God exists

My opponent quotes an article in Psychology Today which argues that virtuous behaveour is rewarded by pleasure feelings, and so we do get something out of "selfless behavior that is unique to humans." But this barely reflects the situation. Many people don't truely get these supposed feelings of pleasure from doing the right thing. In fact, when we respond kindly to people who treat us horribly, we often do it reluctantly, grumbling, with no accompanying feeling of joy, but something inside us tells us still to do the right thing even to those who don't like us. And evolution is not a reasonable answer anyway, because survival of the fittest holds that this is a dog-eat-dog world, and when a lion eats a zebra for food, he feels no remorse; this is so customary in the animal kingdom that only the unforgiving and remorseless genes would tend to survive, not those of compassion. And in any case, there has never been found a particular substance responsible for such emotions anyway. Kindness to an enemy is more likely to hinder, rather than help one to survive, so natural selection would more tend to root out compassionate genes. "Now this is speculation on my part, but this could arise from the fact that 100,000 years ago, before civilization, people were socially tribal, and in a tribe, benevolence and altruism would be "good" for the entire tribe, and thus benefit one's self. So our urge to help out a stranger is an vestigial instinct we developed before cities and faceless strangers" There is no good reason in an evolution worldview to presuppose that altruism would exist among any particular species. It doesn't exist now among animals, why would it all of a sudden exist among humans? When a male rat, or lion or monkey, or fish grabs a female and copulates, nothing in nature says this is rape and is wrong. Evolution was supposedly happening for millions of years before humans arrived, so how comes altruism all of a sudden comes to be? Why? Why does rape become wrong? What's more, killing Jews doesn't harm the Germans, so we have no reason to think that at some early time man was conditioned not to kill man by evolution. Didn't the German's evolve with the rest of us? Theism makes more sense out of this than atheism/evolution, and science deals with inference to the "best" explanaiton. Theism has more explanatory power in accounting for the facts. "But I find it arrogant to assume that just because you or contemporary scientists do not have the answers, it must be divine. For example, if I could take a multi-variable calculus problem to 4th Century BC Athens, they would have no chance in solving the problem. The greatest mathematician might proclaim that: "this is impossible! Only almighty Zeus could solve this!" But in reality, any average engineering major in college today could work the problem out" It's not the fact that we don't understand how something works that proves that God did it. Rather, it is the very nature of the thing itself that points to the existence of a designer. For example, I don't understand how a particle accelerator works, but this doesn't prove that someone made it. What proves that someone made it is the intricate design, the symmatry of certain parts and how each follows a specific program; we all know that the programming had to come from somewhere, and the information in that programming must come from a conscious entity, because information that carries meaning is the product of a mind. So when we see organisms in the body being obedient to commands, getting detailed instructions and following them, we know the programming had to come from somewhere, a mind, because only minds produce meaningful information. Now, none of this proves that it must be God that put the information there, it could have been aliens from Pluto; but it does show an inteligence is respnsible. But the thing is, we find similar complexity and information throughout the cosmos on various levels. The whole universe seems to follow an order, to follow laws, and we know that explosions don't create order. The bomb that landed on Hiroshima didn't create a beautiful design. No big bang could just cause things to fall into place and create beauty and order. What is the best explantion? What kind of E.T could bring about "universal" as well as "subatomic" order and beauty? The kind of power and inteligence they would need to accomplish this feat, one would need to postulate something very close to a god anyway. And if my opponent doesn't think so, then let him tell us "what kind" of aliens did it. Why can't we find the equipment they used? Are they invisible? Undetectable? Sounds alot like some kind of invisble God to me. I also argued that life only comes from life; this is a fact of nature. Since life has not be shown to come from non-life, we have to work with what is proven in the absence of alternatives. It is also proven the universe has a beginning. So, life must predate the universe. This is what both premises lead to. My opponent doesn't deny these two premises. Nor can he prove abiogensis, which is only a theory, not a fact. So, if life predates the universe, that life by definition would be outside of nature and hence a god, a supernatural life. It mean that all life came from a supernatural source, and this agrees with my position. "Unfortunately, the are an infinite amount of other explanations for the origin of life, but until you disprove every single one besides "God", this argumentation is fallacious." There aren't as many as my opponent claims, the few we have are abiogenisis, God, and aliens. The problem with using aliens is that it only pushes the same problem back to another world filled with the same or even more complexity, begging the same question of "their" origin. Eventually we have to reach the uncaused cause that predates the universe. Lets argue as well, that before the so-called "big bang" that what ever it was that "bangged," existed for eternity before, and never explaoded; so, what did cause it to explode? It could not be a natural cause, because the thing had eternity to experience all natural positions and yet did not expload. Only a conscious entity could have the ability to bring change to a situation that was previously eternally changeless. And if it was a living being, it was outside nature, and hence superatural. Abiogenesis has never been repeated or observed, and is not science. We are left with God. "Independent of cognition, a row of leaves is equally as random or "intelligent" as a pile of leaves." But we do have cognition, thank God, and we both know when we see ten leaves in a straight row that it didn't happen by accident, that someone intelligent put them there. How do we know this? Because we can calculate the odds of this happening by chance, and it is so small that we say its near impossible. In fact, any probability that is 10 to the fiftienth power or more is dismissed by mathmaticians as never happening. And I'm saying that the complexity in nature far outstrips that of a few leaves in a straight row. So what kind of being would have the ability, power, and knowledge to create all of nature? We have to postulate something very close to a God no matter what! On one hand he says that he says the holocaust was "truely" evil, then makes the argument that it wasn't evil to other humans. "Depends on who you ask." He says. But he is proving my point. He knows the holocaust was evil regarless of what others say. What makes him right and them wrong? There must be some higher law over man's opinion; otherwise, its only evil in "his" opinion, but not truely evil. Con, please tell me, if all mankind ageed that the holocaust was not evil, but was good, would that make it truely good, or would mankind simply be wrong? If you agree that manking would be wrong, then there is a higher law outside out opinions, but from where? I'll finish this reply in the next round.