Lots of bashing for the belief of God....

[Final-Fan]

Hynad said:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."  --C.S. Lewis

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."  -- C.S. Lewis

"I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world."  -- C.S. Lewis

"Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe."  -- Peter Kreeft

"Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)" -- Peter Kreeft

Quote dumping can be entertaining, but it doesn't really convey your point.  However I will give my thoughts on these thoughts which are not your own: 

1.  His point seems to revolve around an assumption that without God there can be no order in the universe, which is a very silly assumption to make IMO. 

2.  Here again, he faultily assumes that anything arising by chance is unreliable.  That because our cells and bodies and brains evolved under no organized plan, they cannot be trusted to figure out how the universe works.  Although we are fallible and therefore have to carefully check and recheck and continually be cautious with our observations and deductions, I reject that allegation. 

3.  Here he recalls his crisis of faith, in which he rejected God without ever really disbelieving in God's existence.  He projects that all atheists feel the same way he did, which is to say, he says that they aren't really atheists but just having a tantrum against God. 

4.  This guy isn't even making much of an argument.  He just points to a done-to-death allegory explaining how highly unlikely events will be likely to happen if given enough chances, and says "MONKEY HAMLET LOL!" 

(But if I found a planet full of monkeys and typewriters, and found a copy of Hamlet there, I'd wonder if some monkey didn't get lucky before thinking God typed it, or aliens for that matter.) 

5.  Here he misstates the principle of causality to be about apparent complexity instead of energy in the system -- or worse, intelligence. 

CONCLUSION:  I don't find any of these arguments compelling.  Of course, C.S. Lewis may have only been speaking of his personal convictions (opinions) and the feelings he had about them or that made him think they were true, but that doesn't make them good arguments about whether those opinions actually are a good idea of the way the universe operates.