How to debate a Christian

[The Omnissiunt One]

I didn't say nothing exists without a cause. I said, everything that begins to exist, has a cause. Since God lived in a timeless eternity, he had no beginning, and has no end. He simply exists.

'Everything which begins to exist has a cause' is a principle based on empirical evidence from our universe, operating against a background of laws within the universe. It is not true a priori, so you cannot say that it applies outside the universe. Your incredulity as to how something could come from nothing doesn't place any restraints on what is actually possible. Besides, we may as well say that the universe existed eternally in some form. If you think this is impossible, then an eternal god must also be impossible.

you can say that rationally, if not everything, that begins to exist, needs a cause.

No. See above.

the presupposed atheism of the naturalist is sharply challenged by numerous features of the natural, moral, and probationary orders, all of which point to the existence, activity, and character of an unknown god. That is, they point to an infinite personal Spirit who acts as the creator, sustainer, moral governor, and tester of all. Additional evidence—largely (but not exclusively) found in the Bible—indicates that this unknown god and the LORD God of Israel are one.

We've already dealt largely with the Kalam and Contingency arguments. Ontological arguments generally fail because they don't prove that there is something which instantiates the definition of a perfect being. Moral arguments presuppose objective moral values, which is dubious. Personal experience is invalidated by competing claims from other religions, and can be explained in neurological terms. All others are variations on design arguments, which are flawed for various reasons, depending on the version employed.

The presence of Jupiter is required to allow advanced life to exist on the Earth. However, Jupiter's large mass (along with the other gas giants) has a profound destabilizing effect upon the inner planets. In the absence of the Earth-moon system, the orbital period of Jupiter sets up what is called resonance over the period of 8 million years. This resonance causes the orbits of Venus and Mercury to become highly eccentric, so much so, that eventually the orbits become close enough so that there would be a "strong Mercury-Venus encounter." Such an encounter would certainly lead to the ejection of Mercury from the Solar System, and an alteration of the orbit of Venus. In doing the simulations, the scientists learned that the stabilizing effect of the Earth-moon requires a planet with at least the mass of Mars and within 10% of the distance of the Earth from the Sun.

Of course Earth is just right for life! If it weren't, we wouldn't be here to speculate about it! With billions of planets in the universe, it was fairly likely one would be right for life.

Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be sceptical of it, especially since the account in Genesis better explains very many features of the natural world.

Yes, like the existence of dinosaurs and the age of the Earth.

We are talking about evolution, a theory that tries to tell us what happened in an unseen, unobservable, unrepeatable past. The fact that someone invents a natural "explanation" for something that is unseen, unobserved — and hence unscientific — does not mean that that explanation has any basis in reality. Without supporting evidence, it is a mere suggestion, a speculation. The fact that someone can devise a natural explanation in the context of this "theory", which makes unscientific claims about a hidden past, says nothing about the truth

As Richard Dawkins says, we can determine evolution's truth like a detective on the scene of a crime can determine what happened.