The Christian God is Real

The universe is so big and old that almost anything can happen on it. The probability of life is incredibly small, yet it has happened. As I mentioned before, we do not know that life can arise in another form with the help of different physical laws, as the life on Earth is the only we know of. Other types of life could well arise out of very different environments. If the physical laws changed now, we would very probably die, as we are adapted to these conditions, but that is not to say that other life-forms could not arise. One example of what we once thought were environments too harsh for animals to survive in include amazing depths in the ocean that contain life in it’s extremely high pressures and cold temperatures. Giant squid, for instance, live up to 1,000 meters deep into the (ocean. . http://ocean.si.edu...) Since life arose about 3.8 billions years ago, (. http://www.livescience.com...) we know that the possibility does exist that life can arise from nonliving matter rather quickly given the right conditions. About your box analogy, I think the analogy is inappropriate here, because you started with a premise and ended with a completely different conclusion regarding infinity, which was never mentioned. If other universes indeed exist, and these contain even more planets and stars (perhaps with different physical laws from ours) then life is more than probable to arise at some point, not to say, however, that it arises in every single universe. This goes without the assumption that there are an infinite amount of universes, which is frankly irrelevant to this debate. We don't know that life is a single "white ball" in a box with trillions of "black balls", this is an argument given because we have only seen life appear once, which does not mean it cannot arise elsewhere or is a singularity. It does not even mean that life has a low probability of existing elsewhere either. I don’t see what is impossible or what infinity has to do with this point, and if I have not cleared doubts with what I just said, please elaborate. “. .pointed out that there are 2,000 different enzymes made out of amino acids, so all of those to have been formed by chance is a whopping one out of 10^40,000 odds. " The type of life existing today is not the same that arose billions of years ago. Indeed, when life did arise, enzymes would have been seen as extremely advanced compared to what life probably was when it first formed, it most probably was something even simpler. As I said before, all of life did not arise suddenly, most probably one organism at a time, which means you do not need 2,000 different enzymes created by chance, because life appeared with one organism that could change. What probably happened is that over time one enzyme formed from simpler things, and then branched off to different ones not by chance, but by natural selection, which is quite simple: . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... . http://www.amnh.org...; "No one has ever stated on exactly how this all happened by random mutation and natural selection. " There are perfectly logical explanations to this process, and I already named three sources. There are examples in evolution in several animals including moths (which evolved to their environment, changing color) and the evolution of E. Coli strains over time. . http://listverse.com...; You unfortunately missed my point when I said that the gospels are anonymous. I meant that we do not know who Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are, they are merely names written on a piece of paper and are not related to anyone we know of. And again, other writings might claim that Jesus was resurrected, this does not mean that it actually happened, especially when the eyewitnesses are name-less, unknown and wrote their testimonies more than 30 years after the event happened. (I mean eyewitnesses for people who were there at the time and place) You have repeated the same argument twice, so my response is the same: There are writings that say Confucius’ mother was impregnated by a unicorn, this does not mean that it happened. Thousands of Muslim documents claim the prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse, this does not mean it happened, unless evidence is presented that it did. "Why not treat them like chemical accidents like they think they are? " We know evolution was the process by which we came to life, this does not mean that we follow evolution as a moral code. We know, for example, that we are made up of stardust, exploded stars, this does not mean we will go around exploding stars around the galaxy. We are a bunch of chemical reactions and small cellular structures, this is a fact, so we will treat each other equally because we are the same. What we are made of makes no difference in terms of morality. As mentioned before, we normally don’t mind lions because they are a different species, but I never said that a lion killing another lion (or any animal) would in any way be justified. Technically this does not matter at all TO THE UNIVERSE, but we have an evolved morality, which tells us it is not fair to kill a living thing, because we have evolved to survive on the planet and we know other animals did the same thing, and so there is a price on every life (an effort). How does morality tie to God anyways? Only because the Bible said it was given to us by Him, of course, and this again is not proven, other believers claim it came to be because of another deity or supernatural occurrence. No evidence is given that it was brought to us by a God. This is not an evolutionary debate, however, and though I have cleared up a lot of misconceptions on the past paragraphs (for the sake of comprehension), you have still not provided any evidence to prove that the Christian God is real. Your arguments are based on missing information, and you use these to point to your God. If I were a Hindu, I would use your same arguments and say it is all proof of Brahma, or I could say it is all work of the all powerful Zoroaster. Presenting a hypothetical figure to explain the unknown does not solve the problem, it only complicates it further. As of so far, any religious believer could use your claims (except for Jesus) to point to their own God, which goes contrary to the topic of this debate (The Christian God is Real). The arguments you have given are used for a deist point of view, and you have shown no relation to the things we don’t know that bind them to the Christian God. As I said in my first argument we need evidence that it was the Christian God, and not just fill in the blanks with anyone's preference. You are using a logical fallacy that goes by the name of the argument from ignorance, which basically says: X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.