The Christian God exists (4)

Thanks to WileyC for his great arguments and acceptance of this debate.This looks like a good one.As most of Pro's arguments revolve around three central points (one using logical reasoning and two scientific studies), I will summarize Pro's points and then refute them.REBUTTALI agree with Pro's first point that there must be a "greatest in the universe", but I'd inquire about the criteria to be the greatest. And for the sake of debate, yes, I will accept that "Fred the garbage man" is the greatest in the universe.Pro has logically proved that the best being that currently exists exists, not that an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. being exists. I would argue that no being currently exists that is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. or worthy of being worshiped. I would also argue that no being is currently his own son who is also a "holy spirit" (add all the things that the god of the bible has done and all his attributes). You have basically proved that there is a best basketball player of all time, which anyone would agree too, not that there is an omnipotent etc. baller. I also have taken note that you say that only "the best that actually is" occurs, not the best that can be imagined. I argue that the best that ca be observed is what we'll have to settle for, as if something is better than what we can now observe yet we can't observe it, that makes it somewhat useless. If you can't observe the effects of god (which I argue), what use is he? If there's no evidence for him, why should we assume that he exists?That was quite a disorganized rebuttal, but I feel I have gotten my point across, so I'll move on to the studies you present.STUDY 1This study (http://www.sciencedirect.com...) says that it has come to the reasonable conclusion that DNA was intelligently designed. This conclusion is drawn because the researchers have found "precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal" and "The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries." Basically, there are evident patterns in DNA which have less than a 10^-13 chance of occurring and look like they're intelligently designed. I agree that there is a certain point at which something is definitely intelligently designed. If there is a line in everyone's genetic code that reads "Hi, I'm Jesus" clearly, then It'd be dumb to not think that this was intelligently designed. However, there is a much more viable option that we must consider when it comes to patterns in DNA. We find patterns recurring everywhere in nature which are statistical improbabilities [1]. For example, snowflakes. Look at these pictures[2]; they're so obviously patterns and look designed. They must have a designer, right? Nope. We actually know how snowflakes form[3] and know why they form the way they do[4]. It can all be explained through naturalistic processes and physics. basically, the universe needs no outside help to create these things on its own. No designer necessary, just physics.I went on a bit of a tangent about the snowflakes, but the same reasoning applies to the DNA. The universe is capable of creating such complex things through the processes of evolution (natural selection, random mutations)[5] to create something that is patterned and can work in ways that are "optimized biologically" and "extremely efficient to pass on non-biological information." This brings me to the 10^-13 probability. This impossible probability was met by means of evolution, not by a designer. What is the probability that a deck of cards, randomly shuffled, comes out to any combination? 1 in 8.0658175e+67. However, some combination must come out, and every combination that does come out will be extremely unlikely, yet will still happen. I think this image summarizes my point quite nicely. STUDY 2This study says that "children below the age of five find it easier to believe in some superhuman properties than to understand similar human limitations. Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing." and that"Experiments involving adults....suggest that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body."The first finding in this study is what anyone would expect. Kids who are five years old or under find it easier to create a god of the gaps because they see no other solution or would rather comfort themselves than face a harmful truth. Many children also have imaginary friends for the same reason, so that they can comfort themselves in the face of a cold reality. They don't have any freinds, so how to fix that problem? By creating a false reality which is more comforting. This, in my opinion, shows how childish some aspects of religion really are, and far from proves the existence of the Christian god. This finding also shows how these kids grow out of the belief that their mother knows everything because they realize the truth of the situation.The second finding is another example of the human mind trying to find some sort of "god of the gaps". We don't know a lot of things, and what happens after you die is one of them. Not knowing is quite a scary thing, as it's frightening to think that we might just cease to exist after we die. We'd like to think of ourselves as eternal, as it is comforting, but that might not be the case. We don't know, and since there's no evidence to cause people to lean one way or another (bsides religious propoganda), it seems only natural that humans would like to think that the more comforting option is true.As for your last paragraph, I'd argue that if intelligent design were in fact the method by which the universe came about, it would much more likely be by aliens than God. Also, a belief in God is not in our DNA, every baby is born agnostic.I hope I addressed your contentions to a point such that you were satisfied; if not please let me know.I await your arguments and respectfully ask you to not make arguments related to this debate in the comments.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.its.caltech.edu...3. http://www.its.caltech.edu...4. http://www.its.caltech.edu...5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;