God exists

I shall repeat: please stop beginning your debates with rebuttals of my prior posts. This is no longer a productive debate because I am forced to defend positions I argued 2 rounds ago whilst concurrently trying to move this thing forward. You chose 8,000 characters, if you cannot refute my >8,000 character post in 8,000- then focus your writing. You keep coming back to this point that "Con cannot rightfully judge the Nazi's for the holocaust, and neither can any of us. If the holocaust was only wrong in our societal, cultural, or instinctual "opinions," but wasn't wrong by any law beyond that, on what basis can we judge another people for what was in harmony with the laws of their own state - namely, the massacre of millions of Jews?" Personally, I don't get this obsession with the Holocaust, but we can continue this if you'd like. First off, obviously our morals aren't all divinely inspired and objective, or the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. Obviously NAZIs thought that they were progressing mankind my killing Jews. If there were a God giving all people morality that were objective, then why would so many millions of German citizens (not just members of the NAZI party) support a massacre if it is "objectively" bad. Were all German's godless? No, they were manipulated into justifying a massacre, but only in a world with subjective morality is this possible. How is abortion murder and satanic to many people in my country, but to many the ability to practice an abortion is a right, and the illegalization of abortion is an infringement on natural right? Your Holocaust example is effective because most people (not all) regard the Holocaust as evil. But with abortion, how can so many with such an fervent view be so differed morally? I find it funny that you cite SLAVERY of all things as an argument AGAINST societal morality! Most of the Europe and the Africans in the slave trade were completely fine with slavery for hundreds of years. Slavery exists in the bible, and Egypt, Athens, and Rome were all slave driven economies. Aristotle is perfectly comfortable justifying slavery as moral in his "Politics". In short, society saw it as a necessary element of creating wealth. Only in the last two centuries have societies started seeing slavery as immoral. And it would be rather stupid and simple minded of me to claim that only in the 19th and 20th centuries humans have realized the "godgiven" sense that slavery is immoral. We changed our minds as a society, and if anything this proves that morality is a flexible thing. If the Nazi party would have won World War II and actually did create an Aryan civilization, people would celebrate the Holocaust as the purification of the world. All I am saying is that although you may think that everything you think is so intelligent and moral and correct, don't forget how shortsighted you truly are based on the time and situation in which you live. As far as I am concerned this part of our debate, concerning the morality, is finished. You have failed to prove that in every instance morality is given by god. Prove is the key word. You can continue with this argument in the final round but I don't see it as any good. You have stated your positions and they are what they are. So let's move on to the more interesting (and convincing) part of this debate, the arguments from creation. I will address your four numeric facts now. (1) Miller's experiment, while not complete, does demonstrate the creation of amino acids from abiological situation. Just like abiogenesis, your theological argument is also a theory, and has never been demonstrated. You cannot claim to explain how a god created the world any better than Miller can demonstrate the origins of life without god. If you tried to publish your account of God's creation of the earth in a science or philosophy journal, it would merely be laughed at, as you have no evidence nor details of how this happened. You are simply waiting for Godot. (2) Life does come from life, and no model has ever been proven where life has come from life. So your assertion that life can come from an non-living entity (ie. a supernatural deity) is equally as absurd as anything I say. Live by your words. If life can only come from life, then stop the attribution of life to God. The answer is, we don't know. (3) Sure. It's easy to assume that the physical universe had a beginning. But to pretend that you know what it is is as absurd as saying it had no beginning. (4) Since your syllogism has 3 fallacies contained in the premises, I have no reason to refute it. "He claims that a man doesn't rape a woman because of something he sees in her eyes. I don't know that a lion cares what is in a zebra's eye when he eats her." Jesus. Do you really not see the difference? A man and a woman are both humans- the SAME species. A lion and a zebra aren't. I don't have solidarity for the fish I eat. Doesn't prove anything. I think it's unethical that you just copied and pasted someone else's argument for god. I hope that voters read that and punish you for it. YOUR LAST 3 PARAGRAPHS ARE PLAGIARIZED FROM http://www.reasons.org... I AM HERE TO HAVE A SERIOUS DEBATE. I AM OFFENDED THAT 1/3RD OF YOUR DEBATE IS COPIED FROM EXTERNAL PLACES. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THIS DEBATE IS OVER AND YOUR RESOLUTION IS DISPROVEN BY THE FACT THAT YOU CAN LONGER MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENT ARGUMENT. GAME OVER