God exists.

Hello, again. I. "god of the gaps" This gentleman begins with the "god of the gaps" argument" First, we need to understand that science does not always close gaps - it often opens them. It is not rational to always dismiss a Creator as the explanation; for we must come to the conclusion whether he is the best and only reasonable explanation we can offer. The laws of logic we know cannot come about by materialisric/naturalistic processes, for they are not physical, yet they exist as he Universe has to obey them. An immaterial, transcendent, logical Creator is a very reasonable explanation, as this logically working universe reflects the logical Creator. Darwin stated we don"t know how life originated, but it *had* to happen by natural processes alone - if we begin thinking life this, naturalistic processes becomes our "god of the gaps"; it"s not scientific to close the doors om God, especially when he is the only explanation offered (e.g. laws of logic and nature). II. In Christianity, we accept his omnipotence, omnibenovolence, omniscience, etc. because of his work and his word (he created the universe and he himself tells us he is all-powerful,he knows all and so can perfectly judge us, he provides for all creatures as he gives us life, breathe, and everything else). III. You restated my point concerning the laws of logic. Yes, we assume logic. We can"t discuss without it. But what"s our foundation for these laws? They cannot come about naturally. IV. Yes course contradictions are impossible. But why is the universe bound to these laws at all times in all places? If the universe came about naturally alone, what determined it to be logical, uniform and orderly? V. But God is a great explanation for it indeed (as I always stated, explains why we have a uniform and logical working universe). To throw a Creator out is not scientific. If it came from a preexisting universe, we have a "turtles all the way down" problem. With an eternal God, time itself did not exist, as he created it. In Christianity, there is no before or after for God. VI. I don"t believe in abiogenesis - I believe what we observe (i.e. life from life - God himself is life). We have never observed life from non Life - therefore to claim it"s possible, the burden of proof lies on you. VII. If you were walking on the beach, and observed some Chinese symbols written on the sand, you would automatically presume intelligence behind it. Now it appears something odd is going on here: the naturalist proclaims life and all its complexities (e.g. the cell depends on all its organelles within it - if one stops working it is useless), arose apart from a Designer. To proclaim a Designer is a silly explanation is naive; indeed, I would proclaim he is the best explanation. VIII. DNA itself contains immaterial genetic information. This information is what makes bananas bananas, seals seals, and elephants elephants. The DNA is being "read" so to speak, and it is being translated and has a messenger. We also have another problem if we are attempting to explain it naturally: you need DNA to make RNA, you need RNA to make protein, but you also need protein to make DNA. And so, I assert, with respect, my opponent did not rebuke not even one of my arguments - that is, that God is the most rational explanation for such things.