God's existance.

In this debate, Hittfler, will try to counter the arguments, which I think, are evidence that there is a theistic god. This means, a space less, immaterial, powerful, personal, infinite, intelligent being. This does not necessary prove the god of the Bible, although I do believe he is real. First, I will start by showing evidence that God is real by using the cosmological argument. I will use the acronym CRIMES. This not only shows evidence for the theistic god but shows how evolution is flawed. Before I do start, I just want to say that this is only my second debate. If I do make any mistakes, hopefully Hittfler will be able to give me some grace. Also, I'm not sure what is it that Hittfler believes in. If he's an atheist, evolutionist, or materialist, these arguments counter those beliefs very well. Here we go. C - Creation You'd be surprised to know that as a Christian I believe in the Big Bang. Over the recent years, the Big Bang has been proven to be the best explanation for our reality. We know that the Big Bang and everything had a beginning from the evidence. NASA's Hubble has shown clear evidence that the heat from the Big Bang is slowly cooling down. If it's cooling down, something must have started it. Even atheists admit this. Stephen Hawkins agreed with this idea, although I also believe that space, time, and matter came from nothing. Not only that, the Big Bang is highly tuned. Stephen Hawkins put it this way: "If the expansion rate was different by one part in a thousand, million, million a second after the Big Bang, the universe would have collapsed back on itself or never developed galaxies." You can't use evolutionary laws in this because this is where everything came from. Whatever caused the Big Bang must be spaceless, immaterial, and timeless. Did nothing create something out of nothing? Or did someone create something out of nothing? There's more evidence to show supporting this argument, but there isn't much space left for me. R - Reason If evolution is real, you cannot justify reason. More surprisingly, Darwin himself knew this. "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the minds lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there were at all any convictions in such mind?" (Charles Darwin). If we our minds evolved from RANDOM, UNGUIDED processes, why should we trust anything we think? If we are just molecules in motion, we shouldn't believe in our minds. We merely react, we don't REASON. Evolution cannot explain minds. If evolution is real, are we just molecular machines? Then, we don't have free will, we don't reason, we react, therefore we should trust ANY of our thoughts, INCLUDING THE IDEA THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE. Atheists call themselves free thinkers, yet, their own argument falls on it's own foundation. I think that's the fatal flaw in atheism. I - Information This takes us to the very basis of life. Evolution says we all evolved from one-celled amoebas. This is the macro-evolution argument. You know it. From swimming worms, to moral, intelligent humans. Now know that amoebas do not say "Made by God" or "Made by Evolution". So, what you have to do is make an interpretation. You need to look at the data and come to a logical conclusion. This is why science doesn't say anything, scientists do. All data needs to be interpreted. What data? Today, we know what's in a cell. Let's suppose for a moment that you like alphabet cereal. You're a teenager and one day you come downstairs and see that the cereal is knocked over on the table and the letters spell "Take out the garbage - Mom" What are you going to think? The cat knocked it over? The wind did it? Bacterial evolution? No, you're going to say that is intelligent design from an intelligent mind, because we KNOW that messages only come from minds; they don't come from repetitive, random forces. If that's true, then where does the message for DNA come from? Every living thing has DNA. What IS DNA? Bill Gates (who is not a Christian) put it like this: "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." DNA is an immaterial code and message. It IS expressed in materials, but can only be interpreted by minds and the letters and order by which is appears is NOT determined by any chemical, or physical process. As far as I know, codes only come from coders. Messages only come from minds. DNA is like a message. It's like "Take out the garbage - Mom" expect is far larger and complex. Your DNA has about 3 billion characters in it. ALL in the right order. although we know its not always perfect because we live in a fallen world. Now you can say that the amoeba's DNA maybe evolved and started small. Problem is, in an amoeba there is about 1,000 volumes of an encyclopedia worth of information in there. To believe that resulted by natural forces like evolution is like saying that the Library of Congress came up from an explosion in a printing shop. Life and information seem to need an intelligent cause. You know who said this? Not a Christian, but Richard Dawkins himself. M - Morality 68 years ago the Allies liberated the camp which contained dead bodies. If God is not real, saying killing and torturing humans is just an opinion. Why? Because if there is no standard (God) that is beyond humanity and human opinion, then that is your opinion against Hitler's opinion. There are no objective moral right, or objective more wrongs. In fact, if God does not exist, the Nazis were not wrong. If there is no god, love is no better than rape. Not in an objective way at least. You may not like it, but its not really wrong. If god is not real, blowing up people watching a marathon is no better than feeding the poor. If god is not real, religious crusades are not wrong, because there is no standard of righteousness. There are no human rights if there is no god. It's all an opinion. If we're just overgrown germs, that got here by evolution , then we are no different than another animal. I'm not saying atheists don't know morality, i'm just saying that they can't justify morality. There is no purpose in evolution. I just says what survives, not what OUGHT to survive. E - Evil The atheists were supposed to bring this one, however, I believe evil is actually EVIDENCE that God is real, here is why. If Gos exists, we have creation and design of the universe, reason, laws and logic, morality, free will, laws of nature. The Laws of Nature shows that God not only created everything but sustains it. We know how it works and its so precise. That's why we can take space shuttles to mars. Now evil is for God, why? Because objective evil presupposes objective good. And objective good requires God. C.S. Lewis before turning into a Christian had a doubt about evil and thought it was a case against God. One day, he realized that argument didn't make sense. In Mere Christianity he wrote this after becoming a Christian: "(As an atheist) my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?". There is no such thing as injustice unless there is justice. And there is no such thing as justice unless there's a standard outside of us known that is objective and does not change. Look at it this way. The shadows prove the sunshine. There would be no shadows unless there was sunshine. You can have sunshine without shadows, but there wouldn't be shadows unless there was sunshine. And the sun, the origin of sunshine, could be seen as God. Same goes for evil. You can't have evil without good. You can have good, but we wouldn't know what evil is unless we knew what good is. And finally, the last letter. S - Science I thought the atheist was supposed to bring up science. "Christians don't do science. They don't believe in evidence." Actually, we do. In fact, science is against evolution and atheism. If there is no God, we wouldn't even have science. This is what Einstein said about why we can do science: "The most comprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible." Why can we look at the world and draw conclusions about everything? Only if theism is true or any immaterial realm is true, we can do science; because science is built on a foundation of immaterial realities that theism, not atheism, can explain. Here's some of the things science needs to work but can't be explained by evolution or atheism. Orderly natural laws, causality (You can't prove the law of causality by using a science experiment, you have to assume it exists. Science only searches for causes.) Laws of Logic (that, by the way, we are using right now to understand each other through words. Science can't explain that.) reason, free will (you have to freely evaluate data to understand it because science won't tell you, only scientists do.) realism (The idea that we can appropriate, through our senses, truth) and morality. We can't even trust scientists unless they are ethical and tell us the results of their experiments truthfully and honestly. These are all laws, or things, that are immaterial and cannot be explained by matter or materialism. You can't get honesty through a test tube. Honesty is not a molecule, it's a human value. You need a lot of faith to be an atheist. If atheism and evolution is real, then none of this is true. Not even what i'm writing. People think science is against God? No, atheism is at war with science. You have to give up your common sense to become an atheist. Christianity, contrary to popular belief, is based on reason and logic. Christianity is not blind faith, ATHEISM is blind faith. This is the evidence that I think better explains reality, among many other arguments.