How to debate a Christian

[Eilonnwy]

how would you deal with the second law of thermodynamics ?

I deal with it fine. The second law deals with closed systems, the universe is not a closed system. Furthermore, it is talking about entropy, not disorder. They are two different things.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...modynamics

and : potentially a infinite number of events is possible, but not adding one event after the other, from a starting point. Then the number of events will be always finite. you can count forever, but from the startingpoint to the point you are, 1, a million , a billion, it will always be a finite number. Looking backwards, is the same. There cannot exist a infinite number of past events. They will always be finite in number. therefore, a infinite number of universes are not possible.

maibe you visit this webpage, to have it better explained :

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5231

Humans have a hard time grasping infinity, just as you have shown.

How does this make sense to you ? from absolutely nothing, nothing derives, since absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing.....

Read "God the Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger, he tackles the nothing bit, buuut, as I've said before, it didn't necessarily come from nothing anyway.

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, incredibly powerful. That description fits best to the God of the bible.

If everything has a cause, then what caused God?

You've simply made assertions that god exists and must have these characteristics to be an uncaused cause. You've given no logical reasoning or proof. Just bare assertions.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...irst_cause

2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

No.

This is a post hoc argument that assumes these constants must be so for our life to exists. It's possible that these constants could be different and an entirely different life form would arise from it.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t..._principle

3. Life. Abiogenesis has not been able to explain the existence of life on earth. Science cannot explain it. There are strong reasons to believe, a natural origin is not probable, and a bad explanation. First of all, why whould dead rocks need to evolve, to create life ? Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man. A living cell is irreducible complex. All parts must be on place, making a gradual evolution not possible.
Even the simplest cell needs DNA , which is a information carrier. Information is always created by a mind. There i no natural mechanism known to man, to create information. Information is by essence spiritual, and not physical. There is no bridge to cross the gulf from material to spiritual. Even through millions of years of evolution. Its not possible. Add to this the moral argument, experience of miracles, the testimony of the bible, and you have a nice case of theism.

No. Abiogenesis is an ongoing area of research. Just because it has not conclusively proven how life arose, it doesn't mean it's wrong, it simply means it's proven.

However, the Urey-Miller experiment successful showed that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can arise from non-life. It may not have perfectly recreated the conditions of early earth, but just knowing it's possible is a big step in the right direction.

Abiogenesis does not claim a rock came to life. Clearly you do not understand it and need to learn more.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...biogenesis

Irreducible complexity has been completely debunked. Science has shown repeatedly how complex systems can arise purely through evolution.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...complexity

Even the simplest cell needs DNA , which is a information carrier. Information is always created by a mind. There i no natural mechanism known to man, to create information. Information is by essence spiritual, and not physical. There is no bridge to cross the gulf from material to spiritual. Even through millions of years of evolution. Its not possible. Add to this the moral argument, experience of miracles, the testimony of the bible, and you have a nice case of theism.

No. This is a tautological argument that simply assumes information must have a mind to think it in order to exist. This is not a falsifiable claim, therefore not scientific.

Information is a label we give. The way you think of information, and what we mean by information in DNA are not the same thing. You're conflating words.

For a list of further reasons why this argument fails, go here:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...y_Argument

I've listed all these articles not only in the misguided hope you'll read and learn something, but to show you that we've heard these arguments before and they've been thoroughly refuted and debunked. There is nothing new about anything you have said. I've heard it all before.

It seems to me that you are simply repeating failed apologetics from some website. You'll need to do better than that.