God exists

Thank you. I want to first tell a story to illustrate the burden of proof.My opponent, Mr. Envisage owns a bakery in Britain. One day, I, zmikecuber, come along and order a chocolate cake with chocolate frosting, and the words "Happy Birthday Envisage" written on the front with white frosting.Now Mr. Envisage must follow my instructions exactly. A vanilla cake will not fulfill the order. Nor will a chocolate cake with vanilla frosting. Only a chocolate cake with chocolate frosting and "Happy Birthday Envisage" on the front in vanilla frosting will fulfill the order. If one of these qualities is lacking to the cake, Mr. Envisage the baker has not met my demands.Either Mr. Envisage will fulfill the order, or he will not. If he does fulfill the order, he must fulfill the order *exactly* as I prescribed. This means that even if he gets everything right except the wording, or the color of the letters, the order has not been fulfilled. In fact, even if he gets really close to fulfilling the order, this doesn't matter at all. He still hasn't fulfilled it.So, to the voters, I am ordering a cake. My opponent must demonstrate *each* and *every* quality of God. Even if he gets every quality except for one, this doesn't matter. In order to meet the burden he must show every quality. If I show that he has not met his burden in *one* of the qualities of God, he has not met his burden for the entire debate.The God that must be shownRecall, my opponent must show these qualities.1. God is intelligent2. God is omnipotent3. God sustains the universe in existence.I shall show that, even if the FTA and KCA arguments are sound, he has not shown that God is omnipotent, and that God sustains the universe in existence.Then I shall show that he has not proven the existence of God by refuting the FTA and KCA.OmnipotentI will drop my re-formulation of my opponent's argument. I don't think it's a strawman, but this is just taking up character space.My opponent's argument is...C1 The universe has a conscious fine tunerP3 If the universe has a conscious fine tuner, it must be all-powerfulC2 The universes" conscious fine tuner is all-powerful (God)I shall show that my opponent has not proven P3 here.My opponent claims that we do not have knowledge of units of power. However, this is meant as an analogy to show that just because I create the universe, this doesn't mean that I am all powerful.If I am powerful enough to lift an enormous rock, does this mean I am all-powerful? Of course not.My opponent also argues that we cannot have any measurement of power without the existence of the universe.He claims... "That's exactly why God MUST be omnipotent, since he has created the framework by the very which we can have power in the first place."But this is a big problem. If the universe, or something physical must exist for us to have power, how can God then have *any* power? My opponent says that this means God is omnipotent. However, it shows just the opposite. It shows that something outside of the universe can't have any power at all.So if we assume that there are units of power which are non-physical, then my original argument refutes God's omnipotence. If there are immaterial measurements of power, then God only has to be "more powerful" than the universe, and doesn't have to be all-powerful.If there are only physical units of power, then God can't have any power. Since of course, God existed eternally as opposed to the universe, and created it. But if there are only physical units of power, God can't possibly have any power!My opponent illustrates the point nicely..."Power = Energy/TimeBut, neither energy nor time exist without the universe,"And if there are no energy or time without the universe, there is also no power without the universe, and God is not all powerful.Sustaining the universe in existenceMy opponent argues that consciousness is indivisible. Thus, it's impossible for God to seperate the universe from himself, and is needed for the existence of the universe.There's two problems here. First, we need not assume that God created the universe from his own material. This is merely a possibility, and has not been shown to be the case.Secondly, my opponent is assuming that consciousness is immaterial. This has not been shown. This is a bare assertion.But a deeper problem lies... If consciousness is indivisible, how on earth could God create the universe out of his consciousness? If we can't possibly, even in principle, divide an experience in half, how can we make anything out of it?My opponent has shot himself in the foot here.The FTAMy opponent concedes that he has not shown that life could not develop in other ways. However, in doing so, he is admitting that there might be other ways for the universe to be in order to develop life. Perhaps there are an infinite amount of ways to develop life! My opponent's argument needs to show that there is only *one* way for life to develop before he can get this argument off the ground.My opponent also simply ignores my main argument.First, how do we know we are in a scientific position to be able to tell the difference between real design, and the appearance of design? If we don't know if we are in the position to be able to tell them apart, then we can't know if we can really tell them apart.Remember, real design, and the appearance of design would be almost indistinguishable. But if we don't know if we can tell them apart, we won't be able to accurately tell them apart.My opponent repeats again that the number of universes which do not have life greatly outnumber the amount of universes which do have life. However, how can he say this, if he admits that he doesn't know all the possible different ways life could have developed? He can't.The KCAI have argued that we should not assume the cause is personal if we don't need to. This is a simple application of Occam's razor.My opponent claims that we have no examples of impersonal immaterial causes, but we do have examples of impersonal immaterial causes... In other words minds.But this is a big problem. He has not given any evidence to think that minds are even immaterial in the first place! So I can say to him, exactly what he is saying to me.We have zero evidence of any 'personal immaterial substance'. As such it is substantially more sound to appeal to what we do know than to appeal to what we don't know. My arguments regarding why causality doesn't necessarily apply to the universe still stand. It is not a special pleading. A special pleading is when the two situations are essentially the same, yet when I'm in the situation, the rules are different.This is not what I am saying. I have given examples of why the universe coming into existence and things around us coming into existence are not necessarily comparable. Why? Because the universe doesn't exist "within" the universe, and the universe doesn't exist "in time". So it's not a special pleading here. My opponent is saying "Well apples are red, so Oranges are probably red too."He's saying "Well things inside the universe and in time have a cause, so things not inside of the universe and not in time have a cause too." He can't do this.TimeI don't think I need to say much here. My opponent ignores my point that prima facie plausibility doesn't definitively prove something.Tables feel like they're mostly made up of matter, but they are mostly empty space. Why can't it be the same with time? It feels like time is passing, but it really isn't.ConclusionThanks to my opponent for this debate! I've had a good time and hope he has as well. For all the readers, take note. Envisage is one of the must underrated debaters on DDO. Don't underestimate him.But, in conclusion, my opponent has not met his burden. His arguments (FTA and KCA) are questionable, and even if they succeed, they don't fit the bill.Envisage hasn't made the right cake.