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

I will start by listing the points that were not adequately addressed: >>>Fine-Tuning of the Universe<<< A. Anthropic Principle My opponent seems to be saying that since we are here, the conditional probability is one. That doesn't explain why we should be here due to the probability I already stated about the uniqueness of the Solar System. How is Earth a special planet if it's not the universe's goal to have humans exist? If the universe has no conscious, it has no desire to have Earth as a special planet, nor can random chance bring the conditional probability to one. My opponent is simply stating that we are here observing disregarding random chance. If that was true, why is there no absolute evidence of an alien species given the extreme age and size of the universe? Although it is possible that non-carbon-based life exist, my opponent still fails why they do not arise from all the other planets since they cannot support carbon-based life. There is no evidence that non-carbon-based life exist, and until we can detect them, we can't study them. Since there is no evidence related to unicorns, dragons, and other monsters, we cannot study them. Can we assume that they don't exist? Perhaps, but does that mean God doesn't exist? No, because they're evidence such as from design that God does exist. B. Statistical Argument My opponent still fails how they both resolve each other. Assuming that Earth is a typical planet, given the extreme age and size of the universe, there should be large amounts of civilizations in the galaxies. The Rare Earth Hypothesis says that the Earth is not typical, but special because the Solar System requires an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. (1) The conclusion can be made that the Earth is special which my opponent concedes. If it isn't God's goal that the Earth is to be created, why should it be a goal then? Why should the universe let these "anthropic coincidences" happen that cannot be random? (2) The "66 factors" factors are misleading. There are not just 66 factors; there are 154 factors to be considered. (3) Since the estimated probability is 1:10^99 if considering ONLY the 66 factors and there are estimated to be a maximum of 10^23 planets in the universe by chance there shouldn't be any planets capable of supporting life in the universe. Design or random chance? (4) I have not skipped alternative biochemistry and anthropic reasoning arguments from my opponent. My opponent says that we cannot apply probability to the past since it already happened. But since my opponent gladly says that the universe has no intelligence, there is no reason why random chance led to the Earth's creation due to the improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. (1) If he says that alternative biochemistry can result in different life: "Let alternative biochemistry do its job to evolve simple life on Venus and Mars to complex and intelligent life. If other life forms can evolve by alternative biochemistry, then there should be evidence of their existence of Mars and Venus. My opponent fails to explain why does life can evolve from alternative biochemistry, but life has not formed on Venus and Mars." -From my previous round. C. Multiverse Theory My opponent has no sources whatsoever in saying that one of these universes are un-caused. I already pasted a source that speaks otherwise that these universes go through their own comic cycle: http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu...... If my opponent insists that these universes don't have a cause, it's my opponent's responsibility to bring a source which he has not. "Voters, take note that I responded to all 11 points my opponent made and they all have gone UNREFUTED." They have not gone un-refuted. I was paraphrasing those points into one paragraph similarly how you didn't attempt to attack my "66 factors" in the beginning, remember? "That's the current definition of supernatural. This is because it wasn't conceived that there was something outside of our universe, until the multiverse. God though? That's another matter." My opponent thinks that the multiverse is more probable than God even though there is no absolute evidence of it and it also spits in the face of the Occam's razor. Not only that, if even the multiverse theory is a fact, it still begs the question of the origins of their universes. How can there be an infinite Big Bangs if there is no first cause? Who's causing the Big Bangs? There's no source that claims that those universes doesn't require a cause, let alone a First Cause. D. Alien Design Aliens can put us in a simulation, but that would already be falling under the traps of intelligent design. However, those aliens would an extreme amount of intelligence that would be more complex that the universe itself. It is improbable that aliens could design us because there would be a huge number of complications. The alien design also spits in the Occam's razor because it simply begs the question of the origins of the universe. It is less plausible to have an alien species with extreme intelligence making us in a simulation in a computer that cannot be destroyed or stopped coming from a universe with no cause or effect than an un-caused omnipotent God. >>>Time on Earth<<< Although Earth's atmosphere could have formed early as 3.8 billion years ago, it could have been easily destroyed after that. There may be billions of other planets, but due to the probability that I already stated that leads to design, it can be concluded that those other planets don't have intelligent life due to the Fermi paradox and the Rare Earth hypothesis. >>>The Fermi Paradox<<< My opponent misunderstands the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox is addressing INTELLGIENT life, because intelligent life is more improbable than just life. Since the Rare Earth hypothesis solves the point that Earth is special, it should be concluded that only design can bring the conditional probability to 1, not random chance. We can detect intelligent life by radio transmissions and observe archaeological evidence such as Dyson Spheres. We can use various detection methods such as astrometry, radial velocity, pulsar timing, transit method, gravitational microlensing, circumstellar disks, direct imaging, Observations from space, eclipsing binary minima timing, Orbital phase reflected light variations, and polarimetry (5) to detect advanced civilizations. >>>First Cause Argument<<< Virtual particles are not un-caused. They are not events and if my opponent insists that they are, consider that they are created by borrowing energy in a quantum vacuum (6) in space-time (7) which is not the equivalent to nothing. My opponent did not void the premise, because there is no event that my opponent stated that are caused by nothing. >>>Final Argument<<< Powers are not definable in terms of scale. What would 1% percent less mean? Let's look at omnipotence again - the ability to create anything logically possible at will. Is that power definable in terms of scale? No, unless you include an entity that co-existed with less power. I already stated what would happen: that entity would not destroy or create anything but the entity can influence events of the creation of God. What if God didn't exist? That entity would also not exist, because he doesn't have omnipotence. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.reasons.org... 4. http://www.godandscience.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://www.answersingenesis.org...