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

Your post covers a huge amount of subject matter, but I'll do my best to respond to every point.Your very first sentence is actually completely wrong if directed at a scientific atheist.The Earth doesn't sustain life by chance, it does so because of a mathematical inevitability.The universe is vast, at least 13 billion lightyears across. So of all the entities in the universe, at least one of them is bound to have accommodating conditions for life. In fact, if like some people, you accept the universe to be infinite, then there would be infinite planets with life on them.Every single one of your points about complex life can be explained by evolution.You make this point: But life does appear here, incredibly, and this life happens to be the right sort of life for the environment on earth. As a person who seems to have some knowledge of science, surely you understand the main principle of evolution- that life has adapted, over thousands of years to FIT its environment.I hope, as an intelligent person, you don't need me to explain to you how this is possible, but I'd happy to do so if you do.Here you wrote: Okay, I'm going to jump here and re-build to that point. Let's start small and get bigger. Atoms. The fact that they exist is something that requires God. But that's not my argument, as it would simply end in you saying "I don't believe you." as neither of us can provide any evidence stretching that far back.And then proceeded to write:Here's a thing: All objects in motion will remain in motion and all objects at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon them. All atoms, and all matter is in constant motion. Who or what started that motion?Can't you see that you went ahead and wrote what you had just said you wouldn't?On your point about atoms existing and reacting in correct places: hundreds of different compounds exist in all environments, its only logical that some of these compounds will be useful, there are also plenty of useless and even harmfuls substances.Water is a remarkable liquid, and that's precisely what makes this planet hospitable to life. It also has relatively high heat capacity, meaning it can store quite and lot of heat. But you seem to imply that a change in the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere magically 'activates' heat loss or gain from water, as if this is different to any other liquid. Heat always travels from a hot area to a cooler one, it's basic thermodynamics, and it's nothing unusual. If you'll allow me to be slightly pedantic, not all prokaryotes have flagella- but this is only a minor point.Your knowledge of photosynthesis is impressive by the way (A level biologist I'm guessing). However all of the intricate systems your describing came about through evolution. One of the things worth knowing about evolution is that it doesn't always find a perfect solution, but that it finds the first solution that works. Now you'd think that, if there was a Creator, chlorophyll would be black, not green (it would absorb more light), but it isn't, because it was brought about through evolution.I hope that, as someone with a logical and critical mind, you'll realise that the beautiful and complex world we live in is the result over thousands of years of natural selection, and also realise the genius and elegance of Darwin's theory.It's as Douglas Adams said: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"