The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1C

=====Counterarguments===== >>>Fine-Tuning of the Universe<<< A. Anthropic Principle "My opponent thinks that Earth is not a special planet, but a typical planet." -----> I never stated whether or not Earth is special or typical. There are now two things to note thus far in this argument: 1. In relevance to the anthropic principle, my opponent misses the point. We are here and observing. If there wasn't a suitable planet Earth, then we wouldn't exist. The conditional probability for us is 1. Thus it's a nothing or all. So the point about probability and rarity doesn't matter, which brings me to my second point. 2. It's an error for one to think that humans are the end goal of the universe. It doesn't matter what happens; if life comes out or not. In our place could be totally different aliens with alternative biochemistry[1] - this is something that isn't accounted for in my opponent's statistics because it can't be calculated. B. Statistical Argument There's something interesting about my opponent's arguments - they conflict. At one point, he is advocating the Rare Earth hypothesis, which states that Earth and the prerequisites of life are very improbable. But at the SAME time he's advocating the Fermi Paradox. What he doesn't seem to realize is that the Rare Earth Hypothesis is USED TO SOLVE the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox says we should view more life out there - the Rare Earth Hypothesis says we don't cause life arising is extremely improbable. This is a major clash in my opponent's argument. But anyway - onto the Rare Earth Hypothesis. Again, my opponent fails to account for two things: 1. The Anthropic Principle means the conditional probability for humans to arise and observe (asking these type of questions) is 1/1. Probability can't disprove something that has happened, this is the wall you must overcome when attempting to apply probability to the past. 2. The Rare Earth Hypothesis once again fails to take into account alternative biochemistry when discussing evolutionary biology. Sure, Earth has some conditions that need to happen for us to evolve and survive - but this is not necessarily so for other possible type of life-forms[2]. C. Multiverse Theory 1. This is true - so far. The Large Hadron Collider's results could very much give indirect empirical evidence for the multiverse and string theories. If it creates new particles, then this helps prove string theory. If actual dimensions are observed/created, then just imagine the revolution [3]. The multiverse theory works because it fulfills so many laws and phenomenas physicists are currently seeing in the universe - dark matter, etc. [4] 2. And yet, postulating an uncaused, supernatural, all-powerful being doesn't violate Occam's Razor if not more? 3. The universe is optimally bio-friendly? Are you kidding? If that was true, we would find SO many planets teeming with life, practically every planet will be habitable. The universe is CERTAINLY not bio-friendly. 4. This isn't really an argument - just an insult. 5. This is an argument against an oscillatory universe. 6. Untrue - since each universe in the multiverse are not physically connected (except through rare wormholes), thermodynamics have no role. 7. Jeez, you seem to be copy line by line from your source. But yeah, since I refute point 6 it goes hand along with point 7 (from reading the source). 8. Who ever said our universe was infinite? And remember, infinite regresses presuppose cause-and-effect is a necessary condition for all universes in the multiverse (which isn't). 9. In different universes there are different laws, ergo effects don't have to necessarily have a cause in other universes. 10. The universe had no intrinsic purpose to start out with. 11. This theory doesn't allow anything to possible; it answers many problems and questions facing physicists today (not just cause of Big Bang), and also can solve on of the greatest problems in physics today. The combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity, by way of quantum theory of gravity. D. Alien design No, I simply stated that aliens could create the conditions we see on the universe. I never used aliens as the answer for where the universe came from. Thus, my opponent's entire argument is off-point. >>>Time on Earth<<< "Earth formed 4.54 billion ... made the Earth unsuitable for life." ----> Which is why my argument pertaining to an ATMOSPHERE FORMING makes his argument void. For what is one of the purposes of our atmosphere? To protect earth's biodiversity from outside space objects. The crux of this argument is that Earth is "lucky", because other planets got owned by space objects. What he doesn't realize is three things: 1. Anthropic reasoning (we are here or we are not). 2. Earth got an atmosphere. New computer simulations show that Jupiter does NOT protect earth from space objects, but if it were replaced with a planet the size of Neptune, then there would be 1000 times less comets [5]. Now I'm not saying this is an argument against MY side (anthropic reasoning, atmosphere), but it does raise a crucial point against my opponent's statistics. New studies like this (refer to my source) that such an implication shows once again a difference in our understanding of what makes a hospitable solar system. You see, this is the flaw with my opponent's statistics - they simply don't know what kind of alternatives can happen. Alternative biochemistry, alternative solar system configurations, you name it! >>>The Fermi Paradox<<< A. Civilizations don't have to arise. "The paradox wasn't addressing life but specifically technologically advanced life." ----> Is not life a prerequisite for technologically advanced LIFE? "The Fermi paradox states that the extreme age of the universe... extraterrestrial life should be common." ----> Once again, my opponent's Rare Earth Hypothesis can be used against this argument. I have two main arguments: 1. Perhaps the Earth is rare, but does it matter (anthropic reasoning). Though we don't know many factors (alternative biochemistry, etc.), we know there are SOME fundamental factors that come into play. There's where Fermi Paradox gets owned. 2. And very much likely, there COULD be life, but not TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED LIFE. Do we have an equation for how fast (not just life arising) an alien society must become technologically advanced to communicate with us? B. Doomsday Argument and we don't have technological power/haven't searched long enough "...archaeological evidence of past civilizations" ----> We have yet to land on every planet in our solar system, and you're talking about archaeological evidence for outside planets?! "In short, there is no evidence to suggest that intelligent life has arose on other planets other than Earth." ----> There is no evidence to show life DIDN'T arise on other planets either - argument from ignorance bub. >>>First Cause Argument<<< Virtual particles are uncaused [6], but because we don't know what causes them, but we understand them to be uncaused. Secondly, I'm not saying virtual particles started the Big Bang, but it voids the premise "everything has a cause". "Can you cite a source stating that laws such as cause and effect won't be the same in other universes?" ----> It's in the principle of multiverse. Look it up. >>>Final Argument<<< 1. My opponent fails to show why an entity of 95% power can't create a universe. 2. My opponent fails to show why this 95% entity wold coexist with God (can't this entity exist instead of God?) CHARACTER LIMITS SUCK! ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://discovermagazine.com... 4. http://www.skyandtelescope.com... 5. http://www.newscientist.com...