Is it likely that God exists.

When you talk about comparing "the universe has to have VERY specific quantities to even allow the possibility of life", with the claim "the universe has to be fine tuned for the existence of the andromeda galaxy, or the existence of VY Canis Majoris", you make a big mistake. Life is a very general and loose definition here, its anything with an "organized structure performing a specific function, an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by nourishment, an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment, capable of adapting, and an ability to germinate or reproduce" Source: http://www.biology-online.org... Not only have you failed to provide evidence for the fine tuning of the various objects, merely an "its possible that the universe is", but you effed up again here. Nowhere in the syllogism does it state that the universe has to be fine tuned only for life, so if there were other "possibilities" (like the possibility of stars to form) where the values need to be precise as well, it would do nothing to invalidate the argument.Theoretical probabilities, while unlikely to be exact(now. If the probabilities aren't exact, then it doesn't mean the ranges have widened. The error would have been due to some other factor which interfered with the pure arbitrarity these values have. which would seem unlikely given that these constants aren't determined at all by the laws of nature. Nothing is here but the pure chaos of chance) My opponent argues that because any object which exists is fine tuned for, therefore the fine tuning isn't all that specia". This analogy ONCE AGAIN fails because the "possibility of life", is not some object like VY Canis Majoris, or the Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way. It is a range of values within within which life is possible, not a range of values within which a specific lifeform can exist. Not only have you failed to provide evidence for the fine tuning of the various things, merely an "its possible that the universe is fined tuned for ____", but you effed up again here. Nowhere in the syllogism does it state that the universe has to be fine tuned only for life, so if there were other "possibilities" (like the possibility of stars to form) where the values need to be precise as well, it would do nothing to invalidate the argument. If these particles don't come from "not anything" as you put it, then the logical equivalent to that is that statement is that these particles came from something. if it comes from something, then it didn't come from nothing.You have just implicitly admitted that the quantum vacuum is not nothing. So your objection to the first premise pretty much killed itself.Now, if by "not neccesarily", he means that somehow these emanations arise from UTTERLY nothing, he would have to deal with all of the absurdities resulting in such a ludicrous idea. When I say we should see it all the time, I was saying that because there is nothing to prevent "Nothing" from creating things larger than particles, for there isn't anything to constrain! We wouldn't just see this happening with tiny particles, but with narwhals and cars, or anything you could imagine! And yet we don't ever see this in real life. So premise one is constantly verified, and never falsified.http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;