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

It seems some kind of error happened, everything is inexplicably bolded.Oh I'm quite aware of how large space is. That's why I think it is incredible. As per your earlier post about God being a poor designer for "wasting space" I've heard the argument that in order for there to be enough Iron and etc. to even create planets then the universe needs to be the size that it is.Have we suddenly begun talking about some other sort of God? Why is it that a God that can speak the universe into existence needs pre-existing material of which to extract the necessary components for a life-bearing earth? If God can create the Universe from nothing why can he not just create whatever quantity of iron, salt, water etc that he needs? It's great that you heard this argument, but you don't seem compelled by it and for good reason.I don't buy the argument that Life is abundant and therefore it was created by naturalistic means.Strawman? Where have I ever said this?I think that is the main problem here. I do not accept the Universe is of an infinite age.I think the fact that the universe is still expanding and the second law of thermal dynamics implies the ultimate fate of the universe would be "heat death" or basically that all of the energy in the universe will spread itself out evenly. When that happens the universe becomes such that no life is possible. The reason that is important is that if the universe is infinitely old then this would have already happenedThis largely depends on the quantity of dark matter in the universe, it also assumes linear time.Other explanations that do not experience this problem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bouncehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_Inflation_theory Even so I've seen explanations that don't necessarily require an infinite universe.http://members.fortunecity.com/templarser/big-bang.html Therefore the probability that we got here through naturalistic means is basically nil.Only because you wish for there to be a God. You are essentially saying that the probability that you are wrong is basically nil. There are a number of very intelligent scientists that would strongly disagree with this statement here.No, I'm saying that there is a FIRST cause."If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless. Unfortunately, many children, and adults, too, regard this answer as disingenuous. There must be more to it than that, they object.Indeed there is. After all, why should time suddenly "switch on"? What explanation can be given for such a singular event? Until recently, it seemed that any explanation of the initial "singularity" that marked the origin of time would have to lie beyond the scope of science. However, it all depends on what is meant by "explanation." As I remarked, all children have a good idea of the notion of cause and effect, and usually an explanation of an event entails finding something that caused it. It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics."-PAUL DAVIES theoretical physicist, at the University of AdelaideAnd in order for there to be a first cause it has to have all the attributes that I mentioned before, timeless, immaterial and etcAnything and everything that is timeless and immaterial is completely indistinguishable from that which is non-existent. At what point does that show that molecules can self-organize?At the point it was observed within a laboratory. Even outside the realm of abiogenesis, molecules self-organize all the time. Every snowflake you have ever seen is the product of self-organized molecules. No, all I'm pointing out is that you keep posting these ideas and passing them off as fact.You are grossly mistaken. You are the one presenting your belief as fact, and you have consistently asserted your belief as the only possible explanation while disregarding other explanations.I have only ever said that there are many possible explanations, all with more evidence than your "God Did it" assumption. Unlike you I don't pretend to know how it all started.Many of them have faith in naturalistic evolution, this is true.So it requires faith to believe no more than what the evidence suggests?Again, yes they do have faith in evolution and common descent. Notice here that in order to have faith you must believe in something when there is not enough scientific evidence to support it.This seems to be a considerable flip-flop from your previous position that faith is having irrefutable proof that something won't happen. Now faith is simply having NOT ENOUGH evidence. What constitutes ENOUGH evidence is beyond me, but I will be willing to bet your idea of what constitutes enough evidence for evolution would be quite astronomical. This isn't to say that your beliefs are even dependent upon evidence. In a survey only 17% of who deny evolution cite "lack of evidence" as a reason he vast majority citing their belief in Jesus and the Bible as their reason for rejecting evolution, and whether you admit it or not I would argue that you too fall in this category.You can argue that you believe the evidence points in a certain direction but at this point it is a belief.Absolutely. I never denied it was a belief. It is an evidentially supported belief. You however conflate faith with belief. All faith is belief but not all belief is faith. You follow?I believe this is the same reason you tell me that I should abandon my belief in JesusThis is the interesting thing about religion, certain words and phrase contain hidden connotations. Belief in Jesus, in Christianity doesn't mean belief in Jesus. Belief in Jesus actually means "Beliefs about Jesus". For that matter I believe in Jesus, but I don't share the same beliefs about Jesus that you do. I believe in Jesus in the sense that he probably existed. I however don't accept that he was the son of God, that he rose from the dead or turned water into wine. These to me are just myths, and to insist that they are anything else is silly.I don't think it is the proof you are looking for however. A good analogy is that if bricks were created we can assume that natural forces would construct a house out of them.And why is it that bricks won't arrange themselves to make a house? Because bricks are not self-replicating nor self-organizing, molecules are. Analogies are not proof, they are not evidence. Analogies help to clarify ideas, not to prove them.Chirality...I fail to see how the fact that molecules mirror themselves in large multi-celluar organisms in any manner somehow disproves abiogensis. Perhaps you can elucidate? Are you just making shots in the dark hoping to get lucky?The fact that this video is using the "primordial soup" assumption is a big problem for me.Of course nit is, because it is not enough simply to deny evolution and abiogenesis, you must deny every detail of the process whether it is relevant to it's veracity or not. All of it presents a challenge to your religious faith.The video uses a primordial soup scenario because that is the conditions the urey-miller experiments used and that is what the scripps researchers used, and both of them had succeeded. To call primordial soup an assumption at this point is just outright disingenuous.I gave you the citation as it was cited when I ran across it.That is precisely the problem, the whole purpose of a citation is to list where YOU found the information. If you found it on a website, list that website. Don't pretend you did the hard job of looking through actual magazines and print-and-paper articles, if you didn't. This is dishonest. The reason I'm making a big deal about this is because creationists websites are notorious for quote-mining, quoting evolutionists to appear as if they are arguing against what they actually believing by leaving out parts of their quote. In this instance my suspicion was correct.I did some other searching on him too at the time to make sure he wasn't just some Creationist that you would immediately ignore.This is the other problem I was talking about, If a well-known creationist is quoted as supporting creationism on a creationist website there is no reason to doubt this, but if a well known evolutionist is quoted as supporting creationism on a creationist website, I would treat that quote with a lot of skepticism.He's basically saying Science has absolutely no idea how life started.There is a lot we still don't know yet, but I will have to respectfully disagree that certainly science has some idea how life began even if there are a few dilemmas that have yet to be solved, and this in no way supports the creationist position by any means.