God exists.

My opponent makes the following arguments:1. The universe is bound by the laws of logic, which can best be explained by God.2. The uniformity of nature can best be explained if we posit the existence of God.3. The Big Bang can best be explained if we posit God.4. The origin of life can best be explained if we posit God.5. The complexity of life can best be explained if we posit God.6. DNA "is fascinating." (I guess the idea here is, again, that the best explanation is God.)7. "Objective morality." (Probably he intends to make another explanatory argument here.)I have two general points, then I'll address each argument specifically. First General Point: God of the Gaps Reasoning First, it ought to be obvious that my opponent is really just listing a bunch of things and asserting that God is the explanation for them. He does not explain how any of this supports the claim that God exists.I mean, I could continue in the same way:8. My shoes are white with black stripes, which can best be explained by God.9. Water is wet, which can best be explained by God.10. Donald Trump wears a toupee, which can best be explained by God.But clearly, none of these support the existence of God at all. There is no connection between facts 8-10 and the existence of God. My opponent's arguments are no different, except that the facts he cites strike him with a subjective sense of awe or puzzlement, leading him to unjustifiably posit that the explanation for them is God. This is not rational. Second General Point: Irrelevance to the Divine Attributes My second general point is that none of his arguments establish that God is omnipotent, omniscient, or perfectly good. You can see that just by looking at his arguments, even before any objections have been made. For example, even if God made DNA, there is no reason why that would require an omnipotent, omniscient, or perfectly good God. A God of finite power, knowledge, and goodness could have done the same thing. It's worth recalling that the definition of God we are debating is an omnipotent, omnioscient, and perfectly good person. So, as of right now, my opponent has not made any arguments that are relevant to any of the attributes of the being we are debating. Refuting The Arguments Now, let's consider each of his arguments in turn.Regarding 1, all of the laws of logic follow from the law of identity, A is A. The law of identity cannot have an explanation even in principle, because the explanation itself would have to have an identity, which would make it a circular explanation. The law of identity is just where we start.Regarding 2, the reason nature behaves consistently is that the things in nature have definite identities, and they always act according to these identities. They cannot do otherwise, because that would be a contradiction - they would be acting like something that they are not. For example, paper burns when put in contact with fire due to its identity as paper. A substance that did not burn when put in contact with fire would not be paper.Regarding 3, I simply see no reason to believe that the Big Bang was caused by God. It could have been caused by any number of things - a prior state of the universe, for example.Regarding 4, the burden of proof is certainly not on the atheist to prove that abigenesis was not caused by God. The default position obviously isn't to believe that God caused every single thing we observe until we prove that it wasn't caused by God. That is pure God of the gaps reasoning, and there is no warrant for it. [1]Regarding 5, again, there is simply no connection here. "X is complicated, therefore it was caused by God" is bad reasoning.Regarding 6, again, there is no connection between God and DNA, and my opponent has not even tried to present one.Regarding 7, this overlooks the accounts atheists have presented of objective morality in terms of deontology, utility, virtue, and rational self interest. I happen to belong to the rational self interest (or "egoist") group. Conclusion In conclusion, my opponent's arguments are all non sequiturs and he has not explained how any of them are relevant to omnipotence, omniscience or perfect goodness.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...