God Exists

The biggest problem here is that there are several arguments wrapped into one. We have an argument for the creation (or formation) of life, objective morality, intelligent design, and now finally some sort of undefinable God that fits all conceptions of God. Pro exemplifies the issue when he states, "All I have to show is that a supernatural entity (God) does exist. Weather this entity is a trinity (as in the Bible) or one person (as in Islam) is not important to this debate. What his name is (Jesus, Zeus, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Ra, etc) is not important to this debate." The character of this supernatural entity(ies) does matter because without this, the being is essentially meaningless. This entity could be multiple beings, one being, all-good, all-evil, and much more. Pro seemingly doesn't understand his own argument. He clearly says in his first argument, "[T]he supernatural does indeed exist, and that supernatural entity is God." Why make this distinction, especially using God with a capital G? God as a proper noun means the God of the Christian Bible, not other gods or variations on a theme (http://www.thinkingchristian.net...). If we take his rebuttal and compare it to his first argument, we get a major contradiction: supernatural entity= any possible entity with various names and characteristics, or supernatural entity= God. So which is it? If God is to mean any possible entity, then this debate is completely useless in that any conclusion Pro arrives at is void of any meaning. What is a being if it has no characteristics? With all that said, I will refute Pro's first argument as it is the most crucial. Premise 1, the physical universe is all of nature Premise 2, the physical universe had a beginning Premise 3, life comes from life Premise 4, life does not come from non-living entities by itself Premise 3+4 = Premise 5, since life only comes from life, there was never a time when there was no life Conclusion, the universe didn't always exist, but life did, so there was life existing before the universe. The universe is all of nature, thus, this life was outside nature, which is by definition supernatural (that which is not conformed to natural law) I will start with P3. This misconstrues and misunderstands the concepts of biogenesis, which sates that life can only come from life, and abiogenesis, which states that living organisms formed billions of years ago on an earth through natural processes (links are in round 1). The two concepts do not contradict one another. They actually compliment each other in many ways. Both refer to different stages within earth's development and atmospheric composition. Biogenesis refers to the present conditions on earth, especially an atmosphere relatively rich in oxygen, a substance that is detrimental to the formation of complex organic compounds. In other words, earth's current conditions make it impossible to sustain what could have potentially formed in earth's early atmosphere. Abiogenesis refers to a very different earth than the one that exists today where tests have shown that the building blocks of life can appear by natural means. Since P3 is misused, P4 and P5 no longer follow and the conclusion becomes invalid. Here's my argument for life coming from non-living matter. P1) All life is composed of non-living compounds that are found in nature. P2) Tests suggest that these compounds were produced within earth's early atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org...). p3) Tests also suggest that electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org...). C) Life originated from non-living matter through a slow process of naturally occurring processes that no longer occur on earth presently. Another argument from wikipedia that incorporates the evolution of cells (self-replication) is as follows (http://en.wikipedia.org...): 1 The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis) 2 Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis. 3 Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.