The existence of God

"If the Universe didn't care about life, then why would it have natural laws or the Big Bang in the first place?" Life is not a needed goal for these things to have occurred. That life is possible within these conditions says nothing except - life is possible to occur naturally. Not design. Not purpose. Not fine tuning. The universe is not sentient, it has no emotions. It is not caring whether you die. "The Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life.." How is that randomness? The universe doesn't run on chance, chemistry doesn't occur through chance, physics doesn't (apart from a minority of quantum effects) operate through randomness. "For example, why should we have a moon at all?" The moon is the result of a collision not the cause of one. "Then the atmosphere would be similar to that of Venus.." Which proves absolutely nothing of a god or design. There have been at least 3 major impacts on this planet - and at least one major extinction causing impact. "That was just one factor of hundreds of factors.." As already noted on false assumptions of human endpoint. If endless then how can you derive probabilities? "Since the probability is so low, it explains the Fermi paradox." Not at all. Please be reading the prior rounds why Fermi is not a paradox. :D "There is an extremely low chance.." Right conditions for life here is not equitable for those conditions necessary to occur elsewhere. :D Microbes exist in nuclear reactors, there are microbes that love acid. Entire ecosystems have been discovered around deep sea vents where sunlight never reaches and the emerging vent-water is hot enough to melt lead. The conditions are not tuned to us. Life by necessity must fit to the prevailing conditions. "There are possibly endless conditions why Earth.." You do not have access to the Universe. Claiming uniqueness is a bit hasty. Again - life elsewhere being possible or not possible poses absolutely null issue. The conditions only needed to be available once. "I already told you that changing the size.." Again - that life is here matters little given that we are. Were it not so - then that would also be perfectly reasonable given the nature of the universe. "That was just 7 factors that I stated.." Life like on earth and not intelligent at that. :D Nothing of those conditions presupposes an evolutionary journey towards intelligence that we exhibit. "Indeed, I have never known that without.." Contradiction -if it's unique it can't occur elsewhere. That we may seek it elsewhere based on a set of parameters indicates that uniqueness is less than that. "How? If Gliese 581 could support life.." TIME. That states nothing about whether life currently occurs there, did occur there and may occur there after we are gone. Life does not equal intelligence. Search for life does not necessitate search for intelligent life. Again the basis on assuming life even if intelligent would/could make contact is flawed especially given the nature of time, age of the universe and our position within that as observing beings. It says absolutely nothing on the presence of a god. You have failed to indicate at all where a god is necessary for life to occur. "Why don't we send radio transmissions.." We can't land missions to Venus with any reasonable length of time - Mars is hardly well explored. Even if life was not there, it still only states life was not here. That is all. Earth is unique because.." Fallacy - Composition. What we observe is not by necessity represent of the whole Universe. "Mars and Venus surely don't.." TIME. Earth was not always endowed with life it will most certainly not retain it. "Natural causes cannot create intelligence, could it?" False analogy - nature is not designed it evolves. There is a difference. "Without intelligence, why are rules formed and obeyed?" What rules? What is obeying? What pattern? "I have already proved that the chance.." You have proven nothing. The universe doesn't run on chance. Planets don't just form by chance. Atmospheres don't just appear by chance, comets don't just smash into planets and create oceans by chance. There are rules that determine how/if these things occur. God is not needed. " have already proved that you need intelligence.." We also haven't had millions of years and a planet sized laboratory . "Did scientist have ever created cells.." I have never stated the process is guided by intelligence. It does not require it. It does not hold a capacity for it. "Based on life on Earth.." Premise 1 is unfounded - you do not have access to the entire set which is the Universe. 2.1 Is unfounded - it just details WHY it might not occur, not that it is a certainty. 2.2 Also false - depends on what is required to be received to note a presence. Also contradicts your claims of 3. 2.3 Appears to be a conclusion - your premises fail. Second conclusion 3 is a non sequitur - a paradox can't explain anything - otherwise it would not be a paradox. God is not in any of your premises. You have yet to detail still its necessity. "So if I quoted, "1 + 1 = 2" The error is using the author's status - in this case a physicist and mathematician as an indicator of the truth of a statement - this is distinct from the content. Your author made the fallacy, you make the same one. "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the statement made by an authority is true." Read above. "What would an unstructured universe.." The point you fail to grasp is that such a Universe is impossible - given that there is one then states only that such things are necessary components for it to be. Asserting that it must be god, given X laws and form is devoid of meaning. "To power society, the location of the resources which Venus and Mars happen to lack is required.." Society is not proof of god. We use the resources we are able to obtain. Were they not there, or unable to be obtained, we would be less advanced or extinct. Our being alive is not any indicator of something going 'hmm they might need iron one day, best put that closer'. It is from processes that occurred naturally removed from our future presence. "As a game designer.." No. Your game is not reality. You are still constrained by your medium. "I could create almost anything.." Omnipotence is not "almost". :D "God can make the rules of the universe and still break them.." It details laws of reality. If you want your god to be self contradictory - then it does not occur in this reality. Simply stating 'oh but its god' does not even resolve the contradiction to start with. "If God created this video game.." Why does your god not need creation again? Is your god also in a simulator? :D Non sequitur to assert creation too. Yet to prove that at all. Simply saying 'god done it' is meaningless. "God can use energy.." Not in those quotes though. O.o Again - your god is currently outside of both time and space, contradictions and not possible. Your god is unable to act. "If God made the universe, he can do whatever he wants." No. You are yet to show that he is either present or necessary - and he is still bound by reality. "You know that there are rules.." Please be reading above for how your simulation analogy fails. "How do I not have complete control?" You are not omnipotent. You cannot make you simulation act in contradiction to the coding used to create the simulation. You additionally cannot make them live, exist outside the simulation etc. Also your simulation is contained within the bounds of your programming tool. Where's this higher universal 'computer' located for here? You also have no basis for asserting a second set of non reality rules - please be laying down some evidence soon. :D "Anyway, He doesn't have to follow.." Amusingly petty response and also false. Read above.