God(s) existence

OBJECTIONSDEFENSE OF ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTIONThe opposition says that "God is not perfect, just all good." However, this is false on to basis: (a) he has accepted my definition of God as a being perfect, and (b) that accordingly to the Bible, God is all-perfect. In defense of (b), I shall direct you to a passage in the Bible that states that "He [God] is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he." (Deurotonomy 32:4). Hence, my assertion is still wholly asserted at this point.REFUTATION OF THE RICHARD DAWKINS ARGUMENTThis is just a religious woo-ed version of the First Cause Argument, an argument in which I shall soon show to be of non-sense to the audience. The proof of this is simple argumentum ad ignoratum-just because life on earth has no other explanation, we should turn to God. This view, I believe, holds as much validity as saying that light originated from living creatures from "outer space". The fact is, we have life-so what? From this assertion, the opposition presents us with an argument that states that since the probability of amino acids (AA) developing on Earth is 1 multiplied by 10^-130. However, the paper presents us with a question that is not answered. It is based upon the same logic (if used to prove) as the sophists. This is argumentum ad ignoratum. But before we go on, we must assert the following: life exists on Earth. Via this, let us revisit the findings of scientists. AA's development requires the following conditions: the existence of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. These elements have been present since the beginning of the Earth. Apart from this, the earliest forms of life would have been single-cell organisms, concerned with only survival. The first cells were most definitely RNA cells. RNA cells create and synthesizes proteins. The article cited talks about the existence of AAs as being prior to the existence of the RNA cell. Albeit this seems likely, RNA cells probably multiplied the amount of RNA cells in existence. [1] Based upon this, via a priori means, I shall also disprove the opposition's argument: if God was the "First Cause", then this provides no justification for Him to actually care about us. Furthermore, this is a non-sequitor. From the fact that everything must have a beginning, does not prove that God exists. The beginning might have been the Big Bang-we have no idea from what asserted right now.REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM PHYSICSThis by no means proves anything but behind the scientific mumbo jumbo, there really is just a simplistic logic behind this. Something created the laws of the universe-yes, something did create the laws of the universe. So what? Where does God come in the picture? If God created the law of gravity, then boo-hoo on Him! Why did He create these laws? If we delete the mumbo jumbo and the ignoratio elenchi, then we are left with the following:p1. There are natural laws which govern the universep2. All laws have a law giverc1. That law giver is GodThis is the argument in a nutshell. The first premise is already problematic for the following reason-it presupposes that natural laws are something prescriptive, not something descriptive. Natural laws describe our universe and it's action-this gives no presumption to the necessary existence of a being. The second premise is refuted by the first premise. Descriptive laws do not need a law-giver: it describes the existence of something. For example, philosophy has (finally) all agreed with one point: that we exist. This is a descriptive law. Who made it? No one did. It describes human ontology. However, prescriptive laws need a law-giver: "do not kill" is an example of one of them. The third premise does not follow logically-if we take our current definition of God, then we see no basis to attribute Him to this. Apart from this, why did God create these laws? What were his reasons? These laws limit-are you saying that God has the abilities to break them? Then why did He create them in the first place? Either natural laws can be broken by God (why did He create them?) or God is not Omnipotent (absurd). [2] REFUTATION FO CELL THEORY ARGUMENTS All known living things are made up of one or more cells All living cells arise from pre-existing cells by division. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms. The activity of an organism depends on the total activity of independent cells. Energy flow (metabolism and biochemistry) occurs within cells. Cells contain DNA which is found specifically in the chromosome and RNA found in the cell nucleus and cytoplasm. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition in organisms of similar species . This is the modern intepretation of the Cell Theory. The Second Law (OI third law) shall be examined. Here, what is meant by this is that all cells arise from a pre-existing cell. However, via the same logic as the opposition's First Cause thoughts, the first cell had to be created from nothing. On Earth, the first cell was most probably created when ligtning and the heating of sea water both synthesized, allowing for the cell to live. But even if did God did put the cell on Earth (which is yet to be affirmed), we are soon left with the following things to prove: that this God cares about us, and that He is Omnipotent, All-Knowing etc. This then turns the opp.'s arguments into mere argumentum ad ignoratum. [4] REFUTATION: Einstein was a TheistEinstein was a Pantheist for sure. "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." Spinoza's God is not the Christian God. Spinoza's God is infinite, but not omnipotent. Spinoza's God is beautiful, but not perfect. Einstein acknowledged this. "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. " Pantheism is one of the more emotional atheistic refutations of theism. The universe is God. God is one, and all. No divisions-no Jesus Christ, no revelations whatsoever. Einstein's God was a God that we were part of-an omnipresent beautiful substance, whom we will always wonder about. [3] As of now, the resolution is negatedCITATIONS[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...[3] http://www.spaceandmotion.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...;