The existence of God

A challenging great debate this has turned out to be. I will list all the points that my opponent did not refute: 1. My argument that the universe is fine tuned a valid one. My opponent just stated "life is not a needed goal for these things to have occurred." as fact without proof. On the other hand, I have proved that the universe is fine tuned by stating a "number of amazing "coincidences" seem to have happened, without which no life could ever have developed." (1) If the universe had not been fine tuned, then these coincidences may not have happened. "It is typical of skeptics and pessimists that they will sometimes rather timidly use the word Purpose; but blush at the very mention of the word Person" - C.K.Chesterton (1) Before my opponent says that this is a logical fallacy of appeal to authority, I would like to remind him that it is true that he has declared that there is no purpose that he has not proven, which I gave many examples that there is evidence: *mass of body colliding with primordial earth *oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere *volcanic activity Even if the density of the universe one second after the Big Bang had differ even by the slightest chance, he universe would have collapsed after ten years. Is it chance or design? "If endless then how can you derive probabilities?" Then my opponent must concede that the chance may be even lower than 1 in 10^99, because in the future, we may even discover more possibilities why Earth has intelligent life, but others don't. "Right conditions for life here is not equitable for those conditions necessary to occur elsewhere." My opponent still conceded that intelligent life is not microbes. There is an extremely low chance that the conditions have been tune elsewhere to intelligent life based on Earth. If that statement was false, explain why Venus and Mars don't have intelligent life, but Earth does. No intelligent life could ever adapt to Mars or Venus without advanced technology, otherwise we would have already saw them by now. "You do not have access to the Universe." My opponent is amazing indeed! With keen precision he is able to deduce, without ever meeting any of them, that intelligent life may not have to adapt to conditions that are on Earth. Otherwise, the probability of 1 in 10^99 still kicks in. If my opponent is correct, explain why there is no current intelligent life on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or even Neptune. "TIME." My opponent has also contributed time as another factor here. I cannot believe it. Now we have to add time to the probability and perhaps make it even lower. What are the chances that the right conditions could occur "at the same time?" My opponent's contributed factor, which is time, already makes the Earth more unique than I could imagine possible. Time has separated Earth from all other planets in the habitable zone. "What rules? What is obeying? What pattern?" My opponent is extraordinary indeed! Right after those questions, he has stated: "There are rules that determine how/if these things occur." My opponent has refuted and contradicted himself. "I have never stated the process is guided by intelligence. It does not require it." I can't believe this either. My opponent had said that the Miller-Urey experiments were conducted recently and in the past with scientist with no intelligence. By that statement, a three-year old toddler has as much chance of creating cells as much as educated scientists! Scientists who want to conduct experiments to tend their hypothesis about the origin of life should quit because my opponent has stated: "It does not hold a capacity for it." "Based on life on Earth..." My opponent demonstrated his intelligence again. He states that because we don't have access to the entire set of the universe, we should quit studying about life on Earth, and start investigating endless number of theories without proof of any imaginative creatures they could think of. "The error is using the author's status." Once again, my opponent did not attempt whatsoever tried to refute the quote made by Charles Darwin, but tried to indicate the logical fallacy. If you can't refute it, concede the point made from the quote. If you still don't recognize my point supported by the quote, perhaps Google will help. :D "The point you fail to grasp is that such a Universe is impossible." What you fail to grasp is that rules are made to be broken as in these individuals: *The Boy with Sonar Vision (Ben Underwood) *King Tooth (Rathakrishnan Velu) *The Magnetic Man (Liew Thow Lin) *The Man who doesn't Sleep (Thai Ngoc) *The Torture King (Tim Cridland) *The Lion Whisperer (Kevin Richardson) (2) Science cannot explain most of these things. If they could, please enlighten me. "Were they not there, or unable to be obtained, we would be less advanced or extinct." My opponent gave another reason why Earth is unique. He explains why intelligent life can't develop on any other planet in the solar system: the resources were actually there to help sustain society that might have been extinct long ago such as Venus or Mars. Is it again chance or design? "Your game is not reality" My opponent once again calculated the chance of every human in the future that could make this game with keen precision that he came to the conclusion that no game can and will emulate reality. "It details laws of reality." My opponent has failed to acknowledge who created the laws of reality. Intelligence was needed to create any law in reality or in any video game. "Why does your god not need creation again?" It is the exact same reason why energy doesn't need creation, but everything else in reality does. If God created this video game reality, he can create the law of creation and that still wouldn't apply to him. "You are not omnipotent." You are totally missing the point. If I'm not omnipotent, give me a better adjective. If I could create the universe, angels, demons, computers, clocks from out of nowhere, I would be omnipotent outside of my own simulation, won't I? When playing the game, I would be limited to the rules of logic, but can still break other laws or reality. I can create a character "Jesus" that overrides the laws of reality like a glitch or a hack in an ordinary game. My opponent still has to explain why contradictions cannot occur in reality if a hack or glitch can in a video game. (3) "Your simulation is contained within the bounds of your programming tool." God used a computer? Remember if God is omnipotent, he wouldn't need a programming tool, wouldn't he? "Where's this higher universal 'computer' located for here?" This is a hypothetical theory here. There are laws in reality like in a video game. I'm not proving that God made reality like a video game. However, I'm proving how God can be omnipotent and not need creation at the same time. I believe I met the burden of proof by: 1. Proving that without intelligent design, that other option is chance. 2. Proving that chance is too low to explain why the Earth is unique and currently supports intelligent life. 3. Showing that my opponent has added two factors: time and resources within our reach to further explain the Earth is unique. 4. Proving that God is omnipotent and doesn't need creation by the video game analogy. A hypothetical conversation: Puck: "Astronomically speaking, man is insignificant," I reply, "Astronomically speaking, man is the astronomer "who can observe it, and can also worship the One who planned it all," I state: "Would there be any point in having a universe if humans were not here to observe it?" (1) Thanks for the debate from a challenging atheist. Sources: 1. http://www.christianity.co.nz... 2. http://www.oddee.com... 3. http://www.slayerment.com...