The Following Argument(s) for the Existence of God are Valid - 1F

My opponent- "Argument from FT presupposes human existence/earth is crucial or necessary for the universe" No, my argument was simply that a car could not be built without intelligent design I think you are misunderstanding my argument. My opponent- "The FT argument presupposes a major premise: that somehow human life is important to the existence of the universe. In other words, it assumes that the universe somehow can't exist or function without the existence of Homo Sapiens." Again you are misunderstanding the point. The point was, was that the car was created through intelligent design. I never argued that the universe could not exist without humans I was arguing that the earth could not have been created without intelligent design. Understand my point? "There is no scientific law stating fundamental properties can't exist without prior human existence - to say this would be to liken oneself the insane." I never said that the universe could not have been created prior to human existence. "Even IF we are to agree with my opponent's assertions that the physical constants of the universe are delicate in the relevant sense, this doesn't point to any "intelligent designer". " Just answer me this question. Where did life on earth in your view come from? "The occurrence of a life abundant planet may be improbable, and in that sense it's unique. But it's not unique in the sense that in principle there must have been something intelligent or conscious that led to it's existence." Please answer my question above. "My opponent's definition of God - just as a metaphysically supreme being - is that it is infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He argues that if the argument from FT is true, then it must follow that only God, as defined, can be the creator." If you read my argument you would have read my statement stating that I have shown logic to try to convince the reader of the existence of a God. I never attempted to prove the existence of a Christian God with that first argument. My second argument on the other hand which you straight up just ignored shows that the likely God to create our planet/universe was the Christian God. Read My quote from my first argument in round 1. "Now I have just stated an argument showing that the likely hood of a God existing is probable, now I will show why the Christian God is the probable God that exists."-Keithkroeger As you can see I clearly typed that the argument shows the likely hood of "A God" is probable. My second argument gives reason to believe that the Christian God is the likely God to have created life as we know it, but since you failed to refute my points what is there to debate? "If my opponent can't successfully answer these questions" I do not need to answer you questions. My first arguments intent was not to prove the existence of a Christian God but just A God. Since he has completely ignored my second argument I will add on to that argument showing more evidence of a Christian God. Here is a verse from the Bible(God's holy word) Isaiah 40:22 " is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" Please answer this question if the Bible is just a big fairy tail how in the heck did the Bible speak of the earth being a circle(round), literally thousands of years before the roundness of the earth was even proved? I think this verse offers evidence suggesting that the Christian God is the the God that created our universe. Another verse of amazing scientific accuracy. Job 26:7 "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." Hmm sounds like this verse is referring to space to me. Coincidence? I do not think so. The Bible is full of amazing scientific accuracies read all about them. Here is some of my favorite verses out of the Bible. Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. 7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." Amazingly accurate, how is it possible for the writer of Ecclesiastes to know such a thing? unless he was obviously inspired by God. Remember the Bible talks about this thousands and thousands of years before proven scientifically. The existence of a Christian God who created a perfect Earth is much more likely then some random explosion creating life as we know it. Thanks for the debate I do hope you learn more about the Bible and its scientific accuracies by the time this debate is finished. On a side note I wish to provide evidence to all the athiests out there, that the Bible is indeed scientific the scripture speaks for its self. To believe in science does not mean that you do not believe in God. There is clearly a scientific parrallel between the Bible and science. I do not intend for my opponent to address my side note since it is kind of off topic so do not feel pressure into responding to this closing statement Skeptic. I have enjoyed debating this with you. :D Thank you.