God exists.

I. We must follow th evidence where it leads: when we observe a logical and orderly universe that is uniform, it is reasonable to presume something logical gave rise to it. If we observe life, it is reasonable to presume life was behind it. If we observe information, we can assume intelligence behind it, etc. If we assert natural processes *has to* to explain such things, natural processes will become our unscientific "god of the gaps". II. Concerning the laws of logic: They are not mere descriptions; sure humans have described what we observed and given such things the label "laws". But before humans existed, these laws existed. For example, the sun, before humanity, could not have been a sphere and square at the same time. Why is this? It is because it is illogical. But we must ask ourselves, What determined contradictions to be impossible in the first place? And so, the the immaterial laws of logic stem off of God"s sovereign, logical nature. The logical creation reflects the logical Creator. III. This good sir seemed to miss my point: he seemed to be asking how we could know he is such things, and the Christian has faith in such things - but the faith is based on evidence (e. g. we have faith in his omnipotence; evidence for this is he created the entirety of the universe; we have faith in God and word, and so accept his perfectly good and sovereign will [and part of this perfect plan is that he will eliminate evil completely when his Son returns, and since God ultimately determines all things, we can trust his plan to be good and perfect [and he plans all things [including the death and resurrection of his Son, so we could put our faith in him and his saving work to receive salvation and forgiveness of our sins] in a way in which he does not sin / how he does this is beyond the creation"s finite, limited mind, as Calvin puts it]). IV. We can indeed have a foundation! Christians accept a logical Creator, and so we believe this is the explanation of the laws of logic. The naturalist cannot offer any rational doundation, as such laws cannot come about naturally. V. Referring to the uniformity of nature: yes, contradictions are not possible - we believe this. But why? The Christian ultimately answers: a logical Creator. The naturalist fails to give a foundation for why a universe that came about purely by natural processes has to remain regular and orderly - we all presume uniformity and logic. God explains why the universe is uniform, logical, and regular at all times. VI. Referring to the beginning, God also explains the fine-tuning of the universe (all physicists generally agree with this [e. g. Stephen Hawking]). An eternal, immaterial, infinite, omnipotent, Designer who has a plan explains our logical, orderly, fine-tuned universe. VII. Yes, biogenesis contradicts a naturalistic worldview. And? This is what the debate is about. But there are some things that cannot be explained by purely natural processes (laws of nature, physics, logic, life from no life, etc. ). The argument remains: the burden of proof lies on the one who accepts abiogenesis happened. Let us not try to fill the gaps with naturalism - this is not science. VIII. We have observed information. DNA is infinitely more complex than one Chinese symbol. Let us not close the doors on God because he contradicts a philosophy which states everything that exists ultimately must be material. IX. In the Christian worldview, God has created weather, th human body, etc. to function properly; we do not associate such things happening because of a "god of weather" or a "god of blood". On the contrary, we believe in a God who created such things to happen in the first place. It"s not as easy to explain the origin of life naturally as it is to explain how life works. Is there evidence that the materialistic worldview can explain such things like the immaterial (e. g. laws of logic), or if it can explain immaterial (and extremely complex) DNA, or cells and their numerous functions? No, the evidence is against such an idea. I would still hold that all my arguments are best explained by an immaterial, transcendent Creator God - the God of Christianity. Naturalism fails to account for the immaterial laws of logic and nature, order and uniformity, and immaterial genetic information. It fails to explain the fine tuning of the universe. It fails to explain life from non life (and I would state the evidence is against this idea). And I would invite my opponent to consider putting his faith in the Christ, who died to save us from our sins and was raised to life three days later to prove that faith in him and his saving work will save us from our sins - we can enjoy God as our ultimate satisfaction, bringing glory to him, now and forever. We also have eternal life - saved from the eternal damnation we deserve for our sin against our Creator.