Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"You are saying that because the earth exists, God did not create it."No, I am saying that that the existence of Earth does not prove that God created it. If you choose to drop this portion of the debate because you consider it a "useless argument" I will be happy to move on. We'll get more into what exactly I am saying in a later response. "where did the atoms to cause your chemical reactions come from?"This is a very simplified explanation:http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/10/0.html This series, while not professionally produced, does a reasonably fair job of explaining what happened in terms that non-physicists can understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPUutjtqfw&feature=more_related The information regarding the formation of elements gets rolling in the first part at around 5:00 while the more specific formation of hydrogen and helium is detailed after 7:50. While this video has some very minor problems, they won't concern what we are talking about since we aren't debating string theory or the like. The basic presentation of facts, and supporting evidence, is accurate enough for this conversation. Also, be sure to watch the first few minutes too, as he does a good job of explaining why we don't know what caused the big bang, and what physicists are trying to do to solve that problem (well, he doesn't really explain it per se, but he gives you key words you can use for a google or library search.)There are actually some theories out there about the origin of the Big Bang. But as of yet we just don't have incontrovertible evidence to support them because our math and/or technology is not advanced enough. None of the current theories are falsifiable, so there is no reason to just assume that they are true. The same goes for God. "Also, can you prove that it is in fact possible to actually create life from lifelessness?" Nope. But there are a lot of very smart biologists, chemists and geologists working on that right now. It is the same concept as the cause of the big bang. There are theories, but I am not claiming them to be truth any more than I claim God to be truth. In the case of abiogenesis, the problem is we don't actually know what the exact range of conditions were on Earth way back when. This leads to a lot of trial and error, but the people involved won't give up until all of the evidence fits together like a nice big jigsaw. If you want to learn about the theories, just google abiogenesis. You've already proven to me that you have studied biology, so you should be able to dive right in."I am not referring to a few simple chances, like steps." I realize this. You are looking at the big picture. But everything is cause and effect. Having a whole bunch of atoms randomly form a person in one step is most likely impossible. But I know of no scientists who have stated that. In fact, that is more like what creationists are saying, only they use a literal deus ex macinae to navigate around they unlikelihood of this happening. Scientists, knowing how unlikely it is, look for the most likely beginning they can find, and build from there. Once it starts falling into place, it stops seeming as unlikely. Oh, and scientists don't think the Earth just popped into existence. Once again, that is what creationists are telling us. Which, now that I think about it, is probably why you accuse atheists of thinking that way. Because it is closer to what you have already been taught. "I am referring to something like the chance of a monkey writing the complete works of Shakespeare, times a couple million" Do you happen to have the ACTUAL number handy? Maybe a link I could check out? Preferably one that explains how they derived that number. Also, it would be helpful to explain what corrections they are using to account for the fact that it is impossible to come up with a reliable number for an event whose various constituent factors we don't even know. In order to know how likely an occurrence is in the confines of a certain environment, we have to know what the confines of that environment are in the first place. We can make corrections to represent certain predetermined possibilities, but each correction reduces the reliability of our estimate. "The size of the universe makes little difference. Say you fill two bags half with white beans and half with black beans. Assuming they are mixed evenly, removing the beans two at a time (one from each bag) will result in approximately 25% black-black pairs, 25% white-white, and 50% black-white, regardless of the number of beans or the size of the bags, so long as the number of white beans is equal to the number of black beans and they are divided evenly."Actually the size of the universe does matter because it tells me how many chances I get to draw the desired combination. When I talked about the size of the universe, it was in response to your question about the chances of a star having a planet with all the right conditions to promote life. Assuming each star has the same odds of having such a planet (which isn't realistic, but I'm willing to work with it), then I get one draw for every single star that has ever existed. Even though the chances are evenly divided per star star, every draw that I get increases the probability that I will eventually get the necessary combination. And I will have many tries to get it right. "The Bible is not to be taken literally." I completely agree with you. The problem is, how do you know if your interpretation is the right one? The more we have to interpret it (not to mention potential errors in translation and trying to decipher the colloquial and cultural peculiarities of an ancient society) the farther we might stray from the truth. This would be perfectly acceptable, perhaps even intellectually advantageous, if Christians used it purely for philosophical purposes. But many claim it is the inerrant word of God, so interpretation should be discouraged."There are some things that are obviously thought through, and no amount of coincidence could have allowed for them."Feel free to provide as many examples as you like. "I must make a comment about this arguing. It is easier to come up with counter-arguments than actual arguments. In other words, I come up with a reason why God exists and you do your best to shoot it down." That is how this sort of thing works. I am not making an extraordinary claim here, you are. If I were, the burden of proof would be on me. But you are the one making a positive claim here, so it is your job to provide positive proof. If you provide something I cannot refute with, I will concede the victory to you. "however, you have given me no reason why He does not exist. You have told me you do not believe in him, and you have told me that he does not have to exist. But you have not given me any reason why He has to not exist."I never said that He has to not exist. I did say I don't believe in him, you are right. That is because up to this point in my life, nobody has provided me with any evidence that requires divine intervention. Science makes more sense to me. It is logical and thorough and seeks to improve itself constantly. But I am skeptical of it, just like I am of religion. If either proffers truth, I will hold them to the same standards.I do not have faith that He does not exist. And I do not go around trying to destroy another person's faith. But I do challenge everybody to think critically about their beliefs. Whether you believe in evolution or creationism, you can recognize that critical thinking is one of humankind's greatest assets and tools. You are a smart person. You can challenge my own critical thinking skills and make me a mentally stronger person. I appreciate that, and I think I can reciprocate. It sounds like you want to bow out. I hope you don't. But if that is your choice, than Happy New Years to you!