The existence of God

"The Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life.." Here is your major hurdle. As detailed already the Universe doesn't care about life forming. It's presence here doesn't pose a problem to those of a non godly persuasion- it's presence or lack of elsewhere doesn't either - all that is needed are the right conditions for it to begin here. Once. The "uniqueness" you continue to assert is also false - 20 light years out Gliese 581 d, the third planet of the red dwarf star Gliese 581 - our nearest habitable zone. Life does not have to evolve the same elsewhere - it would not evolve the same here again - uniqueness probabilities are based off the erroneous end point of human life under the assertion that the planet was made for our survival. No. We evolved by necessity to survive the conditions of this planet and even then we so very nearly failed. Near extinction is grand design? http://arxiv.org... "That would mean that chance and coincidence powers atheism.." Atheism is discrete from evolution or abiogenesis. It details only the presence and/or belief of god(s). Additionally it is a complete non sequitur to state, because we have not found evidence of life in our measurably short time of being able to, that god therefore exists. And again, chance does not rule the universe, nor randomness - only creationists appear to claim that one. If science postulates utter randomness as you so erroneously continue to assert - then all your probability arguments fail as they need measurable constructs (no matter how improperly used in this case) to formulate percentages. "There could be hundreds possibly thousands of conditions that are "needed for the rich abundance of plant, animal and human life on earth.." And you continue to ignore factors associated with time. That they may have before conditions made that impossible, just like later in time, conditions will be more suitable elsewhere in our solar system, just like in time Earth too will be dead of life. That one is a certainty too. If the sun doesn't start dying first and kill life, then the Andromeda Galaxy will. It's set to rip the Milky Way Galaxy apart in a few billion years. http://www.haydenplanetarium.org... "Remember a time where you had to do a book report in school, but procrastinated? It takes intelligence to create a book report.." Fallacy - False analogy. We know human products are designed - we also know the universe does not need a designer - i.e. it is natural. You have yet to detail at all a god necessary to supersede natural laws for events that have happened. "The construction of life is more complex than a house. Why could natural causes create life, but could not create anything simpler such as a house, computer, paper, or even cooked food?.." Animals don't shelter in caves, nest in trees etc? :D Forest fires don't burn animals? A computer is made of inorganic components -why on earth would you expect evolution to come up with a comparable variant? Oh wait- we have brains. :D "[1]There might have been current or extinct life on all planets of the Solar System. [2]No other intelligent life currently exist that is observable or detected by humans. [3]Humans beings have intelligence. [4]Human beings could not detect other intelligent civilizations because of: 1. Intelligent civilizations did not want to discover if they were not alone. 2. Intelligent civilizations lived way too far for radio transmissions to be effective. 3. Intelligent civilizations other than life on Earth did not exist. [5]Therefore, it is more likely possible that humans beings are the only civilizations known granted with intelligence." Premise 4.1 is unfounded as is 4.3 - past tense is also your issue. Nothing about our current life assumes life must have preceded us elsewhere, or will not arise when we are dead. 4.2 Also doesn't address previous rounds statements about analogous technology or why radio signals are a universal benchmark for intelligence. Premise 1 is also arguably false. Gaseous planets like Saturn and Jupiter would not reasonably support life as we know, nor those planets in the current extremes of coldness like Neptune and Uranus. Conclusion (5) is again a non sequitur. Granting intelligence is not in any of your premises, nor is it possible to infer it. Evolving it is very different to having it granted. :D Its presence also doesn't make a case for your god either. You appear to be getting sidetracked. :D Your burden to prove a god, remember? "When a scientific study of the universe has been conducted, it suggests a conclusion that "the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.."" Never mind your source is horribly biased and is an appeal to authority... the quotes in question belong to a 1930 book. Hardly current or relevant. Also note the ambiguous term "appears". :D Again - what would an unstructured universe look like? :D "On Earth, there are "fingerprints of an engineer who left markers clues-careful-design." You claim the universe has doesn't care whether life exist or not.." The universe put things there to help us out? I'm afraid not. They are the remnants of the processes that occurred naturally with no foresight. They would exist without us knowing or not, as they did for the billions of years until we were able to start knowing. Assuming some sort of sentient Earth to let us in on its secrets for our benefit is frankly laughable and conceited. If the Universe wished for us to know then skipping the 'blaming natural events on god' part would have been more useful one would think. :D "This may be true, but cellular organism on other planets may not be granted with intelligence." Life also does not equal intelligence - our planet is evidence of that - it is simply a process that occurred over time through evolution. "However, they became a basis for many experiments and inspired others." Which is also irrelevant to what is done now and which I detailed from. "Yet you still think that it isn't possible that God used intelligence to conduct any similar related to the Miller-Urey experiments since it still takes intelligence to conduct any experiment in the first place?" Since god doesn't exist it using intelligence is moot. The universe is also not an experiment. "It is not who the person is but what he said that makes my point." You made no point. :D "I understand the paradox and what you mean by it, but this may be a false dilemma. How? Okay, let's make a game similar to the Sims, but much more advanced.." Your source is amusingly irrelevant to your statement. Firstly as a game designer you are not equitable to being omnipotent - it is discrete from having variable control over simulations - the simulations are still bound by the coding environment - you by the coding used. Secondly it does not refute in the least that the reality in which you live, it is not possible to contain any one contradiction. The Law of non Contradiction is not a "rule" only humans our bound to, it's a statement about reality itself - your omnipotent god cannot exist. Your god can't make the rules of the universe then say I don't like this game and I don't want to play by these rules anymore. :D Also please be making a case for your god sometime soon - you are running out of rounds. :D