God exists (pro) vs God does not exist (con)

R1) Fine tuning "But we simply do not know how any of the variables could have varied, if at all, nor what Universe results or not." Yes, they could have been different. They could have literally not even existed at all. Take for example, weak nuclear force constant. That constant could have literally not been just different, it could have not existed together and you would still have a universe but without any form of intelligent life. [1] This reaffirms my thesis of the volatility of the constants and their most likely design. "The ... calculations are pulled from nowhere." The sources I provided in the comments detail the method, observations, calculations and the results of reputable scientists and mathematicians (John Lennox and Roger Penrose). If you want to doubt the works of highly regarded scientists and mathematicians, write a paper and disprove them. It is close-minded to dismiss reputable peoples' works and evidence just because you disagree with them by simply saying they are pulled out of nowhere. "It just seems convenient for theists to cherry pick ... It is snake oil." Con claims that fine tuning is snake oil. Little did he know that this snake oil is confirmed by atheist scientists. ATHEISTS and SCIENTISTS. "A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS SUGGESTS THAT A SUPERINTELLECT MONKEYED WITH PHYSICS . . . AND THAT THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT IN NATURE. THE NUMBERS ONE CALCULATES FROM THE FACTS SEEM TO ME SO OVERWHELMING AS TO PUT THIS CONCLUSION ALMOST BEYOND QUESTION." - Fred Hoyle "THERE IS FOR ME POWERFUL EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON BEHIND IT ALL . . . IT SEEMS AS THOUGH SOMEBODY HAS FINE-TUNED NATURE'S NUMBERS TO MAKE THE UNIVERSE. THE IMPRESSION OF DESIGN IS OVERWHELMING." - Paul Davies "WHEREVER PHYSICISTS LOOK, THEY SEE EXAMPLES OF FINE-TUNING." - Sir Martin Rees "THE REMARKABLE FACT IS THAT THE VALUES OF THESE NUMBERS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN VERY FINELY ADJUSTED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE." - Stephen Hawking "IF ANYONE CLAIMS NOT TO BE SURPRISED BY THE SPECIAL FEATURES THE UNIVERSE HAS, HE IS HIDING HIS HEAD IN THE SAND. THESE SPECIAL FEATURES ARE SURPRISING AND UNLIKELY." - David Deutsch The fine tuning has been the reason why militant atheists like Anthony flew and Francis Collins converted to theism and have become solid believers. "But the rigorous derivation of the expansion rate ... but 1 (ie 100% likely)." absolute unevidenced bare assertion. I would just like to remind Con with the fact that General Relativity is experimented, formulated and confirmed WITHIN this universe. Of course it would assume 100% that the cosmological constant is the same everywhere since science assumes the uniformity of nature. This cosmological constant is 100% likely WITHIN THIS universe since science assumes uniformity of nature and that the constant should be the same everywhere. "we have no grounds to conclude that any apparent fine tuning is present." well we do based on probability of those constants being different and producing a universe that does not produce life. For example, when we change the cosmological constant's value by an infinitesimally small margin and substitute this cosmological into our equations, we see that the universe would have expanded too fast for any planets or stars to form and no life would form or if the constant was bumped down within another infinitesimally small margin, the universe would expand too slowly to escape gravity and it would collapse on itself into a singularity and would form no life, planets or stars. This is one example among hundreds. The possibility that they would all fit this perfect combination for the universe to allow life is 1 in 10^10^123. [2] That is incomprehensibly low. "There is a false trichotomy in Premise 2 as it automatically rules out the possibility of evolution and anthropic principle, or the conjectured Multiverse." Well evolution would not have been possible if those constants were not designed. Because changing some constants will not even allow the universe to exist such as lowering the cosmological constant or bumping gravity. The other constants will make it impossible for atoms to interact to create any life or complex organism or even a complex molecule or just not allow intelligent life to exist. all of the evidence we have goes against the multiverse. The universe is all that exists naturally and therefore anything beyond that would technically be part of the universe. [3] Secondly, the universe's components are expanding but the space-time fabric is not expanding into anything. This proves that beyond the universe, there is no space as in there is empty space (or else the universe would just expand into that empty space), there is literally no space dimension. [3] The obvious question arises if there is no space dimension beyond the universe, WHERE exactly would the other universes