The Christian God exists (4)

Thanks for your arguments, Pro.I hold the position that the physical universe is all that exists, and that no objects or beings that exist outside this universe or that are metaphysical have presented themselves, nor has any valid evidence been presented for their existence.Yes, I did fail to be specific about the nature or attributes of the Christian God almost every person has a different interpretation of the Bible and a different idea of what this god is. However, to be the Christian God, this god must have qualities which all Christians agree upon. A Christian is defined as "a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ"[1]. All Christians also base their beliefs off some part of the Bible, as well. To believe the teachings of Jesus, you must accept that he was divine. You must also agree with some of his teachings. This is by definition. Therefore, in this debate you must give some valid evidence that the God as described by the Bible exists. I ask the judges to use their own discretion to determine what can be classified as the Christian god, and to consider whether Fred the garbage man would fit the criteria for the Christian God. I also ask Pro whether he would accept Fred as god were there no other life in existence besides the life we observe here on Earth.I'll be rebutting Pro's arguments paragraph by paragraph, excluding any of my quoted statements as such paragraphs, starting with the first paragraph after Pro first quotes me.REBUTTAL1. You say that space/time is the fourth dimension, yet the video you reference clearly states that space/time is NOT the fourth dimension and that this is a common misconception. I'm fine with either definition, but I ask you to clarify which one you are using. Your second point is very true, just because we can't observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but everything that we know exists is observable, including true love. In fact, we actually know much more than you'd think about the biological mechanism of love, including exactly what brain areas are stimulated when you fall in love[2] and the chemicals which cause each stage of this complex process[3]. Love can be observed. Our physical universe is all that exists. I see no evidence for anything metaphysical or anything that exists outside this universe. M-theory says that there is 11 dimensions[4], but there's no evidence for a multiverse. That's why there is no multiverse theory. Can you show me any valid evidence that a life form with over three dimensions (according to the video, over four according to your paragraph) exists? Of course you give an example of a being leaving a clue in your next paragraph, but as you will see it is easy to cast doubt upon such "miracles".2. I'd say it's a resounding "NO!". Such "miracles" can almost all be explained by coincidence, or naturalistic processes. The miracle of the sun can be explained through natural processes, as is evident by scrolling down Pro's source[5] to the "Critical evaluation" section. Some examples include:"Sun miracles cannot be taken at face value and that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun.""Retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects.""The color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.""The position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun. He suggested the cause may have been a sundog.""The crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, since similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle.""Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun "dance". Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all."There are many ways to explain this "miracle". In some cases, however, there is no hypothesis as to why some seemingly supernatural event happened. However, this does not mean that the solution is god; that is a false dichotomy and the god of the gaps argument. Science does not have all the answers yet, and likely never will, but just because we do not understand the laws of physics enough to discredit a certain supernatural event at a certain time does not mean that it was definitely supernatural.3. Yes, this event could be called supernatural, or you could choose to find the naturalistic explanation. As Auguste Meessen says, "It is impossible to provide any direct evidence for or against the supernatural origin of apparitions." As for Stephen Hawking, this out of context statement by him does not show him to be a supporter of intelligent design, but shows that he simply understands that the universe "seem[s] to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." This does not mean that the universe is fine-tuned, just that it seems that way. In Hawking's words:"Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator."[6]Even if Hawking was a creationist and supporter of intelligent design, that does not really mean too much. He may, as many scientists do, cast aside all views on religion, politics, and other things irrelevant to science to perform scientific studies that are not trying to prove anything, yet end up invalidating evidence for god or creating evidence for god. Science really has no say on whether a god exists or not, so I fail to see your point when you bring up these scientists who believe in creation and find them irrelevant. I say the supernatural does not exist and that there is no evidence of anything existing outside the physical world. Thus I still argue that the supreme being is Fred the garbage man.4. Yes, I summarized the abstract in the source you provided after providing quotes and the link to the actual article. People could easily have gone and deciphered the source by themselves, but I summarized it to give my position an easier read and to keep the fluidity of my arguments. I asserted this statement after thoroughly reading the abstract, citing and quoting it, and making logical conclusions about the article. I don't need scientific backing for a summary of a point. This is also irrelevant, as you could easily quote a part of the abstract that I did not refute because I generalized and that would be my error. I acknowledged several times that this was an almost impossibly unlikely chance that met the standards for intelligent design. My point with the snowflakes was that many things look designed, yet are not. Yes, DNA passes along information inherited from the parents. That is exactly what I've been saying and this sis actually a good example of natural selection at work. If unfavorable DNA is passed on, that unfavorable DNA is less likely to find a mate and thus more likely to die off. That's why we see patterns in DNA, because they are beneficial to the storage of information and thus beneficial to human life and the life of DNA.5. Just because these people did not include the god of the gaps in their abstract does not mean it was not present during the experiment. How is the god of the gaps an evasion tactic?I find my quote about the tendency for humans to lean towards believing in an afterlife to be factually correct. There is no way to know for sure what happens after death, and people tend to accept things that are more comfortable to them. This statement should be fairly obvious and needs no scientific backing. Do you disagree with any part(s) of it?Yes, if intelligent design is prove to be correct, it is more likely that aliens were the ones who designed us. This is because we have observed life in the universe (ourselves) and we know that the universe is so big that it is definitely possible for other life, maybe even more intelligent than ourselves, exists. However, I see no valid evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god. Therefore, design by aliens is more likely. I believe I answered your question when I said that we are not pre-programmed to believe in a god, as my statement "all babies are born agnostic" suggests. This statement is scientifically correct and factually accurate because there are no babies in the womb pondering whether or not a god exists. They could not wrap their minds around such a subject, as they are not developed enough. Thus it follows that no newborn has thought about the issue of a god and has not been presented any evidence for either side and is thus agnostic. I can assure you with 100% certainty that human DNA is not encoded with a belief in god, that's not how DNA works. Your DNA determines things like your hair and eye color, how tall you'll be, how much you sweat, etc. It does not give you a predisposed moral compass and political standing. What political party are all babies born into? How do all newborns feel about libertarianism? These questions are much the same as asking "Do all newborns believe in god?".Sources:1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...3. http://www.bbc.co.uk...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://en.wikipedia.org...6. http://online.wsj.com...