The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1C

>>>Fine-Tuning of the Universe<<< A. Anthropic Principle My opponent never stated whether or not Earth is special or typical. However, it is easily inferred from his arguments. 1. It may be that the conditional probability for us is 1. However, that doesn't not exempt it from the probabilities I stated because there is no evidence of another suitable planet supporting life similar to Earth. It may be better explained that God had made the universe for us which is supported by the fact that conditional probability for us is one and that random chance is too low to explain why we existed given the extreme size and age of the universe. 2. From this argument that life has no purpose, you can infer that my opponent thinks that Earth is a typical planet instead of special or designed for the human's existence. Since humans are carbon-based beings and have never encountered any life that has evolved outside the earth's environment (1) , it should be assumed that other intelligent complex life will also be carbon-based (2) until there is evidence that other atoms can be used to form all the molecular machinery necessary for life.(1) B. Statistical Argument My opponents assume that the Rare Earth hypothesis and the Fermi Paradox conflict. However, I'm using both of them to support that Earth is unique. The Fermi paradox states that given the extreme size and age of the universe, there should be more intelligent life. The Rare Earth hypothesis states that emergence of complex intelligent life on Earth required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. The Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support states the probability of the combination of those astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. Based on these facts, the conclusion should be that the Earth is unique and specially designed for human existence because it is improbable for random chance to explain the uniqueness of the Earth based on the extreme size and age of the universe. C. Multiverse Theory My opponent attempts to explain random chance by postulating an infinity of unseen universes just to explain the one we do. The belief that God create the universe is much more understandable than the theory that infinite universes are being created by infinite big bangs. The multiverse theory does not answer the questions but simply begs the question. Who created the infinite universes in the first place? There is no source that I'm aware of that states that infinite universes can be un-caused. In fact, now physicists are proposing that each universe starts with its own big bang and goes through a cosmic cycle. (3) There is no insult: physicists don't like coincidences. "They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea." (4) Then they state their answer: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiï¿½verse. However, the theories actually invoke supernatural or metaphysical features. That's because the natural realm encompassed all physical laws associated with this universe. Anything beyond, by definition, was considered supernatural. (5) D. Alien design Who created the aliens then and where do they come from? >>>Time on Earth<<< The Earth did not form an atmosphere that quickly. If any comet or asteroid collided with the forming Earth, Earth has the possibly of being corrupted and destroyed. Then my opponent ignores the fact the Venus too has an atmosphere. Studies show that the runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of the original water on Venus. Why did Earth get exempted from the greenhouse effect but not Venus? Venus is quite similar to Earth in size and is sometimes considered Earth's twin planet. (6) "Alternative biochemistry, alternative solar system configurations, you name it!" Great! Now let alternative biochemistry do its job to evolve simple life on Venus and Mars to complex and intelligent life. If other life forms can evolve by alternative biochemistry, then there should be evidence of their existence of Mars and Venus. My opponent fails to explain why does life can evolve from alternative biochemistry, but life has not formed on Venus and Mars. >>>The Fermi Paradox<<< A. Civilizations don't have to arise. Yes, but it can be seen as Earth is designed specifically for complex and intelligent life. "The Fermi paradox states that the extreme age of the universe... extraterrestrial life SHOULD be common." The Rare Earth hypothesis explains why the Earth is unique. If life is not a goal, then extraterrestrial life should be common given the extreme age and size of the universe. That's because if life is not a goal, then my statistics should be flawed and advanced life should be common. My opponent's arguments are flawed because: 1. The Anthropic reasoning explains that the Earth is designed but NOT formed due to random chance. 2. There could be life, but technologically advanced life is much rarer due to time added and if there is no other complex life, it further explains that the Earth is designed for intelligent life. B. Doomsday Argument and we don't have technological power/haven't searched long enough Archaeological evidence of past civilizations may be detected through deep space observations. If we see no evidence, the chances are that there is no intelligent life. That's the same with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. Until we see evidence that those monsters exist, we will assume that they didn't. "There is no evidence to show life DIDN'T arise on other planets either" We can use radio transmissions, radio searches, direct and indirect planetary observations, finding evidence of probes, colonies, and other artifacts, and detecting advanced stellar-scale artifacts to see if other intelligent civilizations exist. >>>First Cause Argument<<< There is no source that I heard of that states that virtual particles are un-caused. Even if virtual particles are un-caused, they would be the exception to "everything has a cause." If you wish to void the premise, you must state an un-caused event that explains the origins of the universe. Virtual particles are not events, but they rather have a cause that is uncertain. You must give a source if you wish to prove that virtual particles don't have a cause. "It's in the principle of multiverse. Look it up." I still see no source that tells me that each universe doesn't not come from their own big bang or beginning. >>>Final Argument<<< First of all, what would a being with 5% less power instead of 100% mean? If God doesn't exist, that entity would automatically have 100% power, because nothing is stronger than that entity. Powers are not definable in terms of scale. Let's look at omnipotence again: the ability to create anything logically possible which would be a non-contradictory thing. How can a being have 5% less power than that? Additionally, if they both coexisted, then you can compare their powers. For example, a being that has less power than God would not be able to destroy anything that God created. That being may not be able to create anything of his own but he can influence the events of God's creation. Had God not existed, that being will not exist due to the fact that he doesn't have omnipotence. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu... 4. http://discovermagazine.com... 5. http://www.reasons.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...