The Existence of God (Christian)

Rebuttal: My opponent gives detailed descriptions of the topic of the arguments for quite a long while until the end where the argument comes in. Since the description of the topics is all facts proved by evidence, there is nothing to rebut, except the parts where my opponent uses it to prove God, this is the part to rebut. “Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator.” I agree. God “intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it” so using your logic then God has to have a creator, but that creator needs a creator, and that creator needs a creator, and so on. This argument seems sound at first, but as you dig deeper, you find the holes. This argument is a fallacy for God himself needs a creator by that logic, which as you continue proves to be false. “A problem arises for evolution in the following way: the instructions to build RNAP are themselves encoded in the DNA. But the DNA could not be transcribed into the mRNA without the elaborate machinery of RNAP. And this is also an example of irreducible complexity because it would not be able to perform its function unless every feature was fully functioning. There would be no use being able to dock onto the right spot of the gene and getting stuck there, or unwinding the DNA without being able to wind it back. Furthermore, RNAP uses ATP as an energy source to achieve its feats. And ATP is made by, of course, the ATP synthase which is also coded on the cell's DNA. Therefore, until RNAP is fully formed, coding for cellular instructions would not be possible as the process of transcription into mRNA requires RNAP.” I have never heard this argument before and it is a good one. Upon examination you notice that this argument does not prove God’s existence at all. It is a mystery that science has not uncovered yet, there are many mysteries that have not been solved yet. Just because there is a mystery, doesn’t mean God exists. This is a God-of-the-Gaps argument and does not prove God. This is exactly what the primitive people that invented religions did, why does it rain? Because the mighty God does it. It says so in the Bible. Then as history progresses and we discover the real reason of why this happens. As science progresses I am sure that this mystery will be solved as well, saying that “God did it!” is not a logical assumption given the track record of religion. So although I have not exactly defeated this argument it is at least neutralized. “With just these two simple examples of irreducible complexity, creationism is upheld as the most logical scientific position.” I don’t think the second argument was simple for my 13 year old brain lol. But I strongly disagree that this is the most logical position, I defeated the first argument, and neutralized the second. Argument: An omnipotent being is all-powerful and is able to do anything. Since an omnipotent being would be able to do anything, not being able to do everything would then make this being lose its omnipotence. If this being is not omnipotent, then it is not a god. An omnipotent being would be able to do anything, be a married bachelor, wet and dry at the same time, hungry and full. It is impossible to be a married bachelor, since you cannot be a married bachelor, an omnipotent being can’t do anything thus losing omnipotence. God can’t exist, it’s impossible. Conclusion: My opponent has argued creationism, not the existence of God. I hope Pro will fix this later on in the debate. I have defeated the first argument and neutralized the second. I look forward to my opponent providing his rebuttals in their next response and look forward to the rest of the debate!