The Christian God Exists

First I will make my own arguments then refute my opponents. I would also like to add "Just" to God's qualities meaning he distributes justice. the existence of the earth defies probability. Years ago, famed astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there are two necessary criterion for a planet to support life: the right kind of star and the planet must be the right distance from that star. That meant that there should have been an innumerable amount of life supporting planets in the observable universe. Therefore, scientists were optimistic when they launched the S.E.T.I program (search for extra terrestrial intelligence) equipped with a vast array of satellites in order to pick up anything that resembled an encoded signal. Over the years the silence from the universe was deafening. It was then that they realized that the early estimations were no longer tenable. Today, the number of stipulations for a planet to support life have risen to 200+ all of which must be met perfectly or else the whole thing falls apart. Mathematicians have come to the conclusion that the earth is a 1 in 700 quintillion oddity. At what point do we recognize that it requires far MORE faith to assume that it all "just happened" than to believe that an intelligent force ensured that all of these criteria were met? However, the fine tuning required for the earth to exist is nothing compared to the requirements for the Universe to exist at all. Scientists now know that the four fundamental forces: the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces needed to be determined within one millionth of a second after the creation of the universe ( be it by the Big Bang, God, whatever) and any slight modification of the values of the forces would have resulted in the Universes non-existence. for example, if the ratio between the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force were altered by the tiniest most inconceivable fraction stars could not form and the universe would not exist. The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content" where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity." Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI), design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, the more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won"t function unless their basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, and microbiological machines require an engineer, and genetically encoded programs require a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design. My opponent makes the argument that since God doesn't eliminate all evil with a snap of his fingers that he is not omnibenevolent and is therefore nonexistent. However, evil is a necessary byproduct of free will. It would be far more malevolent of God to impose all dominating will upon humanity. To strip the good of their self determination to prevent the actions of those with a greater inclination to evil. It's also important to note that God does have the desire to, and will, eliminate evil. However, he wants as many people as possible to choose to follow his law as possible and so he tolerates the existence of evil until the time comes to dismantle it forever. Therefore, the logical axiom present in my opponents arguments doesn't hold water. The principal of Total Depravity explains the copious amount of evil in the world. Humans are naturally inclined to evil. Ever since the first time Man Violated the law of God of his own choosing the perfection God created became tarnished and corrupted. Occam's Razor is actually one of my favorite arguments in favor of God. My opponent presents the distinction as being: Either God exists, or he doesn't. He ignores the nuance of the question. Take a look at the assumptions necessary to reject God. (Occam's razor does have more to do with the number and magnitude of assumptions rather than simplicity.) First, you must ignore the extreme improbability of the Universe. First, you must assume that without direction all of the fundamental forces had to become perfectly tuned. Second, You must assume closed system of time, Third, you must assume that all of the criteria for life to exist on Earth were perfectly met without direction, Fourth, you must assume that the irreducible complexity of biology came through unguided processes. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I don't deny evolution. I think if evolution didn't exist it would shatter my faith in God. It would mean he created a static universe incapable of adaptation or change which would fly in the face of intelligent design. Religion assumes that an intelligent force ensured that each of these criteria were met which is a much smaller assumption than an unguided development. I have more to say, but before I run out of characters I would like to bring up the following idea. If we go back to the beginning of time we will eventually need to come to the first thing that ever existed. This first thing by virtue of being the first, must have had no cause. Yet, everything that exists has a cause. This would show evidence of the existence of a primordial force that has been called the Unmoved Mover. While this does not in itself prove intelligent design, it does provide evidence that a primordial force must exist. To deny this is to place the timeline in a state of infinite regression that makes no logical or mathematical sense in the way we understand an infinity. We now know that Space time is not a phantasmal idea, but rather a real property of the universe. This unmoved mover would likely exist separate from space time and in conjunction with previous arguments I find it to be most likely that this primordial force is God.