God Does Exist

I would like to point out that my opponent decided not to challenge evolution in this debate, so I will assume that evolution has been accepted for the purposes of this debate. Evolution Doesn't Explain All Complexity My opponent claims that since evolution doesn't explain all the fine tuning in the universe that it doesn't refute the teleological argument. The forces of evolution themselves don't require a creator, but there are certain conditions that are required for evolution to happen. You need a universe, the right universal constants to support life, the right planet to support life, and some way of producing the first life-form. So we can both agree that the theory of evolution cannot completely explain all the complexity in existence or explain the existence of life itself. All evolution shows is that it is possible to increase the level of complexity through natural selection and mutations without a designer. It has also been responsible for the vast majority of complexity in modern life. The fact that complexity can be increased without design by forces not created by a designer shows that the teleological argument is wrong when it assumes that you need a designer to create complexity. A wing is fine-tuned and it wasn't created by God, it was created by evolution. Same goes for the human brain. Fine Tuning of the Constants of the Universe This argument sounds familiar doesn't it. In fact the same kind of argument was used to "prove" that the complexity in life is fine tuned by a creator not naturalistic forces. It was also used to "demonstrate" that the conditions in this planet are too fine tuned for life to have developed here undesigned. Now of course we know that there are billions of planets so at least one is going to be just right for us. So in two really big cases, this argument has failed. Just because something is fine-tuned does not mean it had to be designed. Maybe there are many different types of life, so while life on this planet would not exist in a universe like this, maybe a different kind of life would exist in a different kind of universe. Maybe there is a special set of forces out of many that can create universes right for this kind of life. This is an analogy to evolution. If there is more than one universe then while most universes may not have life a lucky few did, just like a lucky few planets in this universe are fit for life. This argument also assumes that there is only one universe. I choose not to make that assumption without evidence that there is only one. In nature we always see any kind of event happening more than once. Thunder strikes more than once, it rains more than once, planets are made more than once. So why do we assume that the big bang happened only once if things in the universe always happen more than once? Given how thing work in the universe it is likely it also happened more than once. So there is a good chance somewhere else there is another space-time bubble containing another universe. The Cosmological Argument Pro: "the explanation of the Universe has to be outside of space and time. It has t be immaterial and atemporal because of this. The only thing that could cause things to come into existence and be outside of space and time is a disembodied mind, which is what most people refer to as God." There is no evidence that there is an immaterial mind in the first place. There has been no evidence that a mind if it exists can do anything to the physical world without a body. There is also no evidence a mind can exist outside space-time. Why is my opponent assuming a force outside space-time cannot create a big bang but yet an unproven disembodied mind can? I don't really know. Kalam Argument Pro: "If all things have a cause and this is based on the law of cause-and-effect, then we must accept this law in all cases. This law stipulates that causesalways preceed effects. Therefore, we must posit the cause of the universe as being an intelligent agent because only agent causation can cause violate this rule of cause-and-effect we have set up." Within this universe, cause precedes effect in time, however that doesn't mean this will hold true in a realm outside time. Also, there is no evidence minds can violate cause and effect. Thoughts and emotions according to neurology comes from chemical processes within the brain. No evidence has been provided to show anything different. Even thoughts and the way they make the body do things are all cause and effect. The effects they do come after the thoughts are made. Moral Argument: "The moral argument objection assumes that we haven't known since forever that murder, genocide, etc, are really wrong. I believe we have and that there is good evidence for this. As long as one objective moral value exists, then God exists. God is the only ground I can see for objective moral values and duties and thus if the viewers of this debate agree with me that some things are really wrong and other things are really right, then they should vote pro." Sure people have believed that some things are objectively wrong but that doesn't mean that they actually are. My opponent claims there is good evidence for objective morality but never cares to state the evidence. My opponent again assumes that God can be the only basis for objective morality and fails to show how the opinion of a being (God) alone can somehow create moral fact. Morality based on logic is also never ruled out. A final analysis: As stated before, if a claim has no evidence, then it is unlikely that it is true statistically. I have refuted all the claimed evidence for God that has been given. No evidence has also been given for a God who is immaterial and can exist outside space-time. So lets test some of the predictions of a God-less universe and a God created universe. If the universe is God-less then over time complexity in it should be explained nationalistically over time. If it is created by God, then evidence of design should show. In fact the Godless predictions are being confirmed. If the universe was God-less then most of it should be unsuitable for life, because of the Repeated Trial Argument. This is so because for a mindless force to create something complex, it requires many tries failed. For example for every planet suitable for life, we should see billions not suitable. This prediction is also confirmed. Why would a creator make so much of the universe uninhabitable? So because of the lack of evidence for a universe created by a disembodied mind, and the fact that the predictions made based on the assumption that the universe was not created by a mind have come true, rather than those based on the idea it was created by a disembodied mind, I can say that it is unlikely that the universe was created by a disembodied mind.