jesus' words in Matthew 18:5–7:

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!” (See also Mark 9:38–47.)

Here Jesus pronounces a woe on those who become an occasion for others to sin. The degree to which a person influences others to sin will in turn serve, in part, to establish the degree of his own punishment.

This appears to be at least one reason why there must be a day of judgment at the end of time. Final judgment is not fixed upon the death of every individual sinner: it is not until the end of time that the full effect of the influence of any one life can be measured. The omniscient God will take every individual life and assess every aspect of its influence—sometimes an influence that extends for centuries. And based on the accumulated influence of evil, God will mete out punishment upon the wicked.

Jesus warns of this again in Matthew 23:13: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.” This “woe” is pronounced on those who by their actions and teaching block the way to heaven for others.

The thought is stunning and deeply sobering. The parent who refuse Christ and, in turn, influence their children away from the things of God thereby increasing their guilt and the punishment they will receive for it. That older brother or sister or that friend or work associate who stands above his or her peers and who uses their position to influence others to sin and to ignore the gospel—all of this will be brought to bear on the day of judgment to measure the degree of punishment deserved.

The extent of abandonment to sin and the degree of sinful influence on others will serve to determine the extent of punishment received.

C) The Extent to which Light and Privilege were Abused

The third consideration in measuring judgment is the extent to which light and privilege were abused. Jesus speaks to this directly in Luke 12:47–48:

“And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”

The contrasting expressions—“severe beating” and “light beating”—indicate contrasting degrees of punishment. Both of the men in view here were servants accountable to their masters. Both did things that were worthy of punishment. And both in fact receive punishment. But the one had more understanding than the other and as a consequence received greater punishment. Differing degrees of light resulted in differing degrees of punishment. Both received lashes, but for the one it was “many”; for the other, it was “few.” And lest we miss the point, our Lord interprets the parable for us: “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” That is to say, the extent of light and privilege abused will determine, in part, the measure of punishment. (See also Rom. 2:12.)

Jesus speaks to this consideration elsewhere:

“Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town” (Matt. 10:15).

“But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you … But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Matt. 11:22, 24).

As wicked and as guilty and as deserving of punishment as Sodom was, the greater sin belonged to Chorazin and Bethsaida, for they had seen and heard our Lord himself and had refused him. And for their abuse of such great light and privilege, their judgment will be the more severe.

Again, this is deeply troubling and sobering. The person who grows up in a society in which the gospel is readily available and the person who grows up in a Christian home has great light and privilege. The person who attends a gospel-preaching church has great light and privilege. The person who has a Christian friend who witnesses to him of Christ has great light and privilege. And for this light and privilege, God will hold them accountable—if such privilege is refused, judgment will be unspeakably great. For those who have heard the gospel only finally to refuse it, that gospel preached to them will in the end have served only to increase their guilt and enhance the punishment they will receive.

Conclusion

The punishment of hell will be in keeping with divine justice. The all-knowing God will assess each individual life, counting exactly the extent of abandonment to sin, the influence of others to sin, and the light and privilege abused, and he will assign punishment accordingly—exactly fitted to each person.

Surely this thought ought to capture the conscience of sinners such that they would restrain their sinning! Furthermore, this thought ought to drive any sinner to run to Christ and be saved! And surely this thought must drive every believer to humble yet glad praise for our Redeemer who took all of our sin to himself and paid its price in full, absorbing the full wrath of God in our place to make us his.

Whatever degrees of punishment hell contains, it is clear that hell is a place to be avoided.

Unfortunately, the Bible states that most people will wind up in hell: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13–14). 

The question one must ask is “Which road am I on?” The “many” on the broad road have one thing in common—they have all rejected Christ as the one and only way to heaven. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). When He said He is the only way, that is precisely what He meant. Everyone following another “way” besides Jesus Christ is on the broad road to destruction, and the suffering is hideous, dreadful, eternal, and unavoidable.

Fined-Tuned Constants

 

Consider some of the finely-tuned factors that make our universe possible:

• If the strong nuclear force were slightly more powerful, then there would be no hydrogen, an essential element of life. If it was slightly weaker, then hydrogen would be the only element in existence.

• If the weak nuclear force were slightly different, then either there would not be enough helium to generate heavy elements in stars, or stars would burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could not scatter heavy elements across the universe

• If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, atomic bonds, and thus complex molecules, could not form.

• If the value of the gravitational constant were slightly larger, one consequence would be that stars would become too hot and burn out too quickly. If it were smaller, stars would never burn at all and heavy elements would not be produced.

The finely tuned laws and constants of the universe are an example of specified complexity in nature. They are complex in that their values and settings are highly unlikely. They are specified in that they match the specific requirements needed for life.

The following gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:

• Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34

• Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37

• Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120

• Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59

• Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55

• Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123)

The last item in the list — the initial entropy of the universe — shows an astounding degree of fine-tuning. What all this shares is an incredible, astronomically precise, purposeful care and planning that went into the crafting of the laws and constants of the universe, gesturing unmistakably to intelligent design. As Nobel laureate in physics, Charles Townes stated:

Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

Some scientists respond, “Well, there must be an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” That’s a possibility, and it’s a pretty fantastic possibility — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. One would like to get a look at the universe-generating machine responsible for this abundance. Would it have to be fine-tuned? The other possibility is that our universe was planned, and that’s why it has come out so special.

