The Christian god exists and rules over the universe - read rules!

Thank you for your argument. You start it off by talking about the origins of our universe, you claim that "Everything in the entire universe including space and time just suddenly appeared and then rapidly expanded in all directions. Before this there was nothing. No space. No time. No matter. Nothing." but pre-big bang conditions are not well known. Sure that is what is indicated by the little understanding of this area we have but they specify nothing was there, i.e. god was not there either. Furthermore, surly you can understand than an alone intelligent entity that can create universes, creates physical laws etc. pre-big bang is far more complex and strange than the singularity that caused the universe. I know it is an attempt to explain the singularity, but this needs evidence, I hope you provide some soon. By the way I am currently working on a model to explain what "sparked" the big bang, the hardest bit is the evidence, without evidence it is useless. In your final sentence of the initial paragraph you define god as the cause of the big bang, but in Christianity and the oxford definition (the agreed upon terms) it is more than that, it is appalling of you to make "god" appear logical by defining it in a way that means it is necessary to exist, maybe it exists in this way (and others) for you but not necessarily in reality! We will now move on to your Stephen Hawking based argument, a great man might I add. I will refute this argument on 2 ways: a direct refute and an indirect refute. You are using Stephan Hawkins understandings to substantiate your judgments. This man is an Atheist, he has put his broad understanding together with his judgment to come to the conclusion that "there is no god" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au...). I do acknowledge that this does not account for the refute of the facts he raised or the possibility of a flawed judgment so that is why I will now directly refute your claim. If you are indicating local fine-tuning - "The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighbourhood not seeing any poverty." " Stephen Hawking. If you are indicating Stephens"s whole quote where he talks about the universe collapsing in something like a plank second if indeed these laws are "no good" " you assume: that the constants can take other values and there has and will only ever been one universe. The universe is not all that finely tuned for a specific purpose, after all there is one known habitable place (that will be inhabitable one day) in what is an unimaginably large area. By arguing that the universe is finely tuned for us humans as that is its purpose is crazy! It is only under the assumption of atheism that we really need these exact values. "For only these values allow the formation of life to occur without God and without any outside influences" (http://wiki.ironchariots.org...). This argument in no way proves the CHRISTIAN god, let alone any god. Moving onto your complexity of DNA argument. The complexity and "size" of DNA does not indicate the existence of god. DNA started relatively simple, it was through evolution that it became so complex. The origins of DNA are unknown, abiogenesis and aliens are but 2 of many possible explanations for its origin. Despite this, going under the assumption that god does exist, what provided it with all of its ability to provide for us, your logic appears to indicate that it could not occur naturally!!! And once again, no indication of the CHRISTIAN god, let alone any god. Your final "real argument", the 747 tornado! I really enjoyed coming up with the summarised name of that one =514;. The tornado argument depends on the common fallacy of equating "natural" explanations of life with "randomness". "Only a small part of evolutionary theory is actually based on randomness. Genetic mutations and natural genetic variation present in populations are, to a large extent, random; and the kinds of selective pressures encountered by individuals (predation, food supply fluctuations, etc.) are to some extent random in nature. However, the differential benefit of one characteristic over another in dealing with these environmental pressures (that is, the "fitness" part of "survival of the fittest") is not random. Some adaptations are clearly beneficial to the organism and some are clearly not. This means that Darwin's proposed driving force behind evolution, natural selection, is anything but random. In addition, evolution doesn't work quickly by way of massive, uncontrolled forces, as tornadoes do. Evolution theory suggests that small changes, accumulated over extremely long periods of time, result in the current diversity of life. Most importantly, the tornado analogy lacks the two main elements that make evolution work: reproduction (which enables "descent with modification") and selection (which enables increasing complexity). The lack of these aspects reinforces the improbability of anything useful coming out of the process. If rephrased to account for time, natural selection and different outcomes, it should be asked what the odds are of achieving some functional transportation device from a tornado moving through a junkyard of airplane parts for three billion years, where any parts that combine successfully remain while any parts that do not match will not stay together, and assuming that no parts are ever damaged and they are interchangeable." i.e. this calculation assumes that creating that creature is a "goal" unguided by anything, which is false as evolutionary processes "guide" the "adaptation" of life to a creature similar to this one (not exactly alike, as the calculation does not account for). This argument can be further refuted by revealing how ridiculous it is by trying to explain the order in a complex system with a far more complex system (god i.e. the 747-8 (the biggest 747)) And once again, no indication of the CHRISTIAN god, let alone any god. Finally, your conclusion. Firstly, I would like to put these 2 quotes of yours together: "God guiding his children toward their destiny" and "He is what gives us consciousness and free will." Also, you sneak in "He imbues us with empathy and remorse and instills in us our moral values". Well if that were the case there would be objective morality, unless we come from like different gods or god was not real or something else. To display objective morality does not exist you need not look further than any form of "ethics". As a side not and somewhat a joke, you refer to god as a "He", thus god has a penis (Dictionary). I guess HE is a pretty "ballsy" guy in the Old Testament.