Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

I would argue that Christianity best explains reality.If that is the case, then why does Christianity require faith?With the Bible you get a comprehensive historical accountThe historical components of the bible are juxtaposed to the mythical, allegorical, and metaphorical components. Can any of the supernatural elements be corroborated? No. The parts of the Bible that can be corroborated are not being disputed here. I've seen a lot of confirmations for the information that exists in the BibleAnd do these happen to be anecdotal confirmations?I don't recall seeing any refutations.I'm sure you don't.Keep in mind, "There is no evidence for that" is not a refutation.What is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.I have not heard says/teachings from anyone else that are still applicable 2000+ years after they were first said.Never hear of Aristotle then have you? Should we conclude that Aristotle's teachings are the result of divine inspiration?Nature News of December 2004 updated the story and found that a double blind study using Persinger's experiment was not able to reproduce his results.The original study was double blind, but even assuming that the results are completely bunk, it isn't a stretch in the least to say that the things people have faith in varies from one culture to another culture.Actually if you take into account the argument for fine-tuning then the probability of life springing up basically becomes 0.This is merely conjecture, no one has found any such mathematical formula that can calculate the probability of the universe arising naturally, nonetheless one that would indicate that probability to be zero. Who is to say a universe with different constants wouldn't produce life attuned to those constants? Some theoretical physicists have suggested many parallel universe of which we would expect to find ourselves in the ones that support life. The fine-tuning argument, is nothing more than a God of the Gaps argument.Your link here is misleading as well. The article itself says that this is not life as these things do not gain novel, new functions.It's not misleading if you read the article. I never claimed that it was life, I said that it was organic self-replicating molecules which is 50% of what life is anyway. The other 50% is metabolism, which is why these molecules won't develop any new novel functions. However metabolism can be accounted for.At the very least, the rise of life from inorganic material is entirely possible, and many aspects of this are demonstrable.That is not fact, that is currently an opinion.That organic complexity can be explained naturally is a fact. That you don't accept the explanation is a different matter.There is still no evidence that life can spring from non-life. Urey and Miller showed that Organic Material can rise from inorganic materialScripps researchers showed that self-replicating organic Material can rise from ordinary organic material.It seems to me that the evidence is mounting quite verily against you.More importantly, one needs to explain where the complex information in DNA came from.Ignorance of current scientific literature is not an argument. This has already been explained.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968000499014838