How to debate a Christian

[NoGodaloud ?]

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

i think our universe is a closed system.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/1...eginning-0

Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system. That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

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

actually no. we know exactly, what infinity is, and what contradictory result it gives, when dealt with it.
My presented point is perfectly valid, and explains, why a infinite universe cannot exist in reality, only in hypothetically. Our universe most probably is finite, and this goes in accordance with most astronomers and physicists, like Vilenkin, Guth, Penrose, Davies, and others.

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.

Stenger supposes a Multiverse. For witch there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. It has just be invented, to avoid a tuner of our finely tuned universe. Beside this, according to some string theorists, there would be needed 1 to 10^500 attempts to create a life supporting universe by trial and error. That is a number, six times larger than all atoms that exist in our universe. A inimaginable big number. Beside this, if a infinite number of universes would exist, than not only everything COULD happen, but would HAVE to happen. Michael Jackson would get one hundred years old, the US would have already attacked Iran, and Elvis would have been a pastor, and sing some gospel music. Sorry, but i don't buy into completely speculative theories without any evidence whatsoever. Moreover, according to Occam's Razor, the less complicate answer should be choosen. A intelligent designer certainly is a less complex origin, than a multiverse.

If everything has a cause, then what caused God?

Since God created time, he could not be subject to time. Time started with the Big Bang. God lived therefore beyond our universe in a timeless eternity, without beginning, and without a end. He simply is.

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

When it comes to issues outside the scientific realm, we can only do philosophical reasoning.

This is a post hoc argument that assumes these constants must be so for our life to exists.

Of course not. These are results of scientific studies. Even proeminent atheists, like Stenger, Dawkins, Hawking, Rees, Penrose, Davies, and many others aknowledge the fact, that our universe is finely tuned to life.

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

If these constants would be changed even a little, no universe at all would come into existence. For example, the expansion rate of the universe had to be finely tuned to one to 10^120 magnitude of order.
there were speculation, that life could be based on silicon, but this theory did not withstand scrutiny.

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.

No matter, how much time science continues with its research, what we know already, lets us confidently exclude a natural origin of the first cell.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

Obviously both DNA and/or RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work. There simply is no stepwise function-based selection process since natural selection isn't even capable of working at this point in time.

However, the Urey-Miller experiment successful showed that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can arise from non-life.

there is much more needed, that just these building blocks. Information, actually, that is contained in DNA. Information has always a mind as origin. Therefore, DNA must have been programmed through a mind. If you can show me coded information, which arose naturally, by chance, you will win a one million dollar prize.

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.

This is just wishful thinking. The Miller Experiment has not shown its possible.

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

What reason would inorganic matter have, to form by itself in a way, to form life ? What kind of survival advantage would there be ? survive of what, actually, it inorganic matter is dead anyway ? what mechanism do you suggest to promote this event ?

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

i think thats far from being true. sorry to not get in more indepth here, but that would demand too much, so i will leave just a website, which you can eventually study further :

http://www.discovery.org/a/3408

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.

You are actually wrong. It is a falsifiable claim. Just present a complex and specific code, which arose by chance, naturally, and you won this argument. All you need to present, is just one.

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.

I don't think so. DNA is according to practically all the entire literature of biology defined literally as a code, and not a figurative one.

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

lets have a look at your website, what kind of response they give :

"Chaos can produce patterns but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols" Though the process of random mutation and natural selection is not chaotic, it is a self-correcting mechanism that generates brute force solutions to problems by trial and error. Natural selection is what makes the pattern in the dna useful to achieve its basic characteristic property being self replication

first of all, they fail , since natural selection and random mutation did start with the first cell alive, not before. Secondly. Lets see, how chance could produce information randomly.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-o...r-t287.htm

It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27^100

I think that says it all.....

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.

Shall that be a joke, or what ????????

---

. I'll go ahead and post a corrected version of them when I get some time....

yes, feel free to go straight to the issues......