http://www.templetonpress.org/book.asp?book_id=118

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories...

http://www.ctr4process.org/

http://www.processandfaith.org/

–Jeff

Anyway, the argument from design you mentioned (which actually sounds more like the argument from beauty) has never been terribly convincing to me, either, although there are modern philosophers who defend it.

However I find the anthropic principle much more convincing and at least equal, if not much more plausible, in terms of probability than the universe magically popping out of nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. The argument you mention seems to be a someone's poor application of the concept, so I can understand why you don't buy it. I find Christians usually go about this the wrong way when they try to defend design in living things because it can easily be interpreted through an evolutionary explanation. The design of the physical universe is far more impressive.

Leigha's argument seems to come from outrage and rhetoric (not helpful when discussing such sensitive issues) but she does have a point – without God, life is meaningless. Sure, one can say they “create” value for their life or the lives of others, but it's really just an exercise in self-delusion. And subjective as well – if everyone decided a certain person had no value, would they not become worthless? Assigning worth on the very slippery foundation of what you feel about someone seems quite iffy. Think of how rapidly worth changes on things like commodities people exchange – oil, gold, and the like. If we take this definition of worth, then you could instantly lose worth if your friends decide they don't like you anymore. Is that really any way to live? Of course, you say you still believe you follow Jesus, and since Jesus did say to love one another, so there is some foundation there.

Didn't Russel say something to the effect that we must build our lives on the foundation of unyielding despair? Don't morals themselves become yet another exercise in self-delusion, subjective and counterintuitive (think of how helping the less fortunate is an utterly stupid idea from a materialistic evolutionary standpoint)? You can say you give value to people or things, but in the end everyone dies, everyone who remembers you dies, the universe fizzles out, and there was never much point in anything at all. In the end, it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint. Personally I find adopting nihilism and simply shrugging off and ignoring the question of the value of life, the universe, and everything else to be a more reasonable reaction to the nonexistence of God.

By the way, the Japanese phrase you mentioned is more accurately translated as “the misery of material things.” あわれ means sorrow/grief/pity/misery, not awe or wonder. If you did end up a nihilist, I suppose this expression could be quite appropriate though. If you're looking to slap a cool-sounding Japanese philosophical phrase on your arm, 諸行無常 (shogyoumujou, all earthly things are transitory) is pretty good.

As for worth, here shines your biggest issue with your line of reasoning. Worth is, by far, the easiest of the three to have without the need of a god. My friends have worth to me, my family has worth to me, you have worth to me, and those same feelings are reciprocated amongst my family and friends toward me. Even if my family, friends, and everyone else held no value on my life, I assign worth to myself!