William Lane Craig has a fantastic video explaining this:

God of the Gaps fallacy

Arguments from ignorance [which is what a GOTG is] occurs when evidence against one proposition is offered as the sole grounds for accepting an alternative. Thus, they have the following form:

Premise: Cause A cannot produce or explain evidence C.

Conclusion: Therefore, cause B produced or explains C.

It's easy it is to identify this type of fallacy, and how unreasonable it would be to use such thinking to try to prove any conclusion. Atheists and other skeptics often claim that the argument for God’s existence based on intelligent design is guilty of this type of illogical thought. How can the theist who is using the design argument show that it is not a God-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance?  

To depict proponents of the theory of intelligent design as committing the GOTG fallacy, critics must misrepresent the case for it. This misrepresentation of the design argument looks like this:

Premise: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.

Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced the specified information in life.”

If this were how the design argument actually worked, there would be serious problems with it, and the skeptic would be right to challenge it as false. However, that this misrepresentation of the design argument leaves out a very important premise. The design argument includes the positive evidence that it implies:

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell.

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.

Premise Three: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.”

Notice that there is no gap in the properly stated form of the design argument. 

1) We have been doing scientific research for hundreds of years. 

2) We have discovered that intelligence is the only entity capable of producing large amounts of specified information. 

3) We see large amounts of specified information in cells. 

4) Therefore, we are forced by what we know about intelligence from centuries of scientific research to conclude that the specified information in cells is the product of an intelligent Creator. 

On the other hand, we also know enough about how matter behaves to conclude that it is impossible to get the specified information from materialistic causes. Origin-of-life experiments have been done for decades that have shown how matter does and does not behave. In every single experiment done to date, we have seen that natural processes not only do not produce life, but they cannot produce life. This is not a gap in our knowledge. The argument for design is based on what we know to be scientifically valid in every instance.

Why, then, are so many skeptics convinced that the design argument is a God-of-the-gaps logical fallacy?

The reason for this is a prior commitment to naturalism - the idea that only the physical exists. If a person begins by assuming that there has to be a naturalistic process that brought about life, then that person is forced to see a gap in our current knowledge, since no naturalistic processes have ever (in any experiment under any circumstances) even come close to producing a living cell. 

What chemical [or other natural] process first produced life? Since no such chemical process has been discovered, we are told this is simply a gap in our current knowledge that will be filled in the future. 

Nevertheless, our present lack of knowledge of any such chemical process entails a “gap” in our knowledge of the actual process by which life arose, only if some materialistic chemical evolutionary process actually did produce the first life. Yet if life did not evolve via a strictly materialistic process but was, for example, intelligently designed, then our absence of knowledge of a materialistic process does not represent “a gap” in knowledge of an actual process. Stephen C. Meyer (2021), Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe pp 424

An illustration that a “gap” only exists if a person begins by assuming that all scientific explanations must be materialistic:

Imagine someone mistakenly enters an art gallery expecting to find croissants for sale. That is, he thinks the gallery is actually a fancy bakery. Observing the absence of pastries and rolls, such a person may think that he has encountered a gap in the services provided by the gallery. He may even think that he has encountered a gap in the staff’s knowledge of what must definitely be present somewhere in the gallery. Based on his assumptions, the visitor may stubbornly cling to his perception of a gap, badgering the gallery staff to “bring out the croissants already,” until with exasperation they show him the exit. Ibid., p. 424.

The moral of the story? The gallery visitor’s perception of a gap in service or in knowledge of the location of the croissants derives from a false assumption about the nature of this establishment or about art galleries in general and what they typically offer to visitors.

There is only a gap if a person will not accept what we know scientifically to be true. We “do have extensive experience of intelligent agents producing finely tuned systems such as Swiss watches, fine recipes, integrated circuits, written texts, and computer programs.” Furthermore, “intelligence or mind or what philosophers call ‘agent causation’ now stands as the only known cause capable of generating large amounts of specified information.” And “it takes a mind to generate specified or functional information, whether in ordinary experience, computer simulations, origin-of-life simulation experiments, the production of new forms of life, or, as we now see, in modeling the design of the universe.” Ibid., pp 338, 187, 385

Conclusion

The design argument for the existence of God is not an argument from what we do not know, or we do not understand about the Universe and life in it, but instead is an argument based on the aspects of nature that we have reasons to conclude to be true. As John Lennox has stated, “I see God not in the bits of the Universe that I don’t understand, but in the bits that I do.” 

Muratorian Fragment

Also known as the "Muratorian Canon," the fragment is an ancient manuscript consisting of 85 lines, is a Latin manuscript bound in a roughly 8th-century codex that includes a list of New Testament books; affirming 22 out of the 27 books. Including all four Gospels, the book of Acts, all 13 epistles of Paul, along with Jude, 1 John and 2 John, and Revelation. (3rd John is included but disputed)

While the fragment itself dates from the 7th or 8th century, it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written in the late 2nd century (c. 170–200).

