God is Real

Thanks to Pro for his arguments!He has provided quite a bit for me to refute, so I'll get straight into it. ...R1) Imagination, Faith, CreationPro argues that the systematic process of innovation that humans use mirrors God's method of creation, supporting the contention that we are all made in his image. However, this does not at all prove that God exists, as there is a much sounder alternative explanation for this similarity:The method of imagination, faith, and creation is just logically the natural method of innovation-Imagination: all purposeful actions must start out as ideas...-Faith: for the action to be completed, the doer has to continue doing it...-Creation: the action has to eventually be completed...Thus, this systematic approach to innovation is not really anything special; it is just the natural approach to doing ANYTHING, so it to be expected that all humans do things this way. And it is only natural that the gods/God they imagine do things that way as well.This argument simply does not prove the existence of God at all. ...R2) First Law of ThermodynamicsPro states that the fact that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed is very good evidence for God's existence.However, he does not expand upon why this is so at all, only providing some irrelevant passage about DNA and enzymes following the First Law of Thermodynamics.I am left unsure of how this argument has anything to do with God's existence......R3) Second Law of Thermodynamics"Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other... evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true."Obviously the theory of Evolution probably needs to be true in a Godless Universe, so I think it is worth it to rebut this point. Saying that the process of Naturalistic Evolution as a whole is subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is like saying that the movement of Planets is subject to the laws of Quantum Mechanics. The two are on radically different scales and thus cannot be compared at all! The Second Law of Thermodynamics operates on an atomic/molecular level; the progressive advancement of a species over generations through natural selection is not affected at all on the short term by a process as small-scale and long-term as entropy. In other words, Evolution involves the continual increase of order and organization on scales, much, much larger than the "force" of entropy affects. "Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!" This has the same problem as the Evolution argument. It makes no sense to subject the huge-scale orderly nature of the universe to the atomic-scale force of entropy!...R4) Global FloodNormally I would take the time to actually show why occurrence of the global flood is unlikely in order to refute this point.However, due to a lack of time on my part, I will just stick with a much simpler rebuttal:Even if there WAS a global flood, that in NO WAY proves the existence of God!Correlation does not imply causation; just because a global flood happened and the Bible speaks of one does automatically mean the Bible is completely factual. All that would prove is that the Bible has some historical basis, which really goes no where in proving the existence of its God....R5) DualityPro makes the case that the existence of objective morality proves the existence of some objective moral law-giver. Again, normally I would make a case that objective morality doesn't exist, but that's going to take too much time, so I'm going to go with the simpler argument that there are several possible explanations for why all humans seem to share the same basic moral compass. One of the most popular theories is that human morality is based in a concern for other humans' suffering, being intrinsic to all humans' brains as a result of Evolution from a common ancestor. Another theory is that one can use logic and reasoning to determine the objective moral value of any action.Either of these theories are much more plausible than the idea of an all-powerful being deciding what is right and what is wrong....CONCLUSIONS1. The Imagination-Faith-Creation process is just the natural, logical way of executing any action; it has nothing to do with God at all2. Pro has not done shown WHY the First Law of Thermodynamics proves the existence of God 3. Neither the process of Evolution nor the structure of the Universe are subject as a whole to the Second Law of Thermodynamics4. Even if a Global Flood happened, it would not prove the existence of God at all5. Objective morality can exist without God existing_____________________________With that, I hand the debate back over to my opponent for his counter-rebuttals. A short reminder to Pro: this round you are about to post will be your last round in the debate, so please keep that in mind...Good luck!