God probably exists

I'd like to began by thanking Con for challenging me to this debate. I accept all terms and conditions. I will focus on the fine-tuning argument for God's existence. To be more precise, I will argue that the universe and matter within it is so delicate, and yet so balanced, that it is far more likely there is a Creator, than that there isn't one. However, I don't want to limit myself to any one argument; therefore, I will use any evidence I find to be appealing. To begin: Suppose we went on a mission to Mars, and found a domed structure in which everything was set up just right for life to exist. The temperature, for example, was set around 70o F and the humidity was at 50%; moreover, there was an oxygen recycling system, an energy gathering system, and a whole system for the production of food. Put simply, the domed structure appeared to be a fully functioning biosphere. What conclusion would we draw from finding this structure? Would we draw the conclusion that it just happened to form by chance? Certainly not. Instead, we would unanimously conclude that it was designed by some intelligent being. Why would we draw this conclusion? Because an intelligent designer appears to be the only plausible explanation for the existence of the structure. That is, the only alternative explanation we can think of--that the structure was formed by some natural process--seems extremely unlikely (1). I reference the above quote as a "jumping off point" to the basis of my argument. Any form of civilization that man could discover on anoother planet would logically make him assume that there must be an intelligent designer behind these structures and cities. Even on our own planet we often use terms such as "builder" for building, "inventor" for inventing, "producer" for producing, and "manufacturer" for manufacturing. Why, then, not "Creator" for creating? If I show someone my car, and they ask me, "Who made your car?" would I say, "No one made it, it just accidently arranged itself and came into being and is now sitting in my driveway." Of course not. Nor would I say it about my house or anything else I own. And no one else would, either. Why, then, does the skeptic accept that there are makers and creators of what we can observe and see, yet there is an entirely different explanation for abiogenesis-how we came into existence? God, then, is the more likely conclusion. If I see someone decapitated in the back of an alley, do I assume a) that someone just cut this man's head off or b) that by the natural observation of this man's health that his head just decombusted and burst? Choice b is possible, but which is more likely? That is the topic of this debate, afterall; God is more likely. Having estblished the basics, let us move on to the fine-tuning argument. Here are a few scientific facts: Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322.) (1) Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.) (1). Slight changes to any of the physical constants, or to the rations between the constants, will result in a universe inhospitable to life (2). Life requires carbon in order to serve as the hub for complex molecules, but it also requires oxygen in order to create water (2). Carbon is like the hub wheel in a tinker toy set: you can bind other elements together to more complicated molecules (e.g. " "carbon-based life), but the bonds are not so tight that they can"t be broken down again later to make something else(2). The carbon resonance level is determined by two constants: the strong force and electromagnetic force(2). If you mess with these forces even slightly, you either lose the carbon or the oxygen(2). These facts lend support to the idea that God is more likely. A fine-tuned universe is not nearly as likely if it was accidently formed by the expolsion of the Big Bang or such like. A second argument that I would like to open up this round to is morality. Secular humanists have to jump through many loopholes to explain morality without a God. For instance, a mother only saves her child from a burning car because of genetic familiarity. A business owner only is nice to customers due to reciprocal advantage; if he's nice, the customer will come back. However, this does not account for all forms of morality or acts of goodness. Why do people donate blood if there is no benefit they are getting out of it? Why does a young man give up his seat to an old woman if he doesn't receive any benefit? Or why do people volunteer their time and money to help other people going through a famine in Haiti? Genetic kinship and reciprocal advantage doesn't come into play in every case of altruistic deeds. The more likely explanation is that a moral lawgiver (God) has given men a moral code (conscience). A final argument that I will introduce is the idea of Hell. If religion is fallacious and a "fairytale" then that might explain Heaven- a nice place to think of to escape your problems here on earth, but that doesn't account for Hell. Why think up a place of eternal torment for people that don't accept your story? No author of any fiction book writes his story with the malevolent intention of damning you if you don't believe what he wrote. So why invent Hell if it's all fake? Finally, Con mentioned that the burden of proof is on me to explain God's existence, but that ultimately is fallacious thinking. The burden of proof needs to be shared among us because Con needs to show the evidence that God is not more likely and offer what is more probable to him. Sources: 1. http://www.discovery.org... 2. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com...