The God of the Bible Exists

Response to Con's Round 3 ClaimsCon states, "The first thing to note is that Pro has not yet made a single argument in favour of the existence of the God of the Bible; at best, Pro has demonstrated that Deism is right. At best. " What I have done is presented evidence which is consistent with and supportive of the claim that the God of the Bible exists. I certainly cannot adequately address every point in relation to the biblical God's existence, so I have chosen to argue from a powerful scientific line of reasoning which supports the account of Genesis where God specially creates every original kind of creature without any sort of gradualistic, step-by-step process. What we find in the study of genetic function and information resoundingly supports this model. Evidence for "deism" as Con claims, is still more evidence in support of Jehovah than Con has given in his counter argument to the claim. Con has not argued for the existence of another deity, thus the claim that this God who intelligently designed the original genomes of all living organisms remains uncontested. It would be unfair for Con to present a new argument for the likelihood of another deity in his final round as I would be unable to address his claims. Con states, "No, this is a major fallacy; this is precisely corrected by the lesson that we can all learn from 'On the Origin of Species' - the sublime truth is that information can be created by circumstances (competing individuals) without the need for 'an original act of intelligence'. Thus I refute that which I need not refute. . . " Con has certainly not refuted my claims of genetic information. Beyond not providing actual evidence to support his claims, he fails to understand that Darwin's outdated book deals with the origin of novel species within an existing population; it does not address the formation of the first life beyond a few speculative hypotheses. Darwin is certainly irrelevant in light of my argument from genetic information as DNA was unknown to him. Besides this, if Con is referring to natural selection, he should understand that, at best, this natural mechanism is a culling process which allows for the diversification of existing creatures, removing traits while favoring, and keeping others which enable the creature to survive. Natural selection itself cannot add or create novel genetic information, rather, it merely selects from what is already genetically available. The creation of novel genetic information remains an enigma in evolutionary biology. All studies of natural selection have demonstrated the diminishing of genetic information via speciation and specialized adaptation. Natural selection works against the general theory of evolution; it also obviously fails to address the initial formation of DNA, as natural selection, as defined in biology, can only act upon pre-existing genetic information. Con states, "And I think that I've shown that the 'God of the Bible' is a filthy immoral swine. .. " In response to this statement I ask: by what standard has Con objectively shown Jehovah is immoral? If his statements cannot be supported objectively beyond his personal subjective opinion, his arguments will not stand on their own, let alone against my objective science claim. We can test and observe mind-derived information and how it functions, we cannot do so with morality beyond how various moral constructs may affect physical reality, but this itself is unsupportive of any affirmative claim of immorality. If we, for example agreed on a moral standard of murder and said that any sentient, conscious being found guilty of killing another is immoral, than we have to agree that God is immoral. But since God is the Creator of all other sentient, conscious beings, He has authoritative dominion over the well-being of all created beings. Since the God of the Bible in particular has reasons for allowing men to die, or if you like, killing men, primarily as the result of a judgment against men for their sins, it is improper to equivocate God's actions against a man with those between men. Regardless, if God created the universe and all that is in it, He has the authoritative right to make the rules and hold men accountable to these precepts. One cannot make an objective moral claim against God's commands or actions beyond the philosophical domain of "I think. " Con says, ". . . for such are the claims of the bible that the existence of atheists and believers in other faiths with intact bodies is enough to prove that no such monster exists. " On the contrary, the Bible's claim is that God would have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, that He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, that His grace is such that He withholds judgment so that men may have the opportunity to seek Him and find His gospel of salvation, and that those who, upon death or the second coming of Christ, have not sought Him and received His gospel gift of salvation, will, by God, be judged, condemned in their sins, and be cast into the Lake of Fire both as a matter of justice and preservation of the holiness of heaven. God cannot allow sin to be in His presence, firstly because He is pure in righteousness, and perfectly holy, and thus sinful men would be cast away from His presence, but secondly He desires for us to be in a new heavens and Earth where there will be everlasting peace, and thus such people who are unregenerated and still in their state of sinful guilt are forbidden from His kingdom and new creation. Men must either receive God's gospel gift as payment for their sins or must sadly pay for their sins with their soul. To reject God is to reject life, as God is the author of all life, and since we are made in His image and given His breath of life, we are eternal souls which, if cast away from Him as a judgment for our sins, will live an eternity apart from Him in torment. Since God is love, peace, righteousness and all that is good, the Lake of Fire is the absence, or rather, the opposite of these innately desired pleasures. These are of course all claims of the Bible which are presented to demonstrate that Con's claims concerning God's immorality; the Bible presents logical reasons for His allowance and sovereign judgment of death, suffering and damnation. Con's entire moral argument fails to consider the greater context of scripture. One can cite an instance of WWII where a particular country attacks another and label it immoral, and possibly be incorrect if the historical context was taken into account and it was found that they were defending themselves from a previous attack by another country. Context is key, especially when dealing with historical narratives. I will provide scriptural support for my biblical claims if requested by either Con or a prospective voter. ConclusionThus far I am the only one to provide evidence which addresses the resolution. My claims concerning genetic information remain uncontested by any actual scientific evidence or even any supported scientific reasoning. Saying, "Darwin disproves your case" is not supported scientific reasoning. The question remains: why should Darwin disprove my claims? Again, for Con to bring in new arguments or the missing support for his "scientific reasoning" would be unfair as I would be unable to address it. Since this is my final round, all I have done is merely restated my claims and counter claims, demonstrated why natural selection does not address my argument from genetic information, provided the biblical context of God's "immorality," and explained why Con's failed, subjective argument from immorality does not address my objective argument from observable scientific data. I would like to thank my opponent for their time and effort. I would also like to thank the prospective reader for their time and potential votes. Constructive criticism of both our arguments is certainly encouraged! =) On to Con's final round. . .