The existence of God

"There is a conflict with the concept of habitable zones. It assumes that all alien life if existing has exactly the same requirements as terrestrial life..." No - it only makes assumptions about life as we know it - that's the difference. Asserting probabilities on the formation of life based on principles we know life is not based on is pointless. "So why am I attempting to refute this? Because aliens don't have to exist under the conditions of humans if they exist. However, since we can't confirm their existence, we would have to explain why we didn't yet." Asserting, even if based on nothing, that life can evolve from other known forms that what we know - only further indicates that Earth is not unique. "Because aliens are not confirmed yet to exist, the Fermi paradox apparently contradicts ..." Several false and unfounded assumptions about the nature of other life here. Firstly that it must be advanced. Secondly that it details its existence within our (human) observable time. Thirdly that travel, contact would ever be a goal. Fourthly that advanced equates to travel and contact. Lastly that such travel and contact is possible or even directed to us. "Given the extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars, it suggests that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common. If advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy and in the universe why evidence such as spacecraft, radio transmissions or probes are not seen or detected." False assumption being that the conditions that arose for life here are common at all. It may well be that the conditions for life here were highly improbable - which is discrete from habitable zones. Or that it is not. Either assertion however details nothing about the existence of a god, or design. To reiterate - the universe has no need for life to be present - no goal for it to be so. And again, false assumptions that life must be advanced, again must occur within our observable time, must create analogous technology to ours. That such technology would be directed for us to observe. "*No other civilizations currently exist. *No other civilizations have arisen. *[therefore] Human beings were created alone." See above for the errors in your premises. Also not created. :P You have yet to fulfil that burden. "Earth was formed specifically for life. But why not other planets? I have shown you that if you ever tried to create a duplicate of the Earth, but change almost everything about it, then it could not support life. Venus and Mars cannot support life because it is either too far or too close to the Sun and will affect temperature." Your continuous error is you assume the goal of the universes structure is life developing on this planet. Life here may simply be an aberration, it may not. You have yet to prove the necessity of a god that requires it to act contrary to natural laws for the formation of life here to be - both as a species and as the Universe as a whole. Note also that Venus may once of had life - now extinct, Mars too. Mars also just manages to inch out of the habitable zone, but will enjoy it when our sun begins to die. Additionally you continuously use human life as the benchmark - there is no such dictate that we are the pinnacle of evolution. We evolved (somewhat poorly) to fit the requirements imposed on by us by our location, not the reverse. Again - rewind evolution and start earlier the chances we would be here again are infinitesimally small. Note again your continuous arguments from ignorance. Lack of evidence does not presuppose something else with additional lack of evidence. "You have started your argument with the concept of habitable zone yet you have stated that the moons of Saturn and Jupiter have been shown to have organic compounds. Why couldn't have Earth been outside of a habitable zone? If the moons of Saturn and Jupiter contain life, why aren't they intelligent enough to create spacecraft and probes so that we can confirm their existence? If those moons contain life, then what would be exactly the concept of a habitable zone? If the moons contain life and there wasn't a concept of a habitable zone, it would seem that life can only thrive on organic matter. If that was true, then explain why we can't detect radio transmission from aliens in our Milky Way galaxy even thousands of miles away?" Life may not be in those locations - it also may and be basic single cellular organisms. Or there may have been life which is now extinct. It may encourage life as the sun expands. Life does not equal advanced life, it does not equal largely successful life. In case you haven't realised - when the sun expands, Earth will be very much not part of the habitable zone. :D "Yet we still have life, unlike Mars and Venus." You appear to be unaware of the nature of time. :D "Although the press widely spread the news that "proving" the origin of life could have occurred ..." Miller-Urey experiments may be the most noted - they are however not the most recent, or advanced. It is analogous to concluding helicopters are not possible based on Da Vinci's sketches. "Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis." This is the problem with relying on creationist websites for scientific information. Yes there is evidence of pre biotic environments Yes we have experiments detailing a range of *spontaneous* formations of vesicles under a range of pH conditions. Evidence of basic amino acids arriving to earth etc. http://www.iop.org... http://findarticles.com... "Quote mining?" Fun creationist tactic of using individuals' quotations out of context to support an argument. The fallacy is using the person's identity as an indicator of the veridicality of its statement - which you appeared to do. "I'm trying to prove God's existence, not that God existed only because it has not been proven false." The fallacy was you claiming lack of evidence and understanding was an indicator for the presence of a god. "God made all concepts including and space because he is omnipotence." Firstly simply asserting something doesn't make it true. Your burden to prove remember? Secondly it still doesn't resolve the issue of a being outside of space interacting within it. If god is within space then it is bound within that dimesnions rules - i.e. if you want god to be an active force it cannot be a creator. Thirdly omnipotence is self contradictory. Contradictions do not exist in reality. An all powerful being can perform an act that is greater than itself to accomplish > contradiction therefore non-existent. Finally you still haven't resolved a being outside of time. Any action is an action over time. A being outside of time is static - and our friend Einstein has shown that time starts from the beggining of the Universe. "Because he is energy or acts like energy, he cannot be created or destroyed. The universe had a beginning - the Big Bang" You still contradict yourself by the earlier assertion of first causes. What evidence do you have of a god of energy? If I burn coal I have initiated a system of energy - are you saying my lump of burning coal is god like?