exist? another problem with the multiverse is the obvious the fact that it shoots itself in the foot since now you have to account for not just this universe but you have to account for the origin of the multitude of other universes that we have no evidence of. "If it is designed we would expect a well engineered, self-contained, neat, tidy, newish, life friendly Universe where humanity appeared early on (we are the purpose after all)." Well the universe is well-engineered and it is life-friendly as evidenced by the incomprehensibly unlikely perfect combination of constants. But why does it have to be self-contained and small? Maybe God created such a vast universe to acknowledge his power, strength and glory. R2) Meaningless of God "Pro misunderstands the argument, creates his own strawman and then attacks it. It is not an issue of comprehension, it is an issue of meaninglessness." Well the concept of god is not meaningless. He is an eternal consciousness that has extreme power and knowledge. Given that being an omnimaximal being is giving positive attributes to God (through what has been revealed through scripture) like having power, knowledge, etc. Pro's argument since now God has something we can relate to. "then it points to no actual thing in reality. " That's the whole point of being SUPERnatural. "Consciousness is the ability of the mind to perceive reality. It therefore has an identified positive primary attribute, consistent with its qualities. It thus has meaning. What it is exactly, remains a mystery (and thus we lack comprehension)." So we have a definition of Conciousness but you do not know what it is exactly but we this does not undermine whether it exists or not. Sounds just like God where we have a definition of positive attributes comparable to elements of nature (power, knowledge, etc.) through examination of scriptures but we have no complete mosaic of his nature and identity. Can this argument be used to disprove the existence of energy, consciousness, quantum mechanics too just because we have no idea of their nature or even a definition in case of energy [4] "Worse still for Pro .. rebuttal reinforces Atheism .. admits that Humans cannot comprehend a god." Just because humans can not fully comprehend God's glory has no impact on whether he exists or not. Con's statement and argument is a non-sequitur. " Ironically, given all Pros admitted uncertainty and hedging.. Theists seem to know all about god." You can not group all theists under the same umbrella. I do not claim to know everything about God. If I was to do so the same, it would be sound to compare you to stalin, Hitler, Mao, Maximillian Robespierre just because all of you were/are atheists. R3) alone deity "The rebuttal of his first Premise .. quote: "However, admittingly this does raise the same question of who was God expressing his consciousness on before the creation of these supernatural entities?. Read on"" Maybe Con should have read on to the rest of my rebuttal. Funnily enough Con includes "read on" in his quote of my statement which means that I addressed later in my rebuttal. Con is an intellectually dishonest person. Because later in my rebuttal, I prove that it is ok for God to express his consciousness on himself. "before it could identify itself as conscious, it had to be conscious of something" Why? There is no evidence for this statement in the natural world, let alone the supernatural realm. [5] God's consciousness could have acknowledged itself in the search for something to acknowledge. Con's argument due to the obvious fact that a consciousness could definitely acknowledge its own existence. (self-reflection) (meditation)(pondering human nature and reality) R4) Hideness of God "If we were always part of an unchanging, all loving plan by a god ... yield up some non contentious evidence of his existence." Try establishing a personal relationship with him, pray and be open to the arguments other theists and I provide. "Just a bare assertion that Christianity ... to not accept reasonable non-belief." The main problem is not the evidence for God, it is that atheists are generally more close-minded than theists. [6] and have preconceptions of God being a fairy not worth my time. "As Theists have already defined him out-of-existence ... can be no direct evidence either way." We can observe his effects (universe from nothing, fine tuning, etc.) and then we can conclude that he is the only possible reasonable cause. Con's argument fails in general due to the fact that nobody could agree what counts as reasonable evidence (some need God showing himself, some are content with that there is something rather than nothing). Reasonable non-belief is subjective not objective. R5) Divine Freedom Debunked above. R6) Mind-brain dependence Con responded to only 1 aspect out of 3 my rebuttal. He still has to define "mind" and prove premise 2. Premise 2 is a bare unevidenced assertion. "Mind" and cognition could exist without a brain as evidenced by jellyfish. [7]