God exists

I shall examine your last piece in three part which it appears it is argued in. The part about the Miller-Urey experiment, the part about god actually existing (second to last paragraph) and the morality piece (last). Regarding your analysis about Miller-Urey: I find your argumentation both eloquent and persuasive. Based upon it, if someone does not vote for you as the best citations, then they didn't read the piece. Your knowledge of biochemistry is very impressive- it must be said. However, even with a point for quotations, an educated reader of this debate will understand that you did nothing to affirm the existence of god. If the argument were a disjunctive syllogism, and it were "Miller-Urey or God must have created life" and you had proved "Miller-Urey did not create life" then you would "therefore" be correct. Unfortunately, the are an infinite amount of other explanations for the origin of life, but until you disprove every single one besides "God", this argumentation is fallacious. Let us be honest: we don't know how the world came into being. Nobody does. Scientists meticulously work towards understanding one study at a time, and preachers and men of religion declare they know from pulpits in every corner of the earth. But as Dylan wrote, "we sit here stranded, all doing our best to deny it." I have no objection to this, as I find enough appreciation in music, sex, ideas, and soccer to make life worth living without knowing the beginnings and the ends. The one problem I do have is when someone declares they "know" the one truth, as you have, stating that god created the world. Your argument from complexity lies on the great assumption that complexity is independent of cognition. Perhaps this is the root of our debate. In my opinion, 1+1=2 is equally complex/simple as any complex calculus equation. It is only the process of human, pattern-seeking thought that asserts values of complexity, beauty, or sequence. I am not making a post-modern argument, and not arguing that truth doesn't exist outside of human cognition- I am merely saying that independent of our cognition, facts are fact. It is language that assigns us this prejudice. You claim that a "simply row of leaves in a straight line cries out for an intelligent mind behind it, how much more so does the chain of left-handed amino acids and other vastly more complex things in our bodies?" but I would argue that this is your brain seeking an explanation or pattern to understand reality. Independent of cognition, a row of leaves is equally as random or "intelligent" as a pile of leaves. On to your last argument, regarding morality, I will accept your challenge. Yes, I do think the Holocaust was truly evil. Let's investigate this further. This is why I do: the Holocaust was a case of ethnic-cleansing. Ethnic-cleansing is rooted in the belief that humans are divided by ethnicity and different "races" of people are not equal in value and deserving of equal treatment. This type of discrimination is the basis of racism, which profoundly saddens me, and I find gross enough to shape my views on the Holocaust. However, when I visit my cousin's friend in Virginia, he speaks of the "niggers" as ruining every aspect of his town. So, the Holocaust is evil to me because it is an extreme consequence of racism, which I find immoral. But my cousin's friend is racist and sees no problem with it. If god gives us our morality, then why are billions of humans racist? Why is hatred and prejudice and warfare so prevalent in human history? Because to those who don't practice it, it ISN'T evil. Our values inform our morality. The Americans who killed NAZI soldiers during the war, were they equivalent to German officers sending Jews to their deaths? I would say no, but only because I am of the opinion that Americans were carrying out good. A NAZI would argue otherwise. Who is right? Depends on who you ask. Again, I do not believe that morality exists independent of human cognition. Why is rape "bad"? It could be instinctual or societal or cultural or conditioned. I DON'T KNOW. But to trace what you consider back to a divine set of values is as equally absurd. How can fundamentalists in Pakistan practice "honor killings" in the greater glory of god, and the West call the practice horrific if all humans are entitled to the same set of morals. And pragmatically speaking, how does God actually implant these values in us humans? And what are they? Is a 55 year old man having sex with a 17 year old horrific to God but with an 18 year old okay? Does god find male circumcision desirable but female circumcision abhorrent? These questions may seem silly, but they are only as silly as your proposal that God is dictating to us these terms. Morality is complex. It is dependent on society's values and setting. IF you really examined your moral beliefs, I bet you would strangely find that your "god" agrees with your exact same set of "morals". Well those are just yours my friend. And in Sparta they had theirs, and in Byzantium they had theirs, and in Iran they have theirs, and in Alabama they have theirs, and in Sweden they have theirs. One person's murder is another person's family planning. And one persons justice is another person's massacre. Human solidarity, to answer your question. Why do humans tend to not commit crimes that they could get away with? Perhaps it is the same reason I feel moved by Priam's plea to Achilles or Juliet's weeping at finding Romeo dead. Human's have this beautiful ability to relate to one another. Now, many crimes have been committed because of the corrupting influences of power, wealth, et cetera- but I believe absent of these forces, a man chooses not to rape a woman because he is afraid at what he'll find in her tear-filled eyes- solidarity. As I hope you have found, you can use the "god" explanation in instances of morality, creation, or complexity to understand the unknown- but my friend, the world gets on all the same without it.