That was some of the worst logic ever. God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent because the universe exists and is a complex system?
Can you please tell me where it says that because I typed that all up myself and I don't remember seeing that anywhere. Those attributes wern't shown to be proven valid simply by the universes exisistence but by natural laws that point towards a creator. The second law of thermodynamics was shown amoung other thing, that order nad igh levels of complexity can only come fgrom an intelligence able to direct force. There was a lot more to it then that. That post took a long time to type, and you declared it to be summarized by " God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent because the universe exists and is a complex system." Please recompose your objection, and I will answer it formally.

Who is to say that the Big Bang didn't happen because the previous iteration of the universe collapsed, then exploded, and that this has been going on forever, like the beating of a heart?
Because the 2nd law says it can't. from If God created the universe, then who created God? :

Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ??open??. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass. Some recent evidence for an ??open?? universe comes from the number of light-bending ??gravitational lenses?? in the sky. Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe??s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a ??big crunch??. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable ??inflationary?? version of the ??big bang?? theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse??a ??flat?? universe.

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ??big crunch??. As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, ??There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.?? Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that??s the end.

That wouldn't require a God at all, just time and matter.
wrong, even that would require a creator to begin the universe with low levels of entropy in the universe to begin with.

Let's say there is an X percent chance that the molecules necessary to form a simple bacterium will randomly hook up. X > 0, but could be a very, very, very small number. However small that number may be, if anything *can* happen, then given time, it *will* happen, no question about it.
In the world of faith in evolution time is the beloved God. With enough time, anything can happen, despite it's imporobability or incompatability with human experience.

The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ??simple?? cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1057800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 1080 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ??only?? amount to 10160 electrons.

These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, british mathmetician and astronomer has said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik??s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time??and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world ??simple?? bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life could not form by natural (random) processes.

An evolutionist might argue that the odds of winning the lottery are pretty remote, but someone wins it every week. But In the analogy cited above, there has to be an outcome. Someone has to win the lottery. By contrast, in the processes by which life is supposed to have formed, there need not necessarily be an outcome. Indeed the probabilities argue against any outcome. That is the whole point of the argument. But then the evolutionist may counter that it did happen because we are here! This is circular reasoning.

The order in the proteins and DNA of living things is independent of the properties of the chemicals of which they consist??unlike an ice crystal where the structure results from the properties of the water molecule. The order in living things parallels that in printed books where the information is not contained in the ink, or even in the letters, but in the complex arrangement of letters which make up words, words which make up sentences, sentences which make up paragraphs, paragraphs which make up chapters and chapters which make up books. These components of written language respectively parallel the nucleic acid bases, codons, genes, operons, chromosomes and genomes which make up the genetic programs of living cells.

The result of the lottery draw is clearly the result of a random selection??unless family members of the lottery supervisor consistently win! Then we would conclude that the draw has not been random??it is not the result of a random process, but the result of an intelligent agent.

United States taxpayers are spending millions of dollars yearly in funding the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). If those listening hear a radio signal with random noise, it is clearly the product of a natural process, but if there is a pattern such as ??dah-dah-dah-dit-dit-dit-dah-dah-dah??, it will be hailed as evidence for an intelligent, although invisible, source.

If such evidence indicate an intelligent source then surely the incredible amount of information on the DNA in living things, equivalent to a library of a thousand 500- page books in a human being, shouts Creation by a Creator! The more we know about the biochemical workings of living cells, the stronger the evidence becomes for the intimate involvement of a creator. But aside from all this, the second law of thermodynamics just won't allow evolution to take place. Period. I guess you didn't get that.


Once you have low-level life replicating, then evolution kicks in, survival of the fittest, best adaptability to environment, increased complexity, and so on. This doesn't require God either.
I'd love for you to give me a simple explanation of how this can happen, when the laws of the universe and all probability show it can't. Mutations don't make things better. They make things worse. But in the world of evolution, mutations are the name of the game. Evolutionists believe time and chance can defy all probability and the natural laws of the universe. Evolutionsts believe that disorder can produce order . They don't even beleive the word impossible can even apply when it comes to evolution, but they would never consider the possibility of a creator who made all things.

I'm not saying there *is* no omnipotent being out there. I am saying that you haven't even come close to proving there is. Since one can't prove a negative, it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove the positive...or fail to do so. So far, you have failed.
Actually I have show ample proof that the universe must have required an intelligent designer ie, God. But as far as proving it, no I can't do that, and noone can prove evolution the way you mean either. I did exactly what I said I would do. I showed a logical and reasonable path held firm with scientific proofs that lead to faith in a creator. The evidence shows that a creator is necesary, but requires a person to have faith in something not seen. That's where the evidence leads and so you have to follow upon that path.