God does not exist.

It is a pity you had to forfeit two of the rounds (possibly three; I cannot tell, given that I do not have the last word), for I am sure you would have had many more fine points. Since, however, I shall not have the opportunity to respond to those points, I shall make a final response to the ones you have already made. Improbability of EvolutionI believe, when my opponent refers to Sir Fred Hoyle having calculated the probability of the universe occurring by chance, he means to reference the principle often called "Hoyle's Fallacy," or "junkyard tornado," the perspective of Sir Fred Hoyle on the Theory of Evolution. Hoyle once said, about evolution, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. " However, there are profound differences. Sir Fred's analogy was based either on sensationalism, misunderstanding of the theory, or simple religious stubbornness. After all, organic compounds, such as amino acids and proteins, are highly adaptable, even when occurring in inanimate environments, such as a primeval ocean. Pieces of scrap metal are not so adaptable, in fact, are not adaptable at all, and being flung around does not change that. On the other hand, you can tumble amino acids around for a while, and they will begin to conduct some interesting chemical reactions. Another key flaw in Hoyle's Fallacy is that evolution is a very, very drawn-out process, occurring over hundreds of thousands, millions, even billions of years, sufficiently longer than a tornado would last in a junk yard. Enough exposure of such amino acids and proteins to each other, such as millions of years, is quite sufficient time for the key biochemical reactions necessary for life to evolve. My opponent's reference to Chandra Wickramasinghe, I believe, was a reference to his calculation of the accidental development of life as well (so far, I have been unable to find any calculations performed by either noted figure that regard the creation of the universe, only the life therein). If so, he was incorrect in his quotation of the calculated odds, which Hoyle found to be 1/E40000, and Wickramasinghe found to be 1/E20, both of which are grossly larger than my opponent's stated '1 in 10 40,000's. ' However, I would have a very hard time believing either of these calculations without having the opportunity to examine them, especially given their slanted nature. However, assuming they are correct, I submit the following syllogism, as possiblejustification of evolution, even in the presence of their calculations:P1: Every individual point in time, like the frame taken by a camera, is an 'instant. 'P2: An 'instant' is an immeasurably small unit of time, even an undefined one, and is much smaller than a Planck Time (the smallest measurement of time developed). C: There have been well over Wickramasinghe's ten-quintillion 'instants' necessary for one process of evolution to occur. I would extend the syllogism to cover Hoyle's rather large circumstances, but I don't feel like deriving the Latin name for E40000. Of course, this syllogism is rather incomplete, given it deals with the theoretical boson to carry time, the chronoton, and further principles of pure theoretical view toward the nature of the universe. Skepticism Toward InfinityNow, I have already addressed your skepticism toward the concept of infinity. However, I feel I should address it once more, though I still maintain that you should read the instruction manual before playing with that particular toy. Such skepticism about infinity is associated with a movement in the 1800s called finitism, which maintained that a mathematical object does not exist unless it can be constructed by some operation of natural numbers, in finite steps. This may sound like a rational (pun intended) thought process, but it eliminates certain important facets of calculus, since without infinity, limits would be just a little bit different. Your 'proof' against infinity merely establishes that it is not a finite number. Further Regarding Biblical ProphecyIf you wish to bring up the issue of prophecies 'fulfilled,' you shall also have to include in consideration the issue of prophecies unfulfilled. Over the years, many people, like many today, have come to the conclusion that the ambiguous words of an ancient compilation of literature (that has been subjected to 'telephone,' or, the process by which a work of literature is interpreted and translated through cultural and historical barriers, to the point that the original message is indistinguishable) are coming to life. However, many of these prophecies and predictions have remained just that, shrouded in the mists of time (most of them do not make sense). The 'Return of the Christ,' and by extent the coming of the 'apocalypse,' has been one of particular fixation. I shall list a few years that have been prominently featured as 'fulfillment years':1525--Roman Catholic Church ascertains that the offspring of Martin Luther is the 'Antichrist'~1530--Martin Luther predicts that the "Day of Judgement" is 'Just around the corner'1533--Anabaptists predict the 'Millenium' would occur, and prepare to build 'New Jerusalem' in Münster, Germany~1550--Archbishop of York (Anglican church) declares that the end is near1584--Adam Nachenmoser predicts the last day to occur in 16351650-1695--Thomas Brightman, founder of Presbyterianism, predicts the wedding of Jesus, en lieu with Earth's end1830--Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, determines the hour to be nigh1831--Joseph Smith determines that Missouri is the 'promised land'1833--Joseph Smith determines that the stars are going to fall from the sky1844--Baptist sect predicts the 'Second Advent' to occur before March1874--Watch Tower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) calculates as the date for the 'Second Coming'1889--Claas Epp, Jr. predicts the return of Christ for March 81891--Claas Epp, Jr. predicts the return of Christ for March 8~1914--Assemblies of God Church determines that they are on the threshold of Armageddon, and plots end as ~19351917--Watch Tower Society predicts that in 1918, God will begin destroying the world1979--Calvary Chapel founder, Chuck Smith, publishes evidence that Jesus will return before 19812000--Millions predict the 'apocalypse'Now, from this list it is probably pretty obvious that not all interpretations, however vehemently purported, are accurate. That some of them are only means that some of the writers of the books found in the Bible were either semi-competent or lucky. I can make predictions too, but that doesn't constitute evidence of the supernatural. That someone in ancient times was able to do so with highly irregular success (I personally haven't seen any flying white horses, dragons, or gigantic cubes made of gemstones) is simply an indication that someone in ancient times had a passable knowledge of history. ConclusionI reiterate, it has been a lovely, if somewhat stunted debate, and I hope you enjoyed it as I have. My opponent raises very good points. I also admire his references to multiple reliable sources, something I have not experienced in others, when debating this topic. Farewell, until next time. Sources:. http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, Dean L. OvermanLife: The Science of Biology, Fifth Edition