The Christian God exists (10)

First, thank you for answering my question regarding Biblical sources. I will follow suit and address your paragraphs in the same format, adding new discussion points as necessary. 1. Spontaneous generation is precisely the term I intended to use, as it appropriately describes what inevitably took place if we disbelieve in a supernatural origin. I do not believe you fully comprehend my intent when I bring up spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is the theory "that life could come from nonliving things." This, at its core, is what we are required to believe if we do not attribute life to some supernatural entity. http://www.infoplease.com... If there is no supernatural entity, then at some point, organic matter was somehow spontaneously created from inorganic matter. This nonliving organic matter would then have supposedly spawned organic life forms over time, which is commonly known as the theory of abiogenesis. If we don't believe in supernatural origins, then these two theories are forced to be considered. The laws of physics have influenced evolution; this, I fully accept, as I fully submit to the theory that we are an evolved species. However, we do not have the ability to chronologically place the origin of life, and we cannot successfully recreate the first organic life form through our limited scientific capacity. So far, the closest we have come is to supplement organic compounds with artificial genomes. http://www.popularmechanics.com... 2. As you said, natural elements can be created from the elements that the universe started out with. It is possible that the different elements can lay out a whole model where the universe only needs a few key elements, but then it is still missing those few key elements. Specifically, life. If I take your rebuttal at face value, then theoretically speaking, with an advanced chemistry laboratory, humans should be able to combine periodic table elements, without any organic tissue or matter, and be able to synthesize a living creature over time. We can manipulate chemicals, but we are utterly incapable of synthesizing organic matter from the Earthen elements. Scientifically, we can observe our modern universe, but all we can do is theorize about the origins of life, which is what I was implying. The literal origin of life is as unknown to us as God, and requires as much faith to believe any theory regarding it. 3. That is exactly my point, and when applied to the concept of God, is just as appropriate. Just because we can't comprehend him, doesn't make him nonexistent. Thank you for your support. 4. What you mean is that many atheists say that because there is no "scientific" evidence for God, there is no reason to believe in him. There are countless cases where individuals have powerful personal experiences, that strongly urge them to believe in the spiritually supernatural. You could arguably include personal ghost stories and other paranormal phenomena in this category. However, the reality is that many scientists do explicitly deny any possibility of God, by using the explicit reasoning that he cannot be scientifically observed. Alternatively, the scientific community heavily theorizes about space and dark matter, which is vastly unknown and unobservable in itself. 5. If the Big Bang Theory is accurate, then the initial explosion sent energy outward in literally every direction, faster than the speed of light. Since that point, the energy has slowed down, but theoretically will never stop expanding, therefore, space itself is forced to be infinite, unless we can somehow catch up to the spreading energy, and then we are faced with the question of "what lies beyond space?" "Nothingness?" Also, you make an interesting comment. You state that "a limited universe makes it easier for me to comprehend the universe, so I go with that." But how is this any different from a Christian saying, "belief in God makes it easier for me to understand life, so I go with that." The two comments are essentially the same, since there is no explicit proof for or against your theory. So if you seek to go with the explanation that makes it easy to comprehend, then why is it not acceptable for one to go with the possibility of God? 6. Glad to know that you and I share this logic. And as I said, what I perceive as God, or what the Bible labels as God, could theoretically be extraterrestrial in nature. 7. I completely understand how this could be construed as coincidental, but I will address your claims nevertheless. "DNA is not in any form of an alphabet and has nothing to do with language." Not explicitly, but linguistic patterns are extremely complex and distinctive, and this likely wouldn't have been noticed unless it was a glaringly obvious pattern in the code sequencing. Think of it as 4-bit coding, similar to binary computer code, and that is likely what would have been analyzed as a linguistic pattern, and translated into a language. "Keep in mind that we humans have also named these chemicals this, and we're the ones who made up our alphabet." Technically true, but ancient Aramaic was developed in the 9th century BC, and predominant in the Middle East from 700s BC until 600s AD. Meanwhile the Periodic Table was only organized in 1869. The genetic coding elements of Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine were isolated in 1885, 1891, 1893, and 1903 respectively. That's a difference of over 1200 years, and the chance of Aramaic language playing any part in the European naming of these elements is minuscule at best. However, as I stated, I fully understand if this discovery is construed as coincidental, and will not attempt to cling to it any further, especially since there is a lack of further information regarding the project. 8. The main logical point of my debate so far relies on whether or not we choose to believe that life can be eventually synthesized and then evolved from nonliving, inorganic material. If we cannot support this theory, then we are encouraged to consider the possibility of something more supernatural. At the very least, there is no evidence against the existence of God. In the 3rd Round, I will address Con's secondary rebuttals, and then raise any outstanding arguments for Con's 4th Round conclusion. Good luck to Con!