The Fine-Tuning Argument Is Sound

Robot Analogy This robot analogy has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution. The fine-tuning argument deals with the constants of nature, and whether or not they need an intelligent fine-tuner. This analogy from my opponent already assumes God exists regardless, and thus, begs the question. We were not created by any intelligent being (at least as far as we know), as humans evolved through natural processes which caused the extinction of over 99% of all the species on Earth[1]; we share a common ancestor with the great apes[2]. Human evolution has been proven by chromosome #2[3], the fossil record[4], vestiges[5], and that fact that speciation ("macroevolution") has actually been observed in laboratories[6][7]. Most scientists now believe that life sprang up in a process called Abiogenesis[8]. There doesn't seem to be any reason to include an intelligent designer in any of this, and the robot analogy by Pro does nothing to establish the resolution. Even if a robot needs an intelligent creator, that doesn't mean that man does; that is a non-sequitur. Possible Double Standards Additionally, Pro seems to be saying that intelligence requires other intelligence to make it. If this is the case then who designed God? If God doesn't need a designer (or "parents" in the analogy) then why do we? This just appears like special pleading, and it is not a good argument for God at all. So, the idea that robots prove God is the most outrageous argument I have ever heard in a long time. Scientists have a good idea of how humans came about, and none of it implies an intelligent designer. Just because we can replicate ourselves somewhat by using robots, doesn't mean that this is how we came to be. This is something my opponent has not established. Pro also hasn't proven why we cannot ask "why?" about the universe and have an answer without God existing. This is just presupposed. We only need our intelligence to ask "why?", nobody else is required. The answer need not lie in God. The Cycle of Life and Intelligence My opponent hasn't shown that the cycle of life is intelligent in its operations. Pro just seems to be making things up as he goes along with no real substance behind his arguments. Why must something cyclic be designed? This is just a fallacy of presumption. There is no reason given by Pro to believe that if something is cyclic then it has to be designed. Even if intelligent design can set up something that is cyclic, that doesn't mean that if something is cyclic, then it has to be intelligent designed. This is a logical fallacy. It is similar to how "something that is eatable" can be used to describe a doughnut, that doesn't mean that if we know something is eatable that it has to be a doughnut. Reality Couldn't Be Understood Without Intelligence Pro claims: "None of this can be understood without intelligence." - Pro I 100% agree with Pro. Nothing he mentioned could be understood without intelligence, that doesn't mean an intelligence is responsible for any of it. This assumes that it being understood is necessary for it to exist. Of course, there is no reason given to believe such a thing. We understand things because of our brains, and we have our brains due to evolution. I already explained how evolution and the origin of life can be explained without reference to intelligence; which debunks his entire case. Conclusion This debate was a waste of time really. I wanted to discuss the fine-tuning argument (which specifically deals with the fine-tuning of the constants of nature). Pro loses the debate by default as he hasn't even stayed on topic once, and he has the burden of proof to establish the resolution true; I do not have to show that God does not exist. His robot analogy fails, because even if there are types of intelligence that need other intelligence, that wouldn't mean all intelligence requires intelligence. If it does, then even God had to be designed! If we have to stop the regress somewhere, then stopping it at humans is the most efficient due to Occam's Razor. Since Pro has not even stayed on topic, and hasn't even shown God exists in the first place; the resolution has not been established. He also has no sources either. Sources [1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(human) [4] http://www.enchantedlearning.com... [5] http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu... [6] de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation [7] Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila",Nature 23:289-292 [8] http://en.wikipedia.org...;