The Christian God is Real

Thank you for your response. We will be trying to prove these four points true or false. I will first present my case about what the fine-tuning of the universe is. Scientists these days have been stunned by the discovery of exactly how complex and sensitive a balance of initial conditions must be in order for the universe to permit the origin and evolution of life. If any balance of physical constants and quantities were disrupted by the slightest of margins, balance would be destroyed and life would not exist. For example, a change in the gravitational force or the electromagnetic force by only one part in 10^40 would have not permitted the existence of stars (including our sun), making life impossible. There are many others. This is not all there is to fine-tuning. The ratios in between two constants must be also finely tuned.The probability of a life-giving universe is so minutely small that it is almost impossible for all of this to have happened by chance. Some might say,"Well, there has to have been some universe to have done this. It's like winning the lottery. Someone has to win it." But this argument is flawed. This is an analogy of why this is impossible. There are trillions and trillions of black balls in a box, and one white ball. You reach in and pick up the white ball. You do this a couple dozen times and pick the white ball every time. You have now made a live-permitting universe! Now you can see how this is basically impossible, unless you have an infinite amount of universes. I will not go on with refuting the infinite-universe unless Con decides to challenge it in another round. The origin of life as explained from an evolutionary point of view is flawed as in the ways of chance. The Miller-Urey experiment showed the synthesizing amino acids by passing electric sparks through methane gas produced proteins, which could have been the origin of life. It has been proven by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe that the odds against the required ten to twenty amino acids coming together to form an enzyme is only one chance out of 10^20. Seeing the size of the Earth and the billions of years that could have been passed, this calculation might have been probable. But they also pointed out that there are 2,000 different enzymes made out of amino acids, so all of those to have been formed by chance is a whopping one out of 10^40,000 odds. This added on to the previous analogy of the black and white balls would make the origin of life basically impossible. This argument of the origin of life is seriously flawed in these ways. Evolution is said to have been the key to the complexity of life. Evolutionary development occurs because of random mutations producing new features, and those features that are advantageous to survival is kept, and the result is us today. This method of explaining the irreducibly complex systems like the eye, immune system, or the blood-clotting mechanisms is not proficient enough by just saying,"Evolution did it". No one has ever stated on exactly how this all happened by random mutation and natural selection. Con states of the resurrection of Jesus, "no evidence is presented that such an event ever happened. No witnesses were present that we know of, as all the supposed ones are nameless and even the gospels are anonymous". This is a false statement. First off, the gospel's authors are clearly known and recognized even by the community of skeptics: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Everyone, including the skeptics, all realize that the gospels were written 40-100 years after Jesus' death, still eyewitness material. Archaeologists have discovered more than 24,000 manuscripts in existence, the oldest dating back to the second century. This is the greatest amount of manuscripts produced in existence, trumping the runner-up, The Illiad, with 650. There are other ways to support Jesus' resurrection. Gary Habermas, author of Historical Jesus, has detailed 39 ancient sources outside the Bible for more than 100 facts about Jesus' life, teachings, death, and resurrection. Morality is something within all of humankind. Even the most devoted atheists are outraged if someone they love is brutally murdered. Why should they? Why not treat them like chemical accidents like they think they are? Why is murder of a human different from a lion killing another lion? Why do we condemn criminals? This is all because of the belief that humans are more valuable than animals and are responsible for their moral actions. People are judged through their choices in life, unlike the lion who killed its own kind. And if the atheist says that morality is just a choice, no one really believes that. For they all know that morality is beyond the subjective, personal choice. We know we are not like animals. Sources: Who made God? by Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler https://answersingenesis.org...