The Christian God exists (10)

Thanks to craighawley for the debate.From what I gather from Pro's arguments, he has no problem with abiogenesis ("I am not trying to prove abiogenesis as invalid. Abiogenesis is scientifically supported."), but with spontaneous generation. Sorry if I did not exactly get this at first, I plan to refute this now.REBUTTAL1. I think I understand what you mean, you're saying that abiogenesis is not the same as the first organic matter coming into being, and you don't have a problem with organic matter building up over time to form life, but the origins of that organic matter. You go on to say that we have "no inkling of proof to support any theory that any type of nonorganic matter could ever generate organic matter." This statement is completely untrue. In this very argument I have provided a source that shows that organic matter can be generated from non-organic matter[1], and you can do this experiment at home. It's called the Miller/Urey experiment and is quite well-known within the scientific community. It is widely accepted as a proof of concept for what you would call "spontaneous generation". Spontaneous generation is a hypothesis that's laughed at because "Spontaneous generation is the incorrect hypothesis that nonliving things are capable of producing life."[2]. Notice that it does not state that nonliving things are capable of producing inorganic coumpounds, but that nonliving things cannot directly produce life. A rock can't make a butterfly. However, carbon can produce amino acids, as exemplified in the Miller/Urey experiment. This is the difference in our definitions of spontaneous generation and the differnece between science and science fiction.2. Yes, the periodic table is subject to error, but life is not on the periodic table for a reason. There's no "life" atom or "soul" coumpound, if you find one of those I'd be glad to hear about them. You use a false dichotomy[3] when you say that the only two options are "we don't know, therefore god" or "we don't know, therefore nothing." I have a few additions to these. How about, "we don't know therefore we should learn" or, "we don't know, therefore we don't know (that god did it)". I don't see any evidence that points towards god's doing this. This whole point is pretty invalid anyway since I've shown that organic coumpounds can rise from inorganic coumpounds.4. I think we should also consider the number of people who believe in Islam, or the number of people who believe 9-11 was an inside job, or the number of people who believe in alien abductions. There are a lot of people that beleive in a variety of crazy things, that doesn't make these beliefs right.I'm not going to refute this paragraph because I'm lazy and even if it were true it isn't evidence for the Christian god.5. There's support for a vast universe in the form of evidence; we've made predictive models of the universe that hold up and there's evidence for these models in the background radiation, redshifted light, etc.[4]. We're not just blindly guessing here. Scientists have a little bit of faith, but the difference between scientists and the religious is that scientists are willing to change their views when they see that the evidence points in the oppositte direction.6. This is implausible because, as one of my opponents has stated in a previous debate, if this alien life form exists within the universe, it could not have created the universe, and you'd have to be a pretty radical creationist if you say that god didn't create the universe. Also, the ancient aliens "theory" has been thoroughly discredited. See below if you'd like to see this debunking; it's actually quite informative and interesting.8. I've already addressed the spontaneous generation argument.I've seen creationists bob and weave around Bible contradictions ad nausea (shoutout to KalifV for showing me that term) and I can say that it all really comes down to how you interpret the text and semantics. Some people say there are Bible contradictions, others don't. You can pretty much clear up any contradiction if you try hard enough, but that doesn't meant they're not there. I'll cite some contradictions for anyone cuurious: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...Yes, I've heard of the cave, and it's quite a brilliant peice of philosophy, but it's still philosophy. As you said, the cave only exists as a concept, not in reality.I would also like to thank Pro for his civility and good arguments.I believe I have addressed all of Pro's claims, especially the main one, spontaneous generation. I also wish the reader good thought and hope we all learned a thing or two from this, myself included. However, I don't believe Pro has upheld his BoP, so vote con.Sources:1. http://people.chem.duke.edu...;2. http://www.infoplease.com...;3. http://mind.ucsd.edu...;4. http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...;