No believer in any religion that includes an afterlife can provide me with a sound argument

"P1: Information is the underlying principle of reality." You have no evidence for this. Additionally, your definition of information would be more appropriately termed communication. The words can make sense in a sense one can call information, but without minds, information as you defined it does not exist. You might reply with a definition that would be closer to calling things truths, but then the rest of your argument falls apart because truths exist independent of senders and receivers, they are just how things are. "The prime mover is not dependent on any part of reality." Why do you say this? We perceive reality as the stuff in the universe, but if that is just an outgrowth or change in form of quantum fluctuations, then both the fluctuations and the outgrowth are part of reality, reality itself is just changing form. "The cat is higher up on the form of complexity. A cat cannot be both a cat and dog at the same time." I can, however make many things out of cats and dogs like tennis rackets, chili, and a cat-dog. " However, cells are not limited to cats, and can be formed to exist in other animals. " Cat cells are limited to cats, they are part of the cat DNA. We share many traits, but there will be differences in the genotype and phenotype of those traits. "Recall the famous double split experiment, where a single photon behaved both like a particle and a wave. This is possible because boundaries decrease as we travel down the chain of existence." I am not going to accept your one sentence explanation of quantum physics without a source. " It is necessarily limitless." Why? "Also, because it is at the lowest point in the chain of existence, it can interact with all of reality. " Why would one assume that the prime mover be able to interact with all of reality? I could imagine a model of reality where the prime mover is a ball that perpetually pours out matter via magic. It would be sufficient to cause a universe, but it could never interact with the universe because the universe would be constantly moving away from it. This is not a factually accurate model, it is just meant to show that a prime mover need not be able to interact with all of reality. "Not only does this prime mover interact with all of reality, all of reality is continuously depending on it. " Once a ball is kicked, it no longer depends on the kicker to keep it moving. "The prime mover that intends to create order (information) in the universe, while also continuously upholding all of creation, can only be understood as the eternal mind that underlies all of reality. This is otherwise known as God." 1) Information is an understanding of facts by minds, not an intrinsic property of the universe. People often equivocate when referring to things like DNA as being information, but it is only information to us because we can understand it. Without minds, it is just some physical truths. Additionally, that you can translate some facts into a language does not mean that there is an intrinsic language to them, it just means that we can make models that we can understand. 2) The prime mover does not need to maintain creation as demonstrated with my ball example. This argument rested on flawed premises, and this led you to an improper conclusion here. To your Historicity of Jesus argument: Even if you prove that Jesus rose from the dead, that does not prove that he was God or that there was an afterlife. It would just prove that he rose from the dead. That said, I would think it significantly more likely that the historians are wrong about the lives of the apostles, than that a man was executed and rose from the dead. As Hume would say, I will go with the lesser mystery. The source you listed for this section is a dead link. To your Historicity of Genesis argument: Even if you were to disprove evolution, that would not prove creation. To assert that it would is an argument from ignorance fallacy. "It is worth noting that the critics of evolution go beyond mere religious people." That is an argument ad populum, but since you made one here I will make my own. Creation scientist extends to only 3% of scientists. http://www.patheos.com... "Also, some of the current creation scientists were once evolutionary scientists who were persuaded by the evidence for creation before they converted to Christianity. " I am not surprised that some people who are bad scientists will go somewhere like AIG where they can be paid to use bad science to convince scientifically illiterate people that modern science is just a conspiracy made up by religion bashers. I am also not surprised that they would write books to sell to people who have already decided that evolution must be false and will buy anything that supports that conclusion. "Now, as the arguments that cover this topic are wide-ranging, and I am becoming very limited on space, I will bring to light just one argument that both destroys evolutionary theory and proves recent creation. (I am more than happy to cover more topics in this area in subsequent rounds, if need be.) Dr. John Sanford is a geneticist who created the gene gun (5). He has written a book entitled: Genetic Entropy (6). As the primary argument for evolution is that we are slowly evolving and improving, this book demonstrates that there is no scientific evidence to corroborate that, rather, we are de-volving. Not only does this attack the evolutionary dogma of the current day, but it emphasizes a very scary and devastating point- all species are heading towards extinction! " Everything is subject to entropy and the universe will eventually vanish. As to there being a "limit" on the number of mutations, well I will need some proof of that. Natural selection and cell cycle checkpoints weed out deleterious mutations. I would also need you to demonstrate that this would not be a phenomenon associated with highly complex DNA thus leaving evolution unscathed. I find it unreasonable to expect me to watch a 2 hour lecture on the subject in order to get that proof. Perhaps you could point to some research articles published in a scientific journal?