The Christian god exists and rules over the universe - read rules!

3 rounds of 8000 characters is hardly enough to discuss the complexities of the universe and life so forgive me for condensing my arguments. I was under the impression that we were trying to have an intelligent debate over complex issues. But my opponent wants to take the easy way out by demanding a burden of proof that doesn't exist. Instead of weighing the evidence and finding the most plausible theory my opponent would rather play games. When my opponent says "I am not arguing for a "self exploding universes and life spontaneously forming in a primordial soup". I am just saying that the Christian god is not the cause for the origin of the universe and life. I have not taken any direct position to the origin of the universe in this debate and I have suggested what are relatively strongly supported alternatives to the origins of life." He is admitting he can not argue for the Big Bang without an external force. He is admitting he can not argue for abiogenesis. He can only "suggest" these infinitesimally small possibilities to muddy the water in a complex debate. These are the only alternative theories we have been presented with and he can't argue for them. He is saying he doesn't have an opinion one way or another about how these things happened he just has a feeling deep down inside that it wasn't God. My opponent wants proof for the origins of the universe. Proof that he knows doesn't exist yet. So far we only have evidence for what happened after the Big Bang. What we know is that around 14 Billion years ago the universe rapidly expanded seemingly out of nothing. Now maybe there was singularity but that doesn't change the fact that something had to spark it. My opponent can not argue that the universe can just explode on its own singularity or not so he seems to be conceding that there must have been an external force that sparked the Big Bang he just seems to disagree about what we should call this force. He wants to call it "the cause of the singularity" but in the words of Shakespeare "a rose by any other name" is still a rose. It was a force from outside our universe and outside of space and time itself. This force created a universe out of nothing. And this universe that this supernatural force created is finely tuned for the conditions to support life. My opponent also seems to question that the laws of the universe were a result of the Big Bang. This is what we know. Singularity does not share the laws of the universe so whatever was there before the Big Bang whether it be singularity or nothing it did not have our current laws. Before the Big Bang there was no universe and with no universe you have nothing for the laws to exist in. So it is plain to see that the laws were created at the same time as the universe and by the same thing that created the universe. My opponent tries to refute that the laws are finely tuned for life by saying "after all there is one known habitable place (that will be inhabitable one day) in what is an unimaginably large area". But how much of that unimaginably large area have we explored for life? Many people believe we are bound to find some other forms of life as we explore more deeply into the universe. We have already identified multiple other planets where we believe life can be supported. And some Amercian scientists believe that they may have found evidence that life once existed on Mars. (http://www.independent.co.uk...) My opponent tries to downplay the jump from a primordial soup to life by saying the first DNA was relatively simple or maybe it started with RNA. But he still doesn't want to say that's his position because he himself doesn't believe the mathematical improbability of it occurring. He points to panspermia and claims life came from outer space because maybe it would be easier for life to form on some other planet and then travel to earth but then he tries to say that earth is the only place that can support life. Abiogenesis on any other planet is still abiogenesis. They can't even recreate it in a lab when they are trying and your trying to say it happened on another planet by accident? DNA is a code that directs every cell in your body. To say that it just randomly put itself together is like a "747 Tornado". My opponent tried to refute the 747 analogy by saying "Only a small part of evolutionary theory is actually based on randomness." and "evolution doesn't work quickly by way of massive, uncontrolled forces, as tornadoes do" and "the tornado analogy lacks the two main elements that make evolution work: reproduction (which enables "descent with modification") and selection (which enables increasing complexity)". But the 747 analogy was in reference to the formation of the first cell not about evolution or natural selection. As for evolution I do believe in evolution but I believe that the first strand of DNA was put together by God and evolution was the mechanism he designed to ensure our development. Evolution followed the path laid out by God as everything in the universe follows the path laid out by God. You can call this causal determinism. "Causal determinism is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature". However, causal determinism is a broad enough term to consider that "one's deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way". Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events may not be specified, nor the origin of that universe. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing in the universe that is uncaused or self-caused." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org...). In the church this is referred to as God's Plan. God, in his infinite wisdom of everything that will come to be, set up the initial conditions of the Big Bang, like so many dominos, to fulfill his grand design. In this same way he is responsible for all moral authority. The Grand Architect gave us a framework to follow. However he also gave us a consciousness and that consciousness has the ability to make its own decisions. Whether these decisions are predetermined by the environment that shaped the consciousness or by genetic predisposition or by countless other variables doesn't change the fact that the consciousness freely made that decision. And now it's time for the judges to make there decision... I am running out of characters so I will have to put my closing remarks in the comments section.