You know what, your style of thinking isn't going to help you with anything. I believe in God and I believe that he did make this world, but your attitude against others can't make you a very happy person.

I think that if you really believe in God, you would believe in considering another's thoughts as well. He did say "If you love me, then feed my sheep" to Peter, didn't he? Unless you don't think every man is His sheep.

"There have been various entities and events that have been presented by both science and other religions as more complex than the present universe."

Yes, but how did THEY come about? from something more complex than them? And then how did that something before them come about? The universe needs a FINAL cause.

Let's start from the top. Do you not beleive that laws of nature can exist? I know that Evolutionists, when told that "Evolution is only a theory" will often say that a theory is the highest possible designation in science, and point to the theory of relativity (proven) and the theory of gravity (proven also). Not that some theories aren't complete bogus. But I'm sure that these particular theories (biogenesis and Cause and Effect(or causality)) are some of the closest out there to being actual laws.

"Abiogenesis is the modern model for life. There is no viable scientific source that disputes this".

In science, hearing something like "No dispute" should be a red flag. Science is ABOUT dispute. It is about critical thinking. If there's no dispute (especially on something with implications as profound as those of abiogenesis) that should let you know that there's something other than science at work here.

Before you state that there are no viable scientific sources offering dispute, though, maybe you should try looking for one.

As far as causes being more complicated than their effects, I still think I'm right. I couldn't invent a computer more intellegent than myself, now, could I?

Although I'm sorry to say I don't know a whole lot about atoms. Can you try a different example?

To begin with, you need to check your sources of information:

To begin with, there is no "Law" of Biogenesis. This is a simple misnomer. There is a theory of biogenesis, and this was conducted to chip away and refute the absurd notion of spontaneous generation. The experiments Louis Pasteur performed don't even touch on the idea of abiogenesis, much less refute them. The closest thing in modern science to this is Cell Theory, which states that all cells arise from pre-existing cells. This, in and of itself, was brought upon by inductive conclusion:  Every cell we've seen comes from other cells, so it is inductively agreed upon that this is the attribute of all cells. However, there is no logical requirement for this.  Similar theories of inductive reasoning has been proven wrong before, which is only natural, because they are largely placed as a matter of practicality in a world where new facts become apparent every day. This can easily demonstrated in the same manner that atomic theory has shifted from the Rutherford model to the Bohr model, to the Electron cloud model.

Abiogenesis is the modern model for life. The is no viable scientific source that disputes this.

Moving on. Again. There is no "Law of cause and effect" there is Causality, and various theories surrounding this concept, but there is no law or even a theory concerning causality itself, instead of something causality relates to. Among those theories, there are none that claims a cause is more complex than the effect. The closest thing to what you're suggesting is the logic necessary and sufficient conditions. Which, as the name of this branch of logic suggests, only states that a cause must be both necessary and efficient to bring about the effect.

But that's besides the point to begin with. Say that weren't true. Say the above paragraph I wrote is utter and unfounded nonsense. "God is the only thing that could have made it" STILL doesn't follow from the premise that that every cause is of equal to greater complexity than its effect. This would make God a possibly cause or even a probable cause. But the only cause? Hardly. There have been various entities and events that have been presented by both science and other religions as more complex than the present universe.

And no. That is NOT radioactive decay. Atoms naturally lose protons and electrons when forming covalent and ionic bonds and forming chemical compounds.  This is because the atom is sharing said protons and electrons with another atom. Radioactive decay is when an atom loses these particals by emmiting them, not sharing them. By sharing them, the atom creates structure. Do you not comprehend that a coherent structure of two combined atoms is more complex than an isolated atom that isn't sharing it's particals?

Do you beleive in Scientific laws? Because I know a few scientific laws. The law of biogenesis says that life comes from life. Not non-life.

And the law of cause and effect says that every cause is of equal to greater complexity than its effect.

I can draw a picture. I caused the picture. I am more complicated than the picture.  A tree can produce another tree. The two are of equal complexity. (and back on the topic of explosions) a firecracker can cause an explosion. The firecracker is more complicated than the debris.

God made the universe. God is more complicated than the universe and is the only thing that could have made it.

As for your example with atoms losing protons and electrons, is that not radioactive decay? And that is an example of things losing energy, not gaining it.

are you saying that everyone else is wrong to believe in what they want

and it is foolish of you to believe in an ancient novel written by devil knows who

how  do you know that those were gods words and not the words of some attention seeking monk

you believe that onlychristianity is right so i will do what you just did

it is foolish of you to believe in the bible. you cannot tell me that i am being rude because you did that first

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God hath shewd it unto them." Romans 1:19

Nature is God's way of saying he created everything on this earth. He created animals, trees, grass, sky, clouds and, humans.

It might. I suppose since God made Adam and Eve, it's possible that He could have made husbands and wives for their kids, but it seems more likely that we're inbred.

Of course, that would have happened again during Noah's Ark. Cousins would have had to marry each other.

Adam and Eve were probably not white and blond. There has been evidence suggesting that the Garden of Eden was most likely around the Fertile Crescent, so they probably had dark, thick hair and olive skin. They were also able to start the population of the world because they most likely had A LOT of kids (not just Cain, Abel, and Seth.) The Bible says "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters."

But, yeah, you're arguments are very weak OP.