God"s existence

I. The primary idea of my first point is that 1.) I believe we can all agree the laws of logic exist (or else we might as well end the debate, if we can"t argue logically); 2.) the laws of logic are immaterial; we can"t touch them nor see them. This is a huge problem for a worldview without God (i.e. naturalistic/materialistic worldview), where only physical nature exists. If we are to hold to this worldview, we cannot accept that the laws of logic exist, as they can only be immaterial (and so not compatible with a materialistic worldview). II. Yes, they are impossible. The naturalistic/materialistic, by definition, holds that ultimately, everything that exists has to be physical, and nature is all there is. The immaterial laws of logic are not material. III. We describe what we observe, yes, but that didn"t mean we invented the laws of logic, rather we discovered them. For example, before humans came into existence, the sun could not be a sphere and rectangle at the same time, as contradictions are not possible? Why? Contradictions are illogical. But again, we must dig deeper; where did these laws come from, and the universe have to obey them at all times? What determined such things are illogical in the beginning? We have them the label "law", but it"s because we observe them that we were able to give them the label "law". For example, humans did not decide contradictions are impossible - they observed it. IV. Perhaps you misunderstood me - I never claimed any laws were divine. V. If the laws of logic are limited to our skulls they are not laws of logic. As logic would be completely subjective. Also, the laws of logic work everywhere in the universe at all times. Contradictions are universally impossible; it"s not our brains that decided this subjectively. Back to evolution. . . I. Evolution is a law of nature. But why? What determined the laws of nature (and logic, mathematics, etc.)? Humans sure didn"t invent them! These laws would be in place regardless if we existed. II. It is most definitely not cherry-picking. Evolution is not a doctrine. We observe micro evolution. We"ve never observed macro evolution. When species evolve, they lose genetic information (e.g. coyote cannot return back to a wolf). Macro evolution requires an increase in genetic, beneficial information - the opposite of what we typically observe. III. Evolution would explain life? How in the world? Biological macro evolution, true or not, does not explain the beginning of life. And again, evolution (on any level) can be considered a law of nature - it always works. But why? What causes the Law of evolution (or any natural law) to come about by natural processes? Why must the universe submit to these laws? IV. To compare the denial of evolution to the denial of a spherical earth is very, very wrong. Never have we observed macroevoltion. From a lack of transitional fossils (Darwin"s would be astonished at the lack of he lived into the 21st century), the Cambrian explosion, the never observed process (increase in beneficial genetic information), the failing to explain the origin of the natural laws (including evolution), and the failing to explain the origin of life by abiogenesis - it is most definitely not unreasonable to deny we came from a common ancestor.