Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

The earth is like a single pore on a single grain of sand, in the ocean, and human life has only existed on that pore for such a miniscule amount of time, equivalent to the last 2 seconds on a clock.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.I don't buy the argument that "Life is rare, therefore it was created". It is a poor argument.I don't buy the argument that Life is abundant and therefore it was created by naturalistic means. It is a poor argument as well.If you accept the that the Universe is of an infinite age, then that probability essentially becomes 100%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 happened and we would not be here... yet here we are. Therefore the probability that we got here through naturalistic means is basically nil.So you saying "God absolutely is the cause" ISN'T a God of the Gaps argument, but me saying a "Multiverse is plausible" IS a multiverse of the Gaps argument?No, I'm saying that there is a FIRST cause. And in order for there to be a first cause it has to have all the attributes that I mentioned before, timeless, immaterial and etc. That says nothing about whether or not that is the Christian God.if the big bang is the beginning of time, nothing can precede itYou can have simultaneous causes however. For example, CS Lewis describes the following situation as an example of simultaneous causation: Imagine two books on a table where one is stacked on top of the other. The bottom book is book A, and the top book is book B. What is the cause of book B residing a few inches above the table? The presence of book A of course. And Book A cannot cause Book B to be above the table until it is placed on top of it. The cause (book A exerting a force on Book B) is simultaneous to the effect (book B being upheld by book A).It is proof that molecules can self-organize to form the building blocks of life.At what point does that show that molecules can self-organize? That's highly misleading. Creating amino acids does not imply self-organization.Which is what you are trying to convince us to do.No, all I'm pointing out is that you keep posting these ideas and passing them off as fact.I don't know what makes you think you are qualified to speak on behalf of all biochemists, but you are quite literally wrong.I'm not speaking on behalf of biochemists, I would never dare to do so as they are by far well more versed in that area than I.Many biochemists believe in naturalistic evolution.Many of them have faith in naturalistic evolution, this is true. In fact the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolution and common descent.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. You can argue that you believe the evidence points in a certain direction but at this point it is a belief. I believe this is the same reason you tell me that I should abandon my belief in Jesus is it not, because its not scientifically proven?It is proof that molecules can self-organize to form the building blocks of life.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."Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job."- Charles McCombs, Ph.D. (Organic chemist)I believe that there is research going on to try to solve this problem, but I couldn't find anything source that actually claim to have solved this problem.Do you have a refutation or not? Is there anything within the video that is incorrect?http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm The fact that this video is using the "primordial soup" assumption is a big problem for me. No evidence for it and many scientists would argue that it would not be conducive towards creating life.No, don't Bullshit me. You didn't read this from a library, and you don't own the issue. Stop being dishonest. I asked for a source and your refused to give it to me.I gave you the citation as it was cited when I ran across it. 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. His wikipedia profile lists him as agnostic.http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/02/28/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/ He's basically saying Science has absolutely no idea how life started. Of special note from the article:"But the "RNA-world" hypothesis remains problematic. RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions. Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist. Overbye notes that "even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small.""Right....no evidence.Except for this:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v216/n5110/abs/216029a0.html And this:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389556702000394 And this:http://www.springerlink.com/content/x0j7qr5232730604/ And This:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v331/n6157/abs/331612a0.html Like you said, no evidence.I suppose I'll make the same charge of you.. did you actually buy each of these articles or are you just posting links? Once again, amino acids do not self order to proteins, as far as I can tell the only time amino acids become proteins is when DNA directs it into what protein it needs to be, so creating these "Building" blocks doesn't really prove much of anything regarding the origins of life because there was no DNA to cause them to become proteins.