The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1C

=====Counterarguments===== >>>Fine-Tuning of the Universe<<< A. Anthropic Principle My opponent doesn't seem to understand what anthropic reasoning is. It doesn't matter if the probability of a planet having the conditions for life exist be low, because the CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY of us (observers) existing is 1:1. Do realize that this means we are an all or nothing state. "From this argument that life has no purpose, you can infer that my opponent thinks that Earth is a typical planet instead of special or designed for the human's existence." ----> Saying that Earth is not designed for human's existence is NOT saying it's a "typical planet" - this is an errenous fallacy known as a false dilemma. It may very well be that the Earth is a "specical planet", but it's NOT the universe's goal to have humans exist. The universe has no goal, because it's not conscious! Whether or not humans, or some other lifeform, come into existence is of no matter. This once again reaffirms my argument pertaining to anthropic reasoning. "it should be assumed that other intelligent complex life will also be carbon-based" ----> First of all, you can have many other biochemisty "combinations" that do not include carbon (and isn't found on Earth, raising the proabability for other kind of life-forms). Secondly, I would label this carbon chauvinism[1]. Simply because we know of no other life form that can form without carbon (we only know of Earth organisms), who are we to say that life can't arise in different fashions, forms, and combinations? The possibility is open, and simply stating that we see Earth organisms as carbon-based and the same must be for the universe is ignorance. B. Statistical Argument "My opponents assume that the Rare Earth hypothesis and the Fermi Paradox conflict. However, I'm using both of them to support that Earth is unique." ----> My opponent uses these two arguments, and yet fails to see that they both fundamentally CONFLICT. The Fermi Paradox argues that because Earth is TYPICAL, we should see more civilizations on other planets. Rare Earth Hypothesis says Earth is SPECIAL, and can be given as a solution to the Fermi Paradox (basically eliminating the Fermi Paradox premise that Earth is typical). Refer to the wikipedia article on Fermi Paradox about it[2]. Voters, if two of my opponent's main arguments conflict, then there's an obvious problem. My opponent then basically SKIPS right pass my two arguments in the previous round: alternative biochemistry and anthropic reasoning. He has yet to refute either one of these arguments, and basically repeats his claim. I see no reason to repeat my unrefuted arguments. C. Multiverse Theory "Who created the infinite universes in the first place? There is no source that I'm aware of that states that infinite universes can be un-caused." ----> In the multiverse, universes other than our own can very well have DIFFERENT laws of physics, and basically anything. It opens up a whole plethora of possibilities. Cause-and-effect are just one of the laws that are susceptible to this; and in an infinite amount of universes, what is to say that at least one of the universes doesn't have the necessary law of cause-and-effect? Physicists who "like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe" are those who do NOT like anthropic reasoning. I and many others advocate anthropic reasoning; I am not those physicists. Do note however, that these physicsts ARE advocating the multiverse. "However, the theories actually invoke supernatural or metaphysical features." ----> That's the current definition of supernatural. This is because it wasn't conceived that there was something outside of our universe, until the multiverse. God though? That's another matter. Voters, take note that I responded to all 11 points my opponent made and they all have gone UNREFUTED. D. Alien Design "Who created the aliens then and where do they come from?" ----> Your argumment said the Earth is unique, I responded that aliens could put us in a simulation (think Matrix). The question of where aliens came from, something similar to a cosmological argument, is irrelevant. It can very well bethat in the "alien's universe", they have no cause-and-effect, or they have a god that DOESN'T fit your given defintions. Either way, it's irrelevant to the argument my point about aliens was refuting. >>>Time on Earth<<< "The Earth did not form an atmosphere that quickly. If any comet or asteroid collided with the forming Earth, Earth has the possibly of being corrupted and destroyed." ----> According to new evidence[3], Earth's atmosphere could have formed as early as 3.8 billion years ago. My opponent's point about Venus' atmosphere and greenhouse effect is almost laughable. The answer is simple - Venus has the greenhouse effect EARLIER THAN US. Aka, we are IN ONE, Venus is for the most part DONE with one[4]. "My opponent fails to explain why does life can evolve from alternative biochemistry, but life has not formed on Venus and Mars." ----> Why the heck does life have to arise on Venus and Mars? There's BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of other planets where life can arise, why those two planets that are conveniently accesible by humans so far? >>>The Fermi Paradox<<< A. Civilizations don't have to arise "Yes..." ----> YES? So you concede this point? "...but it can be seen as Earth is designed specifically for complex and intelligent life" ----> This is RARE EARTH HYPOTHESIS. NOT FERMI PARADOX. CONFLICT OF ARGUMENTS. I don't think I have to repeat this anymore - just refer to my source on Fermi Paradox. "If life is not a goal, then extraterrestrial life should be common given the extreme age and size of the universe." ----> Uh no. Maybe because the conditions for life is rare, not that there isn't a goal for life. "The Anthropic reasoning explains that the Earth is designed but NOT formed due to random chance." ----> The Earth is designed but NOT formed due to random chance? Designed due to random chance...formed due to random chance. The anthropic principle says NOTHING of this. It says given that life is rare and we are here observing, all it amounts to is that we exist. Conditional probability of 1. "Archaeological evidence of past civilizations may be detected through deep space observations." ----> Archaeological evidence on other planets? HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT? ZOOM REALLY HARD? We haven't been to every planet in our solar system, and you're talking about archaeological evidence on outside planets? "We can use radio transmissions...see if other intelligent civilizations exist." ----> Did I say intelligent? No, I simply said life. >>>First Cause Argument<<< "If you wish to void the premise, you must state an un-caused event that explains the origins of the universe. " ----> Untrue. Premise states everything has a cause. I show counterexample. Ergo, it's void. "You must give a source..." ---->http://www.infidels.org... "I still see no source... from their own big bang or beginning." ----> Doesn't mean they won't have a necessary cause-and-effect law. >>>Final Argument<<< My opponent's argument here has too many holes, and my character limit is once again lame. Basically, why can't any entity imaginable that has less power than God (omnipotence) create the universe? My opponent has YET to hold up this burden. If it's possible that an entity with 99% power can, then we have two possible candidates. But why stop at 99%? Why not 99.1? 99.2? 99.3? And onto infinity. ---Reference--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.whatsnextnetwork.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...