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

I agree with my opponent's observation that we both have a burden of proof. Before I get started with my refutations, I want to stress one notion (I've been learning from previous debates): my opponent's argument must show that the existence of God is LIKELY (unless of course, he means to prove God's existence 100%, which is questionable in principle). Simply stating something is possible does little to show the validity of it's existence, or the probability of it being so. I've stated this in my opening argument, and my failure to do so in previous debates may have led to my downfall in respect. That is the nuisance of debates - you have to get all corners defined and prepared for. So now, I will start. =====Counterarguments===== >>>Fine-Tuning of the Universe<<< Contrary to what my opponent states about there being "66 factors", it is 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants [1] that come into play (though these constants do affect these 66 factors). My approach to this argument isn't to attack each specific factor, because this is tedious and somewhat misses the point. I will list my arguments accordingly in an ABC-format with any sub-arguments in a 123-format. A. Anthropic Principle According to the anthropic principle, the only kind of universe that could sustain humans (us) is one similar to the one we are in now. Thus, the conditional probability for humans existing is 1. If there were a slightly different universe (as my opponent hammers with his argument), then we wouldn't exist. Of course, to the universe it wouldn't matter at all. Because nothing matters to the universe. It is a tautology and error for my opponent to assume that humans are the "goal" for the universe. In a totally different type of universe with different amount and types of dimensionless fundamental physical constraints, in place of humans there could be a totally different type of being - to us it would most likely be called an "alien". There could be totally different organisms that arise from alternative biochemistry[2] that we wouldn't know about. B. Statistical Argument (from my opponent) My opponent some how comes to the number of 1:10^99 as the probability for the current state of our universe. I ask of my opponent - how does he come up with such a statistic? ! I'm not asking for a source, but I'm asking HOW that SOURCE came up with such a statistic. Because ask any statistician - to come up with the statistic for an event you will need to account MOST if not ALL the factors that come into play - and for creationists to tout they know the probability of the complexity of the universe/abiogenesis/etc. , they will need to have great and unparalleled understanding in those respective fields. So great will their understanding be that they will in fact know MUCH more than science currently does. So I see only two options: either you recant your statistical argument based on false reasoning and lack of evidence, or you share with the entire scientific community your vast knowledge on abiogenesis and cosmological evolution. The misuse of statistics is great, and can be find rampant in psychology, amongst statisticians themselves, and evidently creationists [3]. C. Multiverse Theory According to the multiverse theory, there are many if not infinitely amount of possible universes in what we call "reality" [4]. Therefore, the probability of having a universe "fine-tuned for life" is barely a problem at all. In the many universes, we happen to be in one of the universes that have the right physical constraints (each universe in the multiverse theory will most likely have different physical constraints than the other). This theory is a naturalistic explanation for the fine-tuning problem. D. Alien design It has been proposed that a possible naturalistic explanation is that a highly advanced alien civilization may have created us, or the physical constraints that led to our creation. Additionally, the Simulation hypothesis has been proposed to state that our universe in fact IS a simulation, which would thus call for the need of an alien species [5]. While this may seem far-fetched, it is equally plausible when compared to my opponent's God. Because to receive validation from it's existence SOLELY by this argument, aliens have the same possibility as my opponent's omnipotent God, if not more. I will come back to this point later on. >>>Time on Earth<<< My opponent's argument rests on the premise that slightly complex animals were alive (or in the very big picture evolving) while comets, meteorites, asteroids, and any object from space was raining on earth. This of course, is false. We had an ATMOSPHERE by the time slightly complex animals were arising [6]. While the study of the evolution of Earth's atmosphere is still going on, a plausible scenario is that an early bacteria called the cyanobacteria[7] were the first oxygen-producing evolving phototropic organisms - they lived around 3.3 billion years ago. This far precludes complex animals. >>>The Fermi Paradox<<< A. Civilizations don't have to arise There could very well be the possibility that life has arisen in other places in the universe. However, to state that such life has to be TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED, is pushing it. We don't know whether or not the probability of life becoming technologically advanced - so this very well punches holes in the Fermi Paradox. B. Doomsday Argument Another relating argument is the Doomsday argument, which is a probabilistic argument for how long humans have yet to live. This can be applied to the Fermi Paradox because if a civilization were to be developed, it could very well have happened millions of years ago and subsequently destroy itself (through any means such as environmental, wars, etc. ) [8]. C. We don't have technological power/haven't searched long enough Due to my shrinking Character limit, I will stop with a last third argument. Basically, the Fermi Paradox does not accommodate for various aspects. Perhaps we haven't searched long enough or our technology (or the aliens) aren't the same. This could very well explain the Paradox. >>>First Cause Argument<<< My opponent's argument fails in several aspects: 1. There are things that are un-caused: the virtual particle [9] 2. We don't know what caused the singularity to exist or to expand, but the multiverse theory could. According to the multiverse theory, in other universes different from ours, laws such as cause-and-effect won't have to be the same - therefore they don't fall prey to it. We come from another universe, of which doesn't have a cause-and-effect law. =====Conclusion and Final argument===== I'm sorry for the less detailed argument towards the end - character limits suck. But I have one last argument before going - and this argument applies EVEN if all my previous argument somehow fail. My opponent's "God" is omnipotent, and he states it's existence is necessary for the universe to exist. But I ask - why? Why can't an entity of 95% power instead of 100% (omnipotence) create the universe? In fact, there are an INFINITE amount of anonymous entities that can create the universe according to my opponent's argument. An argument that gives the probability of many (if not infinite) amount of possible answers is NOT a good argument at all. ---References--- 1. . http://www.nationmaster.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 9