An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

You say that I plagiarized and "stole" Frank Turek"s information. However, not only Turek himself has said that we can use all of this information for ourselves, but he even provides it in examine.org. That is an organization he has made to teach and support other apologists. Second, these are all things that are true regardless of Turek"s opinion. You don"t need Turek to say all these things because they"re all backed up from scientific evidence. Yes, Frank Turek said them. And yes, I did use them. But he provides the information, and gives it to other people freely. HE didn"t come up with the evidence. In fact, most of what he has said, is not his. I only used Turek"s specific arguments because those are the ones that I think better show that there"s a theistic god. I explain that reason can only exist if there"s a god that controls the immaterial realm that cannot he supported by atheist, evolution, and materialism, because these deny the existence of immaterial realm. If you don"t deny it, then you realize that there are forces outside of humanity, that are true no matter what. That"s known as God. The standard by which we judge all things and is true regardless of human opinion. Objective. Then you mention "Turek"s" argument that the cause must be spaceless, immaterial, and timeless. It"s only true if Turek says so, because no one else can come to that conclusion expect him. I"m fact, he didn"t come up with that either. I don"t see how any of your claims disproves a space less, timeless, and immaterial creator. You just say it doesn"t make sense to you. I believe I"ve refuted your points well. Now you ask another excellent question. Why the God of the Bible? You"re right, these claims, by no means, prove the existence of the God of the Bible, not yet at least. To prove the existence of the biblical God, I would need to give evidence for that. But I don"t think we"ll have any space or time to do so. The order by which all things are created matter too. Genesis is a poetic historical account of the world, but much of it matters in order as it explains why things are the way they are. In fact, your asking another great question? Why seven days? Remembering that Genesis is a poetic account of the world, it is possible too, that the days are a metaphor. It could mean 24 hours. It could"ve been 12 hours. Because he called light day, and night, dark. It could"ve been a determined amount of time. Like, Mike Tyson was an excellent boxer back in his day. A certain period of time. Or it could be that the seventh day is actually going on right now. Since the seventh day is God"s rest, we are in there at the moment, since the sacrifice of Jesus has happened, and the work has been done. Either way, seven days is enough. No more, no less. S - I agree, this is not the First Law of Thermodynamics. I made a mistake. If the universe didn"t have a beginning, everything would be eternal because it wouldn"t have come up from anywhere. No beginning, because it"s all eternal. So the fact that they sun will one day burn out, is evidence that at one point it had more than before. I"m fact, it had to have something to "burn" in the first place. This proves the existence of a theistic god, because it shows that everything had a beginning. Something must start it. U - Same thing goes for S. It all had a beginning and comes into one point. So everything had a beginning. R - If matter, space, and time started from the Bug Bang, the cause cannot be either of those things. What can be space less, immaterial, and timeless? Surely nothing in our universe. So it must be a force outside of time and space. God is that because he is above all these things. R - So only Turek can say that if you"re an atheist you can"t justify reason? Look, this is true either way. Turek didn"t come up with it. You only have to think in order to come up with that conclusion. Theists can, since we recognize that there is an immaterial realm. If you"re an atheist, materialist, and evolutionist, immaterial realms don"t exist. IF you said they did, you would recognize the fact that there"s something outside of humanity that does not change. It is above us. It is objective regardless of human opinion. God is in the immaterial realm as well. No physical thing is in it. So if God is doesn"t change and is above all things, that makes him God. He is the authority. You said evolution doesn"t "mean" to create reason. In that case, what do you mean when you say that it "promotes" survival. What do you mean to survive "better". Evolution does not care if you survive better. If it did, it would have a mind to realize this. It doesn"t promote anything. It does not care, and we are bound by its forces whether we like it or not. Better? You say that there"s a standard by which we judge all things and compare things? So there is something above humanity then. G - The temperature must"ve come from somewhere. The cause cannot matter, space, and time, because this is a product and effect of the Big Bang. So the cause is outside of these things. Simple. You just quoted Einstein, who is not a Christian, admitting that the universe is so precise that it supports a creator. Laws of Nature started in the Big Bang. Fear of punishment? Jesus" death happened so that we wouldn"t take punishment. What is sympathy in an evolutionist worldview? In atheism? What needs? I - Common ancestors or not, they too, came from something. Whether it was an amoeba or not. If we share a common ancestor then I suppose it"s safe to say we came from a banana. We share 60% of the same DNA as a banana. If evolution then, is not random, something controls it and orders it. What is that force? Is it God? The being above all things that has authority over everything? What do you mean mutations aren"t random? Perhaps it affects a specific part of DNA. But it could be any. Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. Let me agree that animals change depending of environmental changes. I suppose it"s not random because it has specific requirements. But if it"s true, again, Hitler was doing the exact right thing by climbing up the ladder of evolution. M - So only Turek can say morality needs a standard. It"s only true if he says so. You mention universally held moral programming. It says we have ethics because it"s "better" for our survival. Our actions have consequences and we know it. Here"s the problem. If it"s better for our survival, who cares if it"s for the consequence of others? Survival of the fittest. If I"m Josef Stalin, why do I care about other people? Why cooperate when not cooperating is often more beneficial? It"s better for him. What consequences if he"s the one being benefited. If there"s no judgement, who cares? You ask another excellent question. Why slavery in the Bible? In the Old Testament, slavery had nothing to do with race, and it was not forced. It was completely voluntary. Not only they would work for someone, but they were also considered as family. Second, the trade of salves is condemned in the Bible. For example, in Exodus 21:16. Third, slave and master are valuable, since they both have the image of God. Exodus 21:20. And fourthly, Jesus came to set the captives free in Luke 4:18. Frank Turek also said these points, like many other people. It is true regardless of opinion. It"s in the Bible itself. Then you mention the "quote" of overgrown germs. I thought that was true in evolution, but i suppose it"s only true if Frank Turek says so. E - There either is objective morality, or not. Simple. You either agree, or disagree. S - I don"t see how less than one third of scientific community believing in God disproves anything. Why is religion not supposed by reason? Theism explains the immaterial realm that science can"t. You must believe in an immaterial realm, of not, where are the molecules for justice? These are immaterial things that you need to believe in because without them we couldn"t even do science. Reason doesn"t come from evolution. How is evolution going to tell you what to do if it"s just reacting to previous natural forces you have no control over? I never said that I came up with this information, much less, Frank Turek came up with this evidence. All I"ve been doing is quote non-Christian sources to demonstrate it"s all backed up by science, no matter what you think. Again, Frank Turek gives information that has evidence through books and examine.org. He didn"t come up with the evidence, anyone can make these claims, any scientist, anyone who looks at the data, not just Frank Turek. It"s evident. Perhaps he"s the one who put it in C.R.I.M.E.S., which I agree, perhaps I should"ve given credit to him for ordering them like that. But the claims themselves don"t come from him at all. The only reason why I didn"t cite all this information as "his", is because it isn"t. I also haven"t quoted him without giving him credit. I am very careful with what I say. I believe I talked about all the points, of not, you can bring them up again.