Logic suggest that some sort of creative, conscious God may exist . . .

My opponent continues to stubbornly state the same thing over, like a boy with a toy hammer that thinks if he whacks something hard enough it'll eventually impale. Sadly for him that's not the way logic and critical evaluation work!My opponent: "Since these two propositions are true:(i) The Modal Argument for Atheism succeeds(ii) The fine-tuning argument for Theism fails...the resolution has been negated."Succinct and cute. But so very wrong! As I have expressed to him over and over, Ryan Stinger's Modal Argument for Atheism DOESN'T APPLY TO THE SET OF ALL POSSIBLE GODS THAT INFLUENCE THE UNIVERSE AND ARE CONSCIOUS! Stinger's modal argument and validity framework is directed at an omni-benevolent being that has the power to create a complete universe, with biological life, from scratch instantaneously. It DOES NOT negate the possibility of alternative kinds of creative beings (which is a very large category), which he even introduces in Argument 5 under Generating Modal Arguments for Atheism of his electronic manuscript (1) as a modal argument againt the God he defines (specifically Biblical). Even more, Ryan Stinger acknowledges that his arguments are MODAL! That is they argue against the case for the God he defines on probability - not on certainty, against the declaration made by my opponent in the quoted statement above. However, though Stinger has an accurate validity framework, it ignores the condition that what can be interpretted as evidence of atheism can also be interpretted as evidence for theism, depending on theistic worldview.Unlike my opponent's argument, seeing that there is more alleged evidence of atheism than for theism does not equate to atheism is true, theism is false; something which Stinger acknowledges about his modal argument. It does however increase probability that atheism is true if evidence for atheism is in fact greater, but that is ultimately a matter of interpretation.Crucially, there are conditions that negatively effect Stinger's Modal Argument for Atheism for the God he defines. He argues that there are an infinite number of atheistic explanations for the origins of our universe and for complex biological life. However, not all explanations are going to be true. Only a small set of these possibilities are going to be true; the rest can be discounted as irrational, unworkable - ultimately UNSOUND! A theistic explanation can ultimately be one of the true ones!Finally, Stinger's argument fails to discount all possible theistic Gods and conscious creative forces (recall Argument 5). As I indicated to my opponent, which frustrated him, pantheist believe and (some) assume a panentheistic interpretation of the Universe - that it is God, that it is conscious, and that it created complex and intelligent biological life. There are rational arguments that support this view that would utterly disprove atheism. The universe has apparently created all biological life; it wields power over mankind; it cannot be proven to not exist. For the pantheist, for example, God necessarily exist. No atheistic argument can discount that. The burden is ultimately on the pantheistic to show that the universe is conscious and is concerned with the affairs of mankind (which some claim can be done, depending on the progression of scientific discovery; Haisch, etc.). My opponent demands that I logically prove God without ever consulting science (an argument which I consider absurd and which is revealing of his understanding of logic); this is the closest I can get to it. I consider it a very nice argument for a theistic God. This is one theistic interpretation which Stinger's framework utterly fails to discount.My opponent: "The fine-tuning argument for Theism fails."He uses a solitary statement to justify this declaration: "Also, Paul Davies shows why God is not needed to explain fine-tuning, thus, Pro's argument for God...fails." Oh my god (or lack thereof), I'm ruined! Well, of course I'm not. Paul Davies - who now acknowledges that fine-tuning is very true (he once didn't) - argues that intelligent design remains a firm possibility (2), though he also presents alternative ways of handling the issue: the universe might be cyclical; the universe might be one of countless universes with different physics and different constants; intelligent life evolves to the point that it can produce other universes just right for life; the existence of universes is contingent on physical laws and constants that are favorable to biological life. Physicist Bernard Haisch offers his own explanation: The universe is possessed of a rudimentary consciousness that arises from the mechanical fabric of the cosmos; . . . some argue it can even learn things based on what's going on inside of it. But of course not all these explanations will be right.My opponent is wrong: he cannot declare that atheism is true; theistic alternatives are just as valid. Some even scientically rational.(1) Ryan Stinger.(2) http://www.discovery.org...