The existence of God

"My argument that the universe is fine tuned a valid one.." That it has occurred is self evidentiary. "On the other hand, I have proved that the universe is fine tuned.." No. You have proven absolutely nothing. If life did not exist on Earth, its formation could still have been identical, the Universe itself identical. Life or no life is not a goal. That requires a sentient Universe. That life has appeared only states one thing. That life can arise through natural processes. You have utterly failed to show that god was needed at any stage at all, from the start of the Universe, to present. "Before my opponent says that this is a logical fallacy of appeal to authority.." The quote is also irrelevant to any point you make. I do not have to prove non purpose. What would non purpose evidence be? :D All I need to do is show your god of design is irrelevant in opposition to the ways you state that it is. All there needs to be is naturalistic alternative. "Even if the density of the universe.." NEITHER. Physics. "Then my opponent must concede that the chance.." No. I have never agreed with the probability arguments you proposed at all as they are based on erroneous assumptions. You also seem to be stuck on "intelligent", again life does not equate to intelligent life. "My opponent still conceded that intelligent life is not microbes.." Conceeded? Lol. Have you not read anything about what I've typed prior? Life does not need to evolve in the exact conditions as here. Life does not need to evolve like it did here. Life does not *need* to evolve at all elsewhere. Life may or may not, we like to try and find. If it does then great, if not then that poses no problem either as we know why it occurred naturally. No intervention from the divine. No cosmic fine tuning. You have utterly failed to show why a god is needed. "No intelligent life could ever adapt to Mars.." Again, life does not equal intelligent life. We evolved our intelligence. You have ignored that and evolution in general consistently. Again they are not representative of our Universe. They are not representative of our solar system across time. "With keen precision he is able to deduce.." No. The basis is that all life does not evolve to the same environments. Please be reading more clearly. Again. Life may or may not evolve. Life does not equate to intelligence. Life may evolve later. "My opponent has also contributed time as another factor here." That is a facet of our sun, not the Earth. You appear to have missed the point however. It does not make us unique over time. "My opponent has refuted and contradicted himself." I was asking for clarification. You appear not to want to so fine. What I was referring to were the various forces electro-magnetic, gravity, and strong and weak nuclear forces, physics and chemistry are based in part from these. I do not need to assert a random universe at all. "I can't believe this either" Straw man. I stated that Miller Urey were basic experiments. That recent ones are more advanced. Evolution is not guided by foresight, neither was abiogenesis - there can be no intelligent guidance to it, apart from what we as humans and to a lesser extent other animals do with selective breeding. "He states that because we don't have access to the entire set of the universe.." Straw man. I have indicated nothing of the sort. "Science [I] cannot explain most of these things. If they could, please enlighten me." Science can. Sonar is well...sonar, he just needs to be very directive of his clicks. King Tooth breaks what rules now? Liew Thow Lin has high surface body friction not magnetism, Thai Ngoc refuses to be tested and stays in his village. Tim Cridland..lol..sideshow performer, laying on 1000 nails redistributes ones weight and pressure nicely, pain management is a bonus. Kevin breaks what rules exactly? I'd be impressed if he went to pet two males fighting for territory and family in the savannahs and walked away unscathed. Otherwise not so special. "My opponent gave another reason why Earth is unique.." Again life is not equal to intelligence. Again claiming uniqueness is erroneous. Again it is neither chance nor design. This case geological processes. "My opponent once again calculated.." Emulation is not reality. "My opponent has failed to acknowledge" You have utterly failed to show in any manner that natural laws needed to be and were created. That they needed to be usurped for life. "It is the exact same reason why energy doesn't need creation, but everything else in reality does. If God created this video game reality, he can create the law of creation and that still wouldn't apply to him." Conservation of energy deals with closed systems, you fail there - the only thing your god can do is change form. Energy also has a source - is in relation to other components - as a concept it is not free floating. "You are totally missing the point. If I'm not omnipotent, give me a better adjective." It's your argument, not mine. :D "If I could create the universe.." You are still constrained by your medium. You have still failed to show this second reality outside the simulation where the programmer resides. Simulations are based on prior known parameters, that's what makes it a simulation. You are still not omnipotent. "When playing the game.." Which is based on the original coding - you still have not broken the rules of the imposed code at all, your Jesus can still not act outside of that code. It can only act in the parameters of the simulation still. "My opponent still has to explain why contradictions cannot occur in reality if a hack or glitch can in a video game." Read above. "God used a computer? Remember if God is omnipotent, he wouldn't need a programming tool, wouldn't he?" Your analogy not mine. You have still haven't adequately resolved omnipotence. Still haven't shown how the programmer is actually omnipotent on his own merits, removed from any simulation, to not need a programming tool. "Proving that without intelligent design, that other option is chance." Please be reading prior rounds where the Universe does not run on chance or randomness. "Proving that chance is too low to explain why the Earth is unique and currently supports intelligent life." Uniqueness is only a problem for the theist so they feel special. Life elsewhere or not matters not at all when you understand the processes involved. "Showing that my opponent has.." Eh. Read above. You added resources. Then stated Earth did it as a favour for you - a sentient Earth? Please. You still fail to realise that time makes the chances of life here less unique. That in time life here will be gone. That one is a certainty. "Proving that God is omnipotent and doesn't need creation by the video game analogy." Fail there. Yet to show even why your god is needed at all, let alone resolve omnipotence. Or the contradiction. "Would there be any point in having a universe if humans were not here to observe it?" Well that is somewhat conceited. The Universe is here for me? No. Pro has failed to show why a god is necessary, why a god would have poor designing ability to let us become near extinct. He has ignored evolution as a factor of intelligence and evolution as a whole. He has not resolved god's inexistence both as a contradiction and as a being that operates outside of time and space. His god of energy fails as an explanation, he dropped his attempted syllogisms, has failed to prove why uniqueness requires a god even if given we are unique. He refused to address that Earth is not some cosmic safe haven designed for us. The simulation analogy additionally fails utterly.