God exists.

I'll use the same numbering as my opponent. 1. My opponent's response to my first general point regarding his "God of the gaps" reasoning largely misses my point. What I said in that section was that my opponent had not demonstrated the slightest bit of relevance of any of his points to the existence of God. This is still perfectly true - my opponent has not shown that there is anything *about* the Big Bang, or DNA, or any of his other arguments, that should lead us to appeal to God as an explanation. The only reason any of these things might suggest the existence of God to us is psychological: they give us a subjective sense of puzzlement. Again, my opponent is really just listing a bunch of random things and *asserting* that God is the explanation for them. He has never shown that that inference is warranted. (Incidentally, no professional philosopher argues for the existence of God in the way that he does - if you read Aquinas or Swinburne, they put a lot of work into justifying this inference. ) My opponent writes that the laws of logic are immaterial, so they require God an explanation. This makes two mistakes. First, the laws of logic are only our descriptions of the universe, not entities in their own right. Pro has confused the fact that things have identities with the law of identity. Second, even if the laws of logic are immaterial entities, Pro has done nothing to demonstrate the relevance of this to the existence of God. Let's suppose they're immaterial - so what? 2. Pro says that Christians believe God is omnipotent because "he created the universe and he himself tells us he is all-powerful. " But God could have created the universe with finite power, and appealing to the Bible is question begging. Pro says that God is allegedly omniscient "so can perfectly judge us," but it is unclear how this is supposed to serve as an argument in a debate with an atheist. An atheist does not think God will judge us, since atheists do not think God exists. Pro says God is perfectly good because "he provides for all creatures as he gives us life, breathe, and everything else. " But God could do this while having limited goodness. Indeed, the presence of evil in the world is more consistent with a God of finite goodness than with a perfectly good God. 3. I absolutely did not restate Pro's point about the laws of logic. If you refer back to my earlier speech, I proved that there cannot possibly be any explanation or "foundation" for the laws of logic. They have no foundation, natural or supernatural, since any such foundation would have to have an identity in the first place. This refutes Pro's argument. 4. Pro is just repeating himself here rather than addressing my refutation. Nature is uniform because things always act according to their identities. The only way for nature to fail to be uniform would be for something to act contrary to its identity, like paper acting contrary to the nature of paper. This never happens because it would be a contradiction. 5. Pro did not respond to my point that he has not shown how the Big Bang implies God's existence. He did say that we run into an infinite regress without God, but he did not explain what is wrong with positing an infinite temporal regress. There is no contradiction in the idea of an eternal universe with no beginning. 6. Using God to explain the origin of life is unscientific, since it violates methodological naturalism. God has been invoked to explain countless things that were later shown to have rational explanations, like thunder and lightning (Thor), so we ought to assume that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 7. Pro is correct that we infer a designer when we see Chinese writing, but the reason for this is not that it is complex. The reason is that we have seen human beings write in Chinese before, so we infer that a human wrote it when we come across Chinese. We have never seen a God create a universe. 8. Pro apparently believes that information, such as we find in DNA, is some sort of immaterial substance. That kind of claim would require serious scientific evidence, which we don't have. The rational position is that information is something human minds read into the world, rather than an independently real, immaterial "thing. " Pro also provides no reason at all why DNA allegedly containing immaterial information would have anything to do with the existence of God. Again, so what? My opponent claims that you need DNA for RNA, RNA to make protein, and protein to make DNA. He doesn't provide a scientific source for this claim, but even if it's true, it's an issue for scientists to work out. It is completely unscientific to invoke God to explain DNA, given how many failed theological explanations of this sort there have been. I conclude that none of Pro's arguments are successful.