God exists.

Argument 1 My opponent says that his argument establishes part of the definition of God provided, but there is nothing connecting his fine tuning argument to that definition in his reasoning, so it is irrelevant. He flatly asserts that there cannot be an unknown physical law that explains the constants, but his case against this is remarkably feeble. All he says, in effect, is that we can imagine a universe without the constants. But that does not mean there is not a more fundamental law determining them. The firing squad analogy illegitimately switches from a context where we know deliberate intervention is possible to the beginning of the universe, where there is no independent reason to suspect intelligent intervention. Indeed, everything we know about minds suggests that they depend on a brain. He says that God would be likely to create a universe with life because human test takers would benefit. But this is just as anthropomorphic as the original argument, since it assumes that because we like it that there are test takers, so would God. Argument 2 No evidence supporting either of the assumptions in question was provided. He did link to some Youtube videos which may contain evidence, but this borders on violating the character limit. I am not obligated to chase down every link supporting his position that he can find - the content of the debate needs to be posted here. Argument 3 Plantinga's opinion of the argument is relevant because, as the author of the argument, he is an authority on the weight of the argument. The first alleged response just says that the argument uses "ontology" and links elsewhere, which does not tell me what his argument is and borders on violating the character limit as above. The point about de re / de dicto also links elsewhere, but I will address it since the content of Craig's response can be quoted briefly: "Second, you confuse necessity de re with necessity de dicto. Necessity de re is the necessity of a thing (res); necessity de dicto is the necessity of a statement (dictum). The first premiss of the ontological argument asserts that a certain statement is possible, namely, the statement that a maximally great being exists or that maximal greatness is exemplified. It is not the statement, "It is possible that it is necessary that a maximally excellent being exists." That statement involves the iteration of two modalities de dicto. If we let G be the proposition "A maximally great being exists," the first premiss should be symbolized: `74;G." But this does not address the objection. "G" in Craig's symbolization stands for a being who by definition exists necessarily, so the argument remains question begging. Finally, my opponent cites morality, logic, and mathematics as examples of areas of knowledge that are allegedly not based on observation. One option is to claim that these are not areas of knowledge, as the logical positivists effectively did (they would say that morality is an emotional matter and that logic and mathematics are based on empty manipulation of language). But a simpler response is to point out that just because we don't know how to account for some areas of knowledge in terms of observation does not mean that forming concepts arbitarily is permissible. We do have good reasons for forming the concepts of morality, logic, and mathematics, even if we don't necessarily know how to reduce those reasons to observation. There is no reason to form the concept of God.