The Existence of God

"The Law of Conservation of Energy only applies to closed systems [1], while the univese is an isolated system [2]." You have no way of knowing whether the universe is a closed system or not. "I challenge my opponent find a way that we could currently reach now if infinity exists." The idea that an infinite is impossible is simply an idea based on mathematical concepts, not a fact. "God is metaphysical and of the supernatural, the definition does not demand God to exist physically." You can't make up a reason for a failed hypothesis to be true. What is the evidence that anything supernatural or non-physical exists? "The book by Dawkins does make references to Paley's Watchmaker, but the book is a defense of evolution, not a refutation of the Watchmaker Argument. Regardless, Dawkin's words have no sway over this debate." It's true that it was refuting the Watchmaker Argument against evolution, but it can also be applied to the Watchmaker argument against the universe. "My opponent's claim is baffling to me. He claims we knows things like watches were created, because we have no explanation for their existence. This makes no sense to me and doesn't stand up as valid." I was pointing out that man-made objects such as watches aren't valid examples, since the only explanation for their existence is a human creator. Life and the universe on the other hand, have explanations that don't involve a creator. "Just because things have scientific explanations does not mean that the things were not created by God. It's called intelligent design." Intelligent design is simply a synonym for Creationism in an attempt teach students biblical myths while avoiding the Separation of Church and State clause. Creationism is not science, as it is based off of mythology, not empirical evidence. "How am I jumping to conclusions? You conceded that the universe necessitates a designer. A designer of the universe would be recognized as God. Pretty simple." I've already refuted your 'proof' that the universe necessitates a designer. "My opponent's refutation of the Watchmaker Argument does not stand either." Why? Because 'intelligent design' is legitimate science? ""The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design." Now, the universe doesn't physically need to exist, this is obvious. The universe didn't come about by chance either, although my opponent can try to prove that. Thus, the universe is designed." You're making these contentions without having anything to back them up. As I said, jumping to conclusions does not make a good case for your argument. "My opponents talk about the universe being hostile to life is moot because life does exist, so the hostilities don't matter much. Also, it doesn't matter that there are no mentions of extraterrestrial life in religous texts (although I'm sure there are) - as we are not talking about any of the Gods of religions - we are talking about a God that fits the definition of God." I was making a logical argument that there would be many planets discovered with life, and many mentions in religious texts of them if we had a fine-tuned universe. Obviously we are talking about any of the Gods of religions, as that was the definition I put in Round 1. 'God: any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty' "1. My claim was backed up by a reputable physicist - it is recognized as fact. 2. My opponent objected without a source of his own, he fancies himself smart enough to make claims without evidence. 3. Since my claim was backed up by evidence, and my opponent's is not, my point stands." Aside from the fact that your claim being tagged with a source does not necessarily make it superior, I was simply making a possible explanation. I wasn't claiming that was the actual reason. Besides, a probability argument holds no ground, as statistics don't govern the universe. An improbable occurrence does not mean that event even didn't happen. Conclusion My opponents arguments were based off of blind assumptions, and jumping to conclusions. He has not given any substantial evidence for his case.