My dumbass parents doubt evolution

[Kirbmarc]

A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.

This is a very infamous logical fallacy, and has been shown to be groundless since the times of Immanuel Kant.

The Universe (defined as "everything that existed or exists" , not merely our universe: there could be other universes, including one that caused our universe to exist) has a beginning, but this beginning is also the beginning of existance.

Asking what existed before existance is pointless, just like asking what lies north of the North Pole.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

There is no reason to believe that the the cause of our physical universe must be not physical, nor that it must be willful. Indeed, there are many hypothesis about the origins of our universe, and do not require an intelligent programmer.

(By the way, "nothingness" doesn't exist, what exists is vacuum, a very different thing)

Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.

The proposed evidence for irreducible complexity has been repeatedly refuted. Even Michael Behe (the man eho propsed the "irreducible complexity" hypothesis) has recently admitted that his concept of irreducible complexity is vague, ill-defined and not supported by any meaningful evidence.

You also assume a purpose for evolution, and from that you infer a design. There is no evidence that evolution has a purpose (there is, however, a staggering amount of evidence for thr lack of design in evolution)

You also conveniently forget that evolution is not based on random "chance" alone. It's based on the survival of what managed to duplicate itself.

Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.

The Finely Tuned universe is another well-known logical fallacy. Actually a) the range is not "infinitesimally narrow" (a change as large as 25% of the constants still produces stars and therefore carbon-based life) and b) life adapted to the universe, not vice-versa.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.

Have you ever read Kant's analysis of the classical proofs for the existance of god? It's been out for a while.

Anyway, the ontological argument is probably the weakest proof of them all. By claiming that all methaphysical possibilities must be actual, it implicitly assumes that god has to exist to prove that it exists.

Ten thousand dollars in my pocket are methaphysically possible, but sadly they are not actual.

Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?

There is no meaningful evidence of intelligence in nature.

Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

There are many excellent hypotheses about the evolutionary origins of religion. Religious behavior has alos been observed in chimpanzee and bonobos. I suggest thst you read "Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion" by Barbara King.

Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul. Chemicals have no moral duties.

You assume that "free will" exists as something independent from the physical world. Actually what you call "soul" is a high-level function of the brain.

Moreover, even if such a thing existed, it still wouldn't prove the existance of an intelligent creator.

Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.

It's both. What you call "personality" and "will" are also byproducts of electrochemical activity. They are, however, high level byproducts: this means that the relation between electrochemical activity and "will" is not one of a brute "one on one" determinism.

"Personalities" are complex bundles of psychological features, that include the belief of the individual that he can control his actions (what you may call "free will"). "Free will" is never absolutely free, it's always free in relation to what you are.

Rape is morally wrong because it causes suffering (both physical and psychological) in its victims. Secular morality is not interested in casting judgements about the "nature" of a rapist, but in reducing and possibly preventing suffering (by preventing rapes if possible and by taking action against a rapist to prevent him from harming more victims).

Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.

There is no clear, meaningful evidence of miracles and visions. All we have is fragmentary, often contradictory hearsay.

Also, the same kind of flawed evidence is available for religions other than Christianity (google "hindu miracles"), for ufo abductions, for "curses" and superstition in general, for every conspiracy theory, etc. yet a) they often contradict each other, so they can't all be true b) you probably don't accept many of them.

The prophecies are always vague enough to be considered "fulfilled" in many different occasions. Many of them are also forged after the fact "predicted".

Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena

See my previous comment about ufo abductions and conspiracy theories.

Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Hearsay, and from a single, partisan source.

Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…

You need a thorough update on the most recent developments of neurosciences, psychology, cosmology and philosophy. I'd suggest that you start by reading the "Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant.

Gravity isn't science. Gravity is a Law imposed on our Universe. Science presumes gravity exists, but cannot cause gravity. We believe gravity exists based on experiences of it, but cannot prove it without arguing in circles.

The law of gravity is part of a theory that explains different phenomena, and that produces testable claims, which have been supported by a staggering amount of evidence. There is nothing that "imposes" laws on our universe. Laws are human attempts to understand relations between different phenomena.