God's existance.

Good points. I will be attempting to refute your arguments in order as presented. But before that, I"d like to assert some personal details. I"m an ex-Muslim (stood in your positon once), an agnostic atheist (a soft theist), an agnostic evolutionist, an agnostic materialist. So many "agnostic"s, am I right? When things aren"t objectively explained in all explicitness, I stick with the more logical ones. None of my beliefs are adamant. But can you say that you"re an agnostic theist? C-Creation Here you imply existence of God by how finely-tuned the universe is. Or how improbable chances of a perfect big bang is, yet how it worked out just fine. Well, who knows the specific rules of a big bang? Is it something we can understand? No. What if all the essential conditions are automatically met every time a universe begins by default? What if there were series of infinite failed-to-launch universes that eventually led to our fine-tuned universe. So, is it OK to affirm the universe a work of God simply because its improbable in its existence? Then you bring up the "something from nothing" argument. Implying something can"t emerge from nothing. I have to agree" it makes no sense. That"s precisely why I consider the big bang an inexplicable mystery (agnostic matter, but held as primal). But, what you did was add God into the inexplicable mystery and made sense out of it" But, but, but" then who created the creator? How"d he begin? I believe that you guys believe that he has no beginning nor an ending. And that idea sounds just as senseless as the "something from nothing" idea. So" a metaphysical reasoning to solve a metaphysical conundrum is a sort of circular fallacy. R-Reason First of how does having a sentient mind disprove evolution? We apparently are molecular machines (factual through chemistry) who have minds. Why? When similar things are arranged in a certain composition they can make new different thing. Many non-living things can make up a living thing (fact). Mind-less brain cells can create a mind (like how the realm of computer technology works: chips creating a digital realm). Speaking of mind, another mystery of reality. Are we going to take the metaphysical hypothesis "God" and ease our minds or stay neutrally rational? Freewill and reason" Innately all animals are considered to have desires. Including us too" except we can contemplate and reason with the available options through our freewill. Freewill is not real btw. A topic tabled for later I suppose. I-Information Here you imply since DNA is a complex coding, it must have a coder; thus God. You compare DNA to computer coding, but a much more intricate form. True, but is it anything like computer coding? We seem to be able to fully understand computer coding, but not grasp of ounce DNA coding. Why? Is that "cause God wrote it using inhuman powers? God must"ve created it beyond human interpretation, right? Well, there are a lot of things unfigured about our bodies, we can"t even cure cancer yet. So, we are a long are from deciphering DNA, assuming it"s actually a decipherable language. A cereal box dropping and writing down a code in human-spoken English language and DNA of evolution are strikingly incomparable. Existence of DNA is essential for a being to grow, as it biologically does. DNA holds the details of its growth process to the very base. Evolution doesn"t claim a man popped out of thin air with overly-intricate DNA. From a bacterium to a human, a slow and progressive process, not instantaneous at all. In sexual reproduction, sets of DNA from parents are transferred to an offspring. Fully biological, no active hand of God suggested in anyway. DNA is a creation of nature to keep living being identifiable and partial. All humans came from two specific individuals, right? Then, why are there multiple races" different in appearance? If humans didn"t evolve, they biologically shouldn"t be any major differences between humans. Technically, we"ll all be defects of incest. M-Morality Yep, morality is fully an opinion-based idea. It"s entirely subjective" But we are humans, meaning we judge others for their odd moralities. That"s how society works, apparently. They reason with their mutual moralities and objectify a concept and make a societal standard. So a man of dissimilar moral attitude, opposite of the society, should either try and fit in, or go down as a criminal. Some people do bad knowing, its bad. In these cases, their motivation is greater than their fear of backlash. Few others never understand the societal morality; they just don"t grasp it. A psychologist tried reason a pedophile and explain to him why what he does is wrong. But" he never understood that. He considered what he did as genuinely good. When placed in his position, your moral standards will be different. When you find an act wrong, only you and likeminded do, not everyone. Like death of homosexuals, I"m against that, you aren"t. It"s like teaching someone an apple looks better than orange. Utterly subjective. So, if people can feel, their subjective moralities would group to generate societies. Simple. So, is there a necessity of a God here? Nope. Christianity came by and objectified morality as well. Some of which"s objectified morals are considered questionable as of now. E-Evil This entails the same thing as before. S-Science The arguments here are quite fallacious, bro. You say atheism can"t explain some scientific things (that"s true) while theism can (not true). Nothing has been, so far, explained though theism. Like I said, there are only hypotheses attempting to explain the metaphysical with fictitious means. As an atheist, any claimed-to-exist gods, I would consider fictitious. Anything derived with the said gods as a main basis is circular, fictitious too. God gave us logic, ethics, honesty and stuff. All these stuff are consequences of mind, a mystery. Cannot connote God in anyway. Good talk.