The Christian God exists (4)

Because of space constraints I can't quote all of Pro's statements before I refute them, so I'll mostly be going in a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal in order of Pro's paragraphs. REBUTTALI also believe that there very well may be dimensions beyond our four that may leave observable traces in our universe. However, I don't believe that any dimension which would not leave observable evidence of its existence exists. This is because since we would have no evidence of such a dimension, there would be no reason to believe an unsubstantiated claim. You say we cannot observe other dimensions, yet you also say this: "We only know of them because when they do interact with our 4-dimensions they leave behind “vibrations”" and quote this: "These "strings" vibrate in multiple dimensions, and depending on how they vibrate, they might be seen in three-dimensional space as matter, light, or gravity. ". You've directly contradicted yourself, which means that these alternate dimensions are not supernatural, since we can observe them in the third dimension. I assume you're talking about miracles or other supernatural events, and by saying this you've provided yet another explanation for miracles: fourth-dimensional stuff interacting with our three-dimensional stuff. I don't like to use the word "stuff", but as there is no way to know what is in the fourth dimension, we don't know if there are beings there. Even if we did know these beings were there, how would we know that they have the attributes of a god? They could be a lot dumber than us because they evolved a million years behind us, or they could have the same intelligence level as us, but there's nothing to show that a being exists in the fourth dimension with godlike properties. Besides, this could all just be 4D space junk that happened to interact with the 3D world in an odd way at a certain time. Yes, all you need(ed) to do is show that it is probable that the Christian god (the god as described by the Bible) exists. You can go with different interpretations of the Bible, such as striking the OT or other things like that, but you must make arguments for the god that has to do with the Bible, as Christians use the Bible to get their definition of god. I disagree. These miracles can very well be chalked up to natural occurrences, the other dimensions you mentioned still exists within this universe, and you have not shown that any being even exists in these alternate dimensions. "There are strong indications that He is in fact the creator of the universe not only from the logical conclusions which can be drawn by the two studies I cited but also by ALL of the quotes from scientists who said that the UNIVERSE seems to be finely adjusted. "I believe I've cast major doubt upon those studies and I plan to cast a whole lot more in this rebuttal. I'll get into fine-tuning in your next sentence, but I've argued against the fine-tuning argument with valid logic, and thus I believe you are appealing to authority and to popularity. " An intelligence that “finely adjusted” the universe could not possibly be from within the universe, thus ruling out an alien species. Something like that could only be done by an intelligent creator. As Creator it logically follows that He must be omnipotent, etc. But as I said this discussion is unnecessary as they are not part of the original topic. "1. The universe is not fine-tuned, it seems fine-tuned. There's a major difference, and I've already explained this, but I'll give another example. Imagine if, instead of the universe we know and love and live in today, the universe was entirely made out of methane and gasoline. In this universe, a group of fire-people are the life that exists, and they find evidence that their universe is fine-tuned because "if our planet were just a few thousand degrees colder, life couldn't exist! " This is much the same as what we humans are saying.2. Even if the universe was fine-tuned, there are a variety of ways to explain this without assuming a creator, for example a multiverse where this universe is the only universe that had exactly the right physical constants for life.3. I have yet to see anything valid that shows that a supernatural being that created the universe exists.4. There are many inherent problems with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. being. For example, if he's omniscient, the problems with experimental knowledge and foreknowledge[1] and the omnipotence problems[2]. "With love you mistake physical love or attraction, in which hormonal changes can be measured, for the true selfless love I spoke about. Acts of kindnessmay be observed, but selfless love cannot be observed or measured. "I see no difference between "true" love and physical love besides the magnitude of the feelings, which can be measured. "Your attempt to debunk the “Miracle of the Sun” by numerouscontradictory explanations of how it happenedfails. The people you cited were not there. "Yes, the people weren't there. However, they were going off the eyewitness testimonies of a huge gathering of religious people who were all waiting for a miracle to happen, so they were using biased accounts, which actually helps your case. These people could have made up anything as long as it was somewhat consistent with what others said. We can't just believe all eyewitness accounts, yet these people did believe the accounts of people who were there, so they have a pretty good idea of what was purported to have happened. "None attempt toexplain how variousother aspects of the miracle occurred, such as how the people’s clothingand the groundbecame instantly dry. Nor did they explain how three children could predict the time and place of the event a month before. "The clothes and ground drying have multiple explanations. The sun could simply have dried them as they lost track of time and then looked down to realize that they were dry. However, the first mentions I've been able to find about the drying clothes and ground (I've researched for quite a bit) is in priest John de Marchi's book "The Immaculate Heart" (1952)[3]. The original newspaper article about this miracle (in Portuguese) says nothing about the ground/clothing drying[4], and this was published in 1917. So forty years of shoddy eyewitness accounts and one unimpressive aging photo[5] later, some of the facts might have gotten mixed up or we may have had an exaggeration on our hands. I think that covers the "miraculous" drying, so what about the prophetic nature of the miracle? Actually, the girls could not predict the time or nature of the miracle, as the incident is reported to have happened at around 1:30[6] and the girls said nothing about the nature of the miracle in their prophecy. This can be chalked up to a natural event coincidentally happening at the right place. You give more testimonies, but the people who are trying to "smear" them are using these testimonies and explaining how these people could have saw this through natural means. The article I referenced shows how Hawking does not believe in ID. That doesn't mean I agree with the article or multiverse theory, and just because Hawking believes this "fine-tuning" exists or is a miracle does not mean it is. I can't really understand the last sentence of your paragraph, so I can't refute it. Sorry. I've shown that Hawking does not believe in creation (reversing his statement because of a psych. class doesn't count), and I've cast doubt upon what these people have said. Are you saying that scientific research does not hold that I said something? If we look back in the debate, I think you'll find that I did say this and this is what the study actually says as well. Evolution/natural selection were brought up because I was proposing alternative ways that the patterned DNA came about and showing that there is an alternative to design and explaining that alternative. You make a good point about alien design, but how does the study in Icarus prove that a supreme being must have designed the universe? That only shows that DNA was designed, and I've cast doubt upon this conclusion. Therefore even if your first study holds up, it does not show that a being with godlike properties exists. You say that our DNA gives us our moral compass and that we are born with this moral compass, but I can't see how the Icarus study came to this conclusion (or any conclusions for that matter) because it is locked on the site, and your other source studies six month old children, which is invalid. This is because these children have had six months of experience to learn and develop some sort of moral code from, so there would need to be an experiment which shows that newborns have moral compasses, which does not exist because that is not how DNA works (this is common knowledge)[7] and newborns only cry and sniffle because their brains aren't developed enough to form complex thoughts or moral compasses. And yes, that is related to the debate because it directly disproves one if not bot of your studies. Once again, supreme being =/= god. I believe I have cast enough doubt upon (if not completely invalidated) Pro's logic and studies to say that Pro has not upheld his BoP. Sources:1. . http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...2. . http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... 3. . http://www.ewtn.com...4. . http://www.apovni.org...5. . http://elizabethamorales.files.wordpress.com... 6. . http://www.fatima.org...