There is a God.

I must stress your misunderstanding of omnipotence. The reason I include the phrase 'sets out to do' is because God could set out to do just about everything. But when it comes to setting out to fail (eg, not lifting a rock) YOU are creating the contradiction. If he succeeds, he fails; if he fails, he succeeds. The power to undo that power is, therefore, not a power and not included in your 'every power' idea. Further, do not rely upon derivations of words for their meanings- look at words like apology, defecate, dogma, or even last. Many words have meanings completely different to their origins, giving you an invalid point. Also, if looking at degrees of beauty, it can inevitably continue forever, taking me to the highest, infinite degree of beauty. It's not that hard to figure out. I wish to dwell on your whole notion of symmetry as the main cause of beauty. This is heavily flawed. We as humans created the idea of symmetry this does not make something symmetrical regardless of whether we label it so or not. On the contrary, EVERYTHING could be labelled as symmetrical or not symmetrical, just like everything could be labelled as blue or not blue. They are just categories we have invented to place order into our analyses of shapes. They are not intrinsic characteristics. For example, studies could determine that people with blue eyes are generally deemed as more beautiful. But this doesn't make the definition of beautiful as 'having blue eyes'. Further, if beauty is symmetry, why does everyone understand beauty differently? I don't know if you are married, but according to your idea of symmetry everyone would see your wife as beautiful as you do, so there would be nothing special about her beauty to you. I don't know if your wife would be happy to hear that. In all, everything can be categorised any way we want, but that does not give something an intrinsic characteristic. And here is a direct quote from you: "Biologists used the framework of evolution, which had been demonstrated and replicated, to make the prediction that it was likely that ancestral ape chromosomes fused together thus humans lost two chromosomes." You yourself have used the word 'likely', which is not an 'accurate' prediction at all. Thus, I stress my previous point about evolution- it is all probability. It is all determined by 'what is the probability that all these different things come together at the same time to result in a particular event occurring?' There is no accuracy in evolution. Further, evolution has NOT been proven, as most evolutionary biologists agree, with the exception of extremists like Dawkins and, apparently, yourself. You have a lot of faith in something that is yet to be proven scientifically. In Darwin's 'The Origin of the species' he outlines that a transitional link would need to be provided to prove that humans are really descended form apes, a link that would show the change from one species to another. As yet, there is no link- we are yet to discover that a species can turn into another. Even our best bet at the moment, Lucy, as well as the recently found skull, is not proof. It is still the skeleton of an ape. We are yet to prove that the species of ape actually evolved into the species of man. Further your point about replicating evolution is inaccurate- evolution occurs in nature with many. many different factors affecting. Replicating it in labs with perfect conditions is not a reliable replication of evolution, per your much loved scientific method. WE HAVE NO PROOF. And your idea upon morals is, obviously, incorrect. How do explain a child's perception of morals? A young child is able to detect whether or not what he is doing could or couldn't be right or wrong, or rewarding or punishable. Haven't you ever caught a little kid giving you furtive glances while trying to do something sneaky? Even though a young child is still morally undeveloped, he still has a form of conscience, something that makes him hesitate. I think, and I believe almost everyone would agree, that the alien could easily tell that genocide is wrong. And also, "If you consider necessary self defense that kills someone a form of murder then murder could be justified." I was not talking about self defense, I was talking about calculated murder to gain a better corporal position, an evolutionary ideal. Don't twist my words. And also, "If god exists how do you know god is not physical?" Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal God could be a physical being? With all your obsession with scientific proof, how could you believe for a second that a physical God is possible? God is clearly not physical, he is metaphysical. But you refuse to accept that very basic premise. You demand a proof of God that uses physical scientific methods when, by simple logic, such a proof is impossible. The only types of proofs are the types of ones that I have been using in my arguments, but you continue to put them off, saying they aren't physical. Unless you bother to engage with the metaphysical side of this debate, you are effectively forfeiting. You are addressing an impossible question, creating, like with the rock question, a scenario that is so clearly impossible, pointing out its impossibility, and concluding that God mustn't exist. But YOU are the one creating the impossibility because you continue to search for a physical explanation. Give up and realise that the metaphysical explanations are the only way to properly attack this question. Use logic and reason rather than science. Moving on to creation. The Big Bang theory is just about proven these days. But we must examine the process a lot further. It is believed form the evidence that matter and antimatter split apart from nothingness, releasing energy which turned into mater, formed the basic subatomic particles and eventually cam together via gravity to form the universe. Like I said, this is just about proven. But what about before? You brought up the laws of thermodynamics, claiming that everything must abide by such a law. This is true for all things PHYSICAL. And as the universe is a physical thing, it must also abide by scientific laws, such as Newton's laws of motion. LAW 1: A change in velocity requires a net external force. The release in energy comes from the force from splitting nothingness into matter and anti matter. But where is the force that first caused nothingness to split? If there was nothing, there was nothing PHYSICAL to actually cause a net external force. But if there was no net external force from anything PHYSICAL, then a physical explanation does not satisfy the result of nothingness splitting. I would like to ask how you believe that literal NOTHINGNESS can actually cause a force, when there was nothing ton cause. And I do not believe you can deny that a force would be required, unless you would like to challenge Mr. Newton. Further on this idea of the Big Bang, where is the antimatter? It has been speculated for years that there are antimatter particles for all positive matter particles- even an anti-matter periodic table has been envisaged! But as of yet, we can only detect positrons (anti-electrons) and even these occur in a very, VERY small proportion to the rest of mater. But, according to the theory of the Big Bang, there must be an EQUAL proportion of both anti-matter and matter. Otherwise, they wouldn't have formed from nothing- there would have been something else. So, while the evidence for the Big Bang is almost complete, we are yet to explain just HOW IT COULD HAPPEN. We have seen that we cannot rely on the physical, and that the logical explanation of antimatter also doesn't make sense, which also cannot happen in the physical. Therefore, we must conclude that the first force, the FIRST CAUSE, had to occur outside the physical, in the metaphysical. We must conclude that there is a FIRST CAUSER, a first being to produce a force, and it is that being that we call God.