Atheism (pro) vs Theism (con)

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the previous 2 rounds therefore I cannot make any counterarguments. What I decided to do instead is answer some questions asked by theists. In this round I will try to answer questions from this website: . http://geekychristian.com... I will try to answer as many as I can. 1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence? I know there is no God. However don't confuse knowing something with being certain. I am still an open person who would accept any solid evidence. The only reason why science failed to discover God is because God is not testable, not observable and not verifiable. God is the opposite of science. 2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe? We would look for the designer if we had a reason to believe that the universe is designed. However I have no reason to believe that the universe is designed. It might appear to be designed. About 150 years ago people thought that life was designed. Then Charles Darwin came along and he disproved the idea. The question assumes that the universe is designed but doesn't provide any evidence that suggests that the universe is designed. I can't answer the question any further. 3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn"t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe? Unfortunately I don't agree that nothing can't make something. I will give you an example why I disagree with you. 0=+1-1 I just created something (+1-1) out of nothing (0). This happens in nature too. So called quantum fluctuations happen all the time producing matter and antimatter which quickly cancel each other out. It is possible that our universe began with a quantum fluctuation. 4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes"such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind"that does not mean it doesn"t exist? We can't see our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind. However we can detect our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind. 5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn"t exist? If you could test God observe God, verify God make calculations and predictions based on God then you would convince me. 6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing? This question is the same as question 3 and the answer is gonna be the same. 7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed? As I said in question 3 something can come from nothing. 8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that "amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000Encyclopaedia Britannicas. " Richard Dawkins,"The Blind Watchmaker"(New York: WW. Norton and Co. , 1996), 116. ) This question requires prior knowledge in biology. I don't have that knowledge. Sorry that I can't answer this question. 9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can"t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say? I think that it is more likely that matter produced mind rather than mind produced matter that produced mind. In this case I think that our mind has created the mind of God rather than the other way around. 10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law? We do not need a moral law as there is no objective morality. Everything is a matter of opinion. Is killing wrong in all situations for example? We as a society construct the laws. 11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver? Yes. I agree. However I would disagree who the moral lawgiver is. In my opinion the lawgiver is the society in which we live. 12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe? I think this is simplifying the issue. We need intelligence to understand how mountains form but mountains don't need intelligence to form. We need an intelligence to how stars form but we know that it is not intelligence that forms them. We need an intelligence to understand our universe but it is not safe to assume that it is driven by intelligence. 13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn"t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause? I think this is a similar question to question 3. Even if everything need a cause it is not safe to conclude what was the cause without any evidence. 14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite? Not necessarily. 15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn"t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life? The are many issues with the fine tuning argument. Does an all powerful God need to fine tune anything? If he wanted to couldn't he create a life inside a black hole? Secondly, how do we know that if we changed the constants of our universe that life would not exist in a different form? Thirdly, wouldn't the multiverse hypothesis explain the fine tuning? We live in a universe that can support life and we don't live in a universe that doesn't support life because it doesn't support life. Fourthly, is there a chance that our universe would be formed the way it is. Since it formed the way it is then there is a chance. Last but not least do you really think that the universe is designed for us? Over 99% of it is empty space where the remaining 1% is mostly filled with objects that could easily kill us such as asteroids, black holes or gamma ray bursts. Our own environment is trying to kill us too with volcanoes, tsunamis or earthquakes. This does not sound like fine tuning to me.