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

I applaud my opponent for his fast response, but I'm sad to say that it is COMPLETELY misguided. It's clear from his response that he misunderstands my argument against FT - the anthropic principle. It seems that I have to reiterate it again, with more clarifications. ==================== Argument from FT presupposes human existence/earth is crucial or necessary for the universe ==================== My opponent responds to all my arguments saying "I never said this", or "I never said that". He is completely missing the point. I KNOW you didn't say that, but that's because it's a hidden premise in the FT argument (if you were to read my argument again, I clearly said this). He is jumping around, dodging my main argument and regurgitating his own. Let me explain again: the FT argument presupposes that human existence is somehow necessary for the universe. Obviously, whether or not humans exist is of no concern to the universe - the current physical constants of the universe can very well have been different! Perhaps gravity can be 3x stronger than it is, or maybe light will be half the speed it is now. All these constants can be different, and there is nothing in principle preventing them from being otherwise (in regards to when they were first formed). So take Earth. Instead of humans existing on it, there could very well just have been an alien species. Or no life at all! In fact, it's completely plausible that the universe could be TOTALLY BARREN. So why is the universe is how it is right now? Simply because this is one of the possible choices; there is nothing unique about it's present state. Think about this in the terms of the anthropic principle. The number of possibilities may seem totally enormous for us, but given the fact that HUMANS ALREADY EXIST, the probability that the physical constants are just right is 100%. For example, if someone where to go up to you and ask why sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, you'd slap them for asking the wrong question. Sausages weren't made how they are for modern hotdog buns - the BUNS were made/adapted for the hotdog! Similarly, the universe isn't fine-tuned for the benefits of humans, it's the humans who were adapted or a product of the universe! ==================== Properties of "God" are not necessary for creating earth ==================== "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." ----> And if you were to actually read MY argument, you would realize that when I referred to "God", I specifically meant the one you defined. The properties you stated -- which I included in my argument -- was that it's infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Really, my opponent attempts to weasel himself out of his rebuttal. I never stated that this was a counterargument against the Christian God, but the initial definition my opponent used. Since he not only didn't refute my argument but actually ignored it, I won't be reiterating this point. "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." ----> Seriously, just read these sentences. How can my opponent make such a recurring mistake?! I never stated, nor implied, that my arguments against FT was against the existence of a Christian God. They were ALL AGAINST your initial definition of a "God". I suggest that you slow down you speed at responding, and give substantive rebuttals. ==================== Refuting Bible verses pointing to the Christian God ==================== My opponent states that I completely ignored his second argument. If he were to read my argument, which he doesn't seem fond of doing, he would see exactly why. However, to quench any further complaints, I'll refute the ones he offers here. 1. Shape of the Earth And what part of the passage would demonstrate that the Bible purports the Earth to be circular (actually more like a sphere)? It stated that "he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth", but NOT that the Earth is a circle. Just look at the phrasing; why would one say the circle of the Earth? That's akin to me saying you are sitting on the squareness of my bed. I argue that this phrasing would suggest that this verse is referring to something else that is circular. And as long as we are on the subject of Earth's properties, what about the Bible verses that CLEARLY state the Earth is flat! There are tons of verses littered in the Bible saying Earth is flat; hell, the Flat Earth Society is practically based upon Christians. For example, take a gander at Daniel 4:10-11. It stated that Daniel (I think) "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." If Earth was flat, this would be possible - but since it's spherical this is NOT possible at all. 2. Space Referring to space? Or how about metaphorical lingo? These verses are so vague that it could mean a myriad of things - you just conveniently tie it with a scientific fact. 3. Wind and Sea Is my opponent really saying that people back then had no clue of how rivers and the wind worked? Of course, they might not understand the complex physical processes involved, but to say they don't know that smaller bodies of water (rivers) run into larger bodies of water is a far stretch. Or to say that they have no knowledge concerning the wind. Sure, they may not know how wind was created or where it comes from, but I'd say it's pretty common sense to know that the wind can blow FORWARD and BACKWARDS respective towards you. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's argument consist of a complete misunderstanding of the anthropic principle and a litter of vague Bible verse. I hope my arguments demonstrate why they are erroneous reasons to believe that God, as my opponent defines, exists.