God Exists

Con shouldn't lose conduct for his forfeiture, sometimes you just can't make it back in time to post an argument, and that's okay. I will rebut my opponents second round arguments. Rebuttal Intelligent Design My opponent refuted the common point that if there is an intelligent designer, then why didn't he make us perfect? Why did he give us an appendix? When one says that it is completely useless, they are only giving one half of that debate. There are several scientists and pharmacists who believe that it is actually a part of the immune system. So even though you can remove it and be fine, does that mean it never had a purpose? Of course not, you can live with one kidney, one eye, etc. We shouldn't use the appendix as a conclusion to disprove God's existence, we just haven't learned enough about it yet. Intelligent design is supported by several different sciences, including biology and physics. Intelligent Design in Biology Through recent studies, William Dembski has created an "explanatory filter," or three features he believes an intelligent creator would have installed in his creation. 1) It must be contingent.2)It must be complex. 3) It must display an independently displayed pattern.Dembski states that in order to have been created via intelligent design, the phenomenon being tested cannot have stemmed from laws of nature, and it cannot be the result of chance. Since complexity is not enough to prove to the everyday atheist that we are the result of intelligent design, we must include the final statement, that it must display an independently displayed pattern. This pattern had been found in cells themselves, where non-repeating genetic codes are sent between cells in a computer like fashion, in order to achieve the tasks they are sent out to do in the body. Intelligent Design in PhysicsIn physics, we can show intelligence through the concept of cosmic fine tuning. Mathematically, are universe is very complex, but it has to be. If the universe fit together any other way, we would be incapable of existing. For example, scientists agree that the universe is expanding rapidly. If it were expanding at any other rate, either it would be expanding too quickly for the formation of stars, or too slowly so that the universe would collapse before it could form stars.Looking at it objectively, a person could either say that we are extremely lucky that our universe is held together the way it is (astronomically lucky), or there is intelligent design, an outside force which pushes the universe along perfectly. Which seems more logical?Those were a few sciences that support intelligent design, now let's take a look at the KCA.My opponent says that there are particles that "pop" into existence without a cause. If that were true, my opponent would have a Nobel prize. If there actually were particle like that, then the laws of thermodynamics would be untrue. The safer way of saying "pop" into existence, is to say that "we aren't exactly sure how they are here, but since matter and energy cannot be created, there has to be another way these particles 'seem' to be acting unnaturally." Quite honestly, I haven't heard of the point my opponent brought up, so if he would like to cite the source of where he obtained that information, I would like to see it. May I also point out that my opponent opened his argument with the rule that we must cite our sources? He didn't cite where he found that.1) If a particle pops into existence, both the KCA and the laws of Thermodynamics are untrue. 2) Particles don't pop into existence. 3) The laws of thermodynamics are true, as is the KCA.http://www.gotquestions.org...