Why there is no god

Often, debates of this nature can turn in to shouting matches where primary issues are overlooked and logical fallacies abound. In this round I will finish addressing Pro's claims, defend my argument, and make my final remarks. Thus far it seems that Pro is unable to answer my argument and questions, or has at the least deemed it unnecessary. It is clear that my opponent has not presented any positive evidence to suggest that God does not exist nor has he addressed the evidence given by me to the contrary. The scientific laws of information given in my main argument remain unchallenged and thus my argument stands: "Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator. "Here we find Pro going on again about the wild fantasies of professor Hawking, "Mr. Hawking is an advocate of my following statement : gravity is the means by which the universe created itself from nothing. Here, we do venture into the realm of the metaphysical because there is very little proof, if any, to make this tremendous claim. " It appears that Pro does not stand behind the scientific credulity of the statement: "gravity created the universe," since he has relinquished it to the, "realm of the metaphysical. "Pro decides to continue addressing the issue of the age of the Earth in a seeming attempt to discredit the creationist position as a whole when he says, "It would have taken billions of years for light from our closest neighboring galaxy (Andromeda) to reach our home planet of Earth. This is scientific fact, based on the theory of general relativity. It seems that apologists have not yet addressed the full breadth of the scientific argument, which is a fallacy in it's own right. " Despite not having any relevance to the issue at hand, namely, the question of whether or not God exists, in all fairness I will address this apparent misunderstanding of the creationist understanding of starlight, time and gravity. By claim made by my opponent assumes a specific mode of creation, that is, that all the the celestial bodies were created in their current galactic coordinates. Pro himself pointed out that the universe is expanding and I'm sure believes that the universe was once very "small. " Likewise it is certainly possible that galaxies, stars, planets, etc. were created in relatively close proximity with Earth and then moved away from a central point to allow the light from these heavenly entities to be seen despite their currently being many light years away. This allows man to appreciate both the beauty of God's creation and the vast grandeur of His power and might. There are a couple of creation astrophysicists who have been working on such models as well, by the way, utilize both astronomical data and Einstein's theory of general and special relativity. Incredulously I find my opponent claiming, "It is scientific fact that we are made of elements that coalesced into molecules, which in turned formed larger compounds to give rise to the building blocks of life ( i. e. DNA and RNA). " So if it truly be a fact that basic elements transmutated over time into the most complex organic molecules, why is it such a difficult thing to provide step-by-step mechanisms, which can be tested by means of the scientific method, demonstrating how it is such an astounding event has occurred? Methinks thou dost protest too much! Could it be that the claim of "atoms-to-Adam" as scientific fact is rather many pegs down on the meter of scientific veracity, indeed stuck on the first peg, the chalk board of speculative hypothesis. It seem the failing point of my opponent to provide any evidence which is quantifiable or testable. Despite having conceded that the creation of the universe by means of gravitational forces is a metaphysical position, Pro concludes, ". . . if we were to quantify the concept of god, I would put my money on the laws of gravity as being the first cause, and we have given a name to the first cause, and that is God. Yes, I do believe in 'God,' however, not in the religious sense. God permeates everything in the universe. And the concept of God is most certainly the 'first' cause. " Amazingly Pro's god is the force of gravity and attributes to it the creative power of the universe without having a shred of scientific fact to quantify and validate his claim. Sounds like blind faith to me, a thing which my my brand of philosophy abhors as blind faith is believing that which is not known and that which is not known cannot be logical understand as true. In conclusion I have upheld my argument for the existence of a sentient God who is supremely intelligent. My opponent's god of natural processes has failed the test of verifiable evidence. Many bald assertions and "just so" stories have been presented by my opponent lacking any scientific support. The one relative attempt at substantiating his case using proposed evidence of the natural formation of novel genetic code was shown to be lacking any real conclusive evidence and my rebuttal remained unanswered and thus nullifies Pro's only given evidence. I thank my opponent once again for an interesting debate which will certainly be informative to prospective readers. Thank you for your time and consideration of this debate. Shalom