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

The odds: Although I am pretty sure most statisticians would argue with your assessment, it occurs to me that I can work within the parameters that you are using. What if the odds aren't actually that low to begin with?1. The accuracy of any given statistic is largely based on the methodology used to derive it. The application of the methodology is informed by our knowledge of the processes involved. As example: if you took a statistician who doesn't know anything about chemistry, and asked him/her to calculate the odds of a given group of atoms forming a specific bond, they would probably use a method that involves random shuffling. This is generally relatively simple math, and is used in many forms of statistical analysis. However, if you present the same problem to a statistician who does know the ins and outs of chemistry, they would take a totally different approach. This is because the observed laws of chemistry work in tandem to create preferences for the formation and behavior of molecules. Chemical mixing is actually not usually very random at all, so assuming random mixing would unnecessarily inflate the improbability of getting the desired reaction. Most of the time, the final estimate of probability would be much higher using the appropriate methodology than the random shuffling approach would indicate. Also, the odds logically decrease when we assume limiting factors. But when we learn more about the universe around us, we sometimes end up having to remove certain limiting factors. For instance, just a few short months ago, it was assumed that all life used phosphorous in cellular respiration. So ready supplies of phosphorous were one of the limiting factors in searching for life. Now we know that at least one variety of bacteria can use arsenic instead. Suddenly, life's observed versatility increases, so the chances of finding life increase too. Likewise, we now know that life could potentially use amino acids outside of the main 20 that all Earth life uses. 2. The Big Bang. If the big bang theory is true (and it is backed by lots of evidence, as well as laws of physics that make it virtually impossible for it to happen in any way other than what the theory proposes. If God did create the universe, the big bang is the tool He used to do it.) than all of possibility starts right there. All matter and energy. Time. The forces that guide the laws of physics. And furthermore, all of that stuff was packed into a tiny little area that appears to have been expanding ever since. As the universe expanded, its average temperature cooled. As it did so hydrogen and helium were formed. After hydrogen and helium were formed, the possibility of stars emerged. And in those conditions, the first stars basically had to form, at least at certain locations. All of the heavier elements were born in the cores of stars, and various means of distribution occurred to spread them around in the immediate vicinity, creating more clouds of gas, which in turn created the possibility for more stars. All of this possibility was once clustered together, but individual pockets of increased potential continue to be pushed away from each other as the universe expands. So if you need a source for everything that has happened, there you go. In the smaller, more energetically active universe, quite a few things were capable of occurring because so many things were going on in close proximity. On the other hand, certain parts of reality had more activity/possibility than others, and these parts sort of "took the ball and ran with it" as they expanded away from each other. Many of these pockets of possibility took the form of stars and attendant planetary systems, which is why I assert that that you do need take into account the number of stars when addressing the odds of life: each one came from the first collection of possibility, but as they get further away from each other they each take different "evolutionary" paths, effectively increasing the variety of things that can happen in the universe. You might be asking what the odds of the Big Bang happening in first place are. But since we don't know what was "before" or "outside", we have no basis of comparison, so no methodology for compiling those odds. Its kind of like asking what are the odds of God existing. How could we possibly measure that?I, for one, am glad you don't take the Bible literally. Those people can get really annoying and illogical. I apologize for ignoring your examples, it was not intentional. I got sidetracked talking about odds, plus you provided so many that dealing with them one on one would be very time consuming. And I won't deal with them at this point for that reason. If you provide keywords for some specific ones, I will gladly deal with them. The same goes for out of source citations. If you link to a source that supports your stance I will read it. But I don't relish the idea of rummaging through your various posts and cherry picking the ones most relevant to this discussion. If you think they are good points but don't want to re-type them, you can cut and paste them here and I will gladly deal with them directly. And just so you know, I added the C.S. Lewis book you mentioned to my library list, but I can't guarantee that I will get to it anytime soon."I must disagree with you view of this debate."I must disagree with yours. I am providing an opposing viewpoint and responding accordingly. You are saying God definitely exists, I am saying that we don't know that. I don't have to be on the exact opposite end of the spectrum to disagree with you. My position in this debate is made clear by my words, not what the tag says. You will note that I have made no original posts in this particular topic, I have simply been responding to others. The tag just puts me in the "no, god is not true" category because I started out disputing someone who was tagged as "yes, god is true." Although I could create a new tag, I don't think that is appropriate in this specific instance, because it was published as two-sided debate. If this was a "popularity contest" style debate, I would be more willing to add a new tag. "You appear to believe that it is a position of neutrality to not believe in God. This is not the case..."What about agnostics?And I wouldn't say you "suck at debating," but I do think you could be better. But so could I. I don't know about you, but that is one of the reasons I joined this site in the first place. To get practice. And I wouldn't be posting these long responses if I felt you were'nt worthy of my time.