The Fine-Tuning Argument Is Sound

The instigator seeks to disprove my argument by asking for citation. Although I believe the things I have discussed here to be of a common knowledge I will provide such citation if for no other purpose than the sake of argument. During my debate I have explained to you the make-up of the universe. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... I have explained to you the cycles of nature. http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu... I have explained to you the circle of life. http://www.fi.edu... I have explained the processes of the brain. http://engineering.mit.edu... I have explained intelligence. http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu... I have explained genetics. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... I have explained artificial intelligence. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu... I have explained robotics. http://www.ri.cmu.edu... I have explained seed dispersal. http://en.wikipedia.org... I have explained the cycle of water. http://www.cotf.edu... And I have explained how all of this affects ethics and thus morality. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I have referenced Christianity. http://biblehub.com... http://biblehub.com... I have referenced Hinduism http://en.wikipedia.org... And I have put all of these things together in order to explain to you the nature of God. For without being able to understand the nature of God, you would never be able to understand the fine-tuning that God is responsible for. Finally, I will explain to you Philosophy. Philosophy is defined as" 1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. 2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. 3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume. 4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. 5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. 6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. 7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising. 8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I believe that I have used, and demonstrated, my love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral-self discipline to investigate the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, and values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical thought, to form a system of thought based on or involving such inquiry that critically analyzes fundamental assumptions and beliefs. Using disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology, but demonstrating the source of belief that fuels those arts, I have set forth a discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics and epistemology, involving a set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field, that field being the existence of God, a system of values that I live by. But my task here was to prove that existence via the "fine tuning" of constants and so, in conclusion, I submit that randomness is defined as". 1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance. 2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. 3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. Life, nature, and the universe have very specific patterns that move with a very specific purpose. There is no distribution of probability, everything happens for the purpose of continuing existence, which can be proven by simply dissecting the nature of everything (the cycle of nature). This is not an event in which all outcomes are equally likely for not only does man exist, but so do birds, plants, and the sky, all serving their own purpose, all existing in harmony, all supporting the PURPOSE of one another, the PURPOSE of existence. The fine-tuning, which I believe the instigator picked purposefully to con volute the argument, because by its very nature, without all the pieces given, it is argumentative, was a faux pas on the instigators part because, in this case, the fine tuning can completely be described. http://en.wikipedia.org... I have provided all the pieces needed in order to understand that life could not have just "Sprang up randomly" as the instigator implies. I have provided all the resources for anyone reading this debate, including the Instigator, to verify that what I have said is true. I have shown the relationship between God and nature, God and man, God and the universe, and man and the universe. And I have provided logical reasoning that supports that only through some level of intelligent design could the universe, as we know it, exist. The instigator doesn't want to call a skunk a skunk, even though it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk, and is not discernible in any way, shape, or form from a skunk. The instigator questions why we should all the invisible nature of the universe God. The instigator uses the very materials of God, God's own work to seek to disprove God. But the only alternative that the instigator can give us is that the instigator has no idea where all of this purposeful matter "Sprang up" from. The instigator simply wants us to believe that it "Sprang up", with no beginning, with no end, with no designer, and with no creator. I submit that everything in life and in nature goes against this theory. I submit that it simply would make no sense for there to never have been anything and then for there to suddenly be something. I submit that God has always been and the the universe, and everything within it is a part of God. I submit that the God of our understanding exists because it is the best name we can give to what we understand about God. I submit that all things exist within God and God exists within all things. And that it is the fine-tuning of the constants as demonstrated by the willful purposeful concert that is nature continuously promoting existence that proves this to us. We, as observers of this demonstration, have only to acknowledge it or not. But even in our acknowledgment, or lack thereof, we do not disprove what is true, that God exists, for in order to do such a thing we would have to deny that we exist. Purpose has destroyed any concept of randomness and thus placed all of this work within a design, said design not only being perfect, but of an intelligent nature. Our understanding then, of what intelligence is" a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) "places the English language, and thus the instigator, at a distinct disadvantage to supply us with the correct words needed to disprove this theory. To paraphrase Shakespeare then, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Instigator, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." My philosophy includes all things however, and until you can disprove that these things all represent a fine-tuning that not only proves the existence of a God, but which that God is responsible for, God exists! And I thank you for listening. As agreed upon this will be my final argument.