 This is remarkably early to have such a comprehensive canon, and thus widespread agreement regarding most of the books of the New Testament by the end of the 2nd century.

It mentions the non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter but testifies to the fact that not everyone was in agreement about its authority. So while there definitely was some disagreement over certain books,  there was also general agreement over most of them.

It references the Shepherd of Hermas as a book that was widely read and appreciated among early Christians but was rejected as Scripture because it was written "very recently in our times."

This counters the claim that someone or some council chose the books of the NT since  as early as the late 2nd century (100 years or so after the last of the Apostles died), there was a core canon that was affirmed by Christians and accepted as Scripture on par with the Old Testament.  It also supports the idea that the NT was written early

See this early canon list
​

There is NO evidence for God!

I hear the "There is no evidence for God" line all the time from atheists and other critics, but I think that it's untrue; there IS evidence for God.

An analogy: The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the Steady State universe or a cyclical universe. It just means that the Big Bang Theory explains more of the data/evidence better than those other two. The same data/evidence is used by all three.

Similarly, Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not.

The data/evidence

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

2) Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent, thus 1) one cannot default to physical explanations; 2) we now have at least one reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable.

3) Our thoughts are not just brain activity, rather they are the result of an immaterial mind thus, we now have a second reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable

4) A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause solves the problem of an infinite regress of causes

5) the origin of DNA is more likely on design than chance.

6) The fine-tuning of the universe is more likely on design than chance or necessity - thus, given all the above, a transcendent metaphysically necessary God is the best explanation for life as we know it.

7) Jesus was a historical person, see also Bart Erhman, NT Scholar agnostic/atheist where he says ["no question Jesus existed"] since there are many, early, independent sources.

8) Jesus' resurrection was historical rather than a myth

Conclusion: Sans the presumption of philosophical naturalism, 1–8 above, and the explanation offered for each, offer a critical thinker good reasons to conclude that the Christian God is the best explanation for the world as we know it.

If atheists and other critics with "I don't know" or "I'm not convinced" then they are admitting that they do not have any explanations and tacitly conceding that the Christian has the better explanation.

If one has no better explanation(s), why reject the Christian's?

Objection A - This is a God of the gaps fallacy

Reply: I’m not citing a gap in our knowledge and saying "God did it". This is a series of arguments; first showing that reason is the basis for knowledge not science; second, that must be a non-physical aspect to reality; third that design is a better explanation for our existence and life; fourth that God is the best explanation for whom that designer is.

Objection B - The theory of the existence of a mind makes no predictions, thus there can be no evidence for it. 

Reply: It doesn't need to. You seem assuming that it must meet the criteria for a scientific theory, but this is a logical argument. See point 1 Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

Objection C - this is just a list of assertions based on your own ignorance, incredulity, and gullibility; that's not evidence for God. This is just "apologist goulash"  

Reply:  You are just sticking your head in the sand, refusing to engage in a discussion of the evidence/data/arguments. 

Objection D - You might want to post this on a Reddit sub where you debate atheists, not Christians. I'm sure the Christians here could offer some constructive feedback, though.

Reply:  In my experience: 1) there are enough atheists in Christian subs to get feedback/debate, 2) what I mostly get on when I used to post atheist Subreddits is derision and downvotes, no intelligent discussion. Look at the current comments on Reddit. Additionally, Christians can be edified, educated, and enriched with this.

Objection E - Your points/arguments are incredibly inaccurate

Reply: Which ones specifically and where exactly are the errors for each? 

Objection F - Is the universe really so perfect? It’s extreme and harsh. Completely inhospitable for life, with vast excesses of empty space. Is that the mark of design?

Reply: When scientists speak of fine-tuned universes, they are referring to universes that are life-permitting. By life-permitting, they do not mean that life can exist wherever, or whenever, or that it's a paradise, or that there is no suffering/death; they do not even guarantee that life will exist. It’s a much more modest claim. It only holds that the fine-tuning will permit the existence of life. That’s it.

Objection G - You misunderstand what constitutes evidence.

Reply: Evidence is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, archaeological finds, DNA, etc

DNA is evidence. The findings of neuroscience for an an immaterial mind is evidence. Fine-Tuned Constants is evidence. Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent is evidence

Objection H -  Where you see design, others see chaos.

Reply: What better explains the Fine-Tuned Constants of the universe? Design, or chaos? Why?

What better explains the multitude of DNA-based micromachines like the ATP Synthase? Design, or chaos? Why?

SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.

An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Objection I -  The problem with this is sooner or later we hit a brute fact. I say that the fact is there are natural laws that describe how reality functions.  You say, because a magic guy made it that way.  We can show the laws, testable, repeatable, and consistent.

Reply: First, you cite "reality"; so what is reality, and how do you know? 

It can't be Philosophical Naturalism since it's logically incoherent and since Reason is the basis for all knowledge this seems to be how we should evaluate arguments

And the "magic guy" is better understood as A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause 

Additional info

Atheist Engineer Explains How Reason Led Him To GOD (Part 1) [Video]