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

I accept his definition of God, namely the Christian conception of God. My opponent's opening round is quite long, but it can be separated into two main parts. The first argument is the argument from fine tuning, and it is intended to prove the existence of an infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent entity - or as my opponent states, God. The second argument is a collection of supposedly fulfilled prophecies and archeaological evidence that are an attempt to show that this infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent God is in fact the Christian God. That said, I shall concern myself with only the first argument. If I can show that the argument from fine tuning is false or inadequate for proving the existence of an infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent God, then my opponent's foundations for proving the existence of the Christian God is swept away as well. ==================== Argument from FT presupposes human existence/earth is crucial or necessary for the universe ==================== 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. This is obviously false. There is nothing in principle that my opponent has yet to demonstrate that the universe needs humans to exist, whether it be for a scientific reason or some "higher purpose" of the universe. 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. Likewise, the universe is not conscious, it's mindless. It has no wants or desires, so it can't be that humans have some special place. 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". From the perspective of the anthropic principle, the probability of this should be 1 out of 1. If there are certain physical constants needed for human existence, and we exist, then it should follow that these physical constants are as such! Remember, in place of humans there could very well have been different types of organisms on Earth. We could have brains that walk with three legs instead, or animals that can both fly, swim, and shoot poop out their fingers. Or there could just be no life to begin with! The possibilities are endless and we are simply one of them. There is nothing scientifically or philosophically unique about our existence, so to say that there must have been a creator is erroneous. Likewise, there is nothing unique about the existence of earth. Apply the same arguments I gave for the non-uniqueness of human existence: there is nothing special or necessary about the existence of Earth! Earth could be blown to bits and the universe would work just fine. Notice that I use the word "unique" only in the relevant sense that it somehow requires a designer. 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. ==================== Properties of "God" are not necessary for creating earth ==================== 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. I argue this is completely wrong. There is nothing in principle that my opponent has shown that creating the earth is the greatest feat of "power", whatever that vague term means. Why can't an entity that is only SLIGHTLY less than omnipotent create the earth? Why can't an entity that is NOT infinite create the earth? Why can't an entity that is NOT omnipresent create the earth? If my opponent can't successfully answer these questions, then he comes to the problem of having an almost infinite amount of possible gods that can replace his definition of "God". If this is so, then his argument from FT is vacuous, in that it doesn't give a good clue as to whether or not God exists. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My arguments may change depending on how my opponent responds (I won't give it away, but if it happens I'll follow up as such). I await my opponent's response.