God probably exists

Since Con says, "You dropped my rebuttal" he seems to think it's appropriate to drop mine concerning which is more likely about our origins. He only provides a wikipedia source (when teachers agree wikipedia is not reliable) and fails to explain his argument. He believes that this source supports his statement "You are taking traits of things and falsely putting them to other things. " However, people use analogies all the time to prove a point and/or a concept. Further, this debate was not about absolute certainty as the wikipedia article delves into, but about probability. I reiterated numerous times that a "Creator" is far more LIKELY than evolutionary randomness, and used manufacturers and builders and engineers as analogies. A car is not the product of natural selection, but the result of an "intelligent designer. " Based on observation, if every material object around us is the product of a "designer," which is more likely, that man is the result of a "Creator" or came into existence through natural selection? Con hasn't provided any evidence to show an alternate theory is more likely, therefore I let my argument stand. Con says, " You also dropped one of my points about the chance that there really is ONE 'setting'. How do we know that there is a boom/crush cycle in the universe? That could happen. This means nothing. Alright, well if the constants are changed, then life would be impossible. The reason there is only "one setting" as you put it, is because outside of this one setting life would collapse. . http://books.google.com... I provided the above source to help illustrate this. The basic premise to the fine-tuning argument is that the constants are so fixed that an "intelligent designer" is the most likely explanation concerning how they came about. Is it really likely that an evolutionary accident has brought about life when even the smallest alteration would make this universe collapse? For instance, not a single fingerprint matches another fingerprint, out of seven billion people. Nor is there a snowflake that is exactly identical to another snowflake. They are all unique. Surely, a random accident would cause at least one fingerprint or one snowflake to match another one, but they don't. Con states, "Which happens to fall under the kinship. Which happens to fall under the kinship. We are porgramed by evolution to care about the well being of our young and the weak. Try slapping a tiger cub in front of its mother and I will bet you will be attacked and die unless you have a 'S' on your shirt. I could give you a long answer , but I dont like long winded answers. " But giving up a seat to an old lady on a bus is not kinship if she's not related to you. Nor is donating blood to people you don't know kinship, or reciprocal advantage. You state, " We are programed (sic) by evolution to care about the well being of our young and weak. " How so? How would evolution program us to care for someone we don't even know? Explain. Con states, "This is just an absurd arguemnt. Hell is part of Religion. If you argue hell exists, then that invalidates the All-Loving part of God. If God sent people to hell, then that meant he doesn't have any love for them. " I'm not even arguing God's love. I'm arguing what is the purpose for any man to invent Hell. Heaven could be argued as man-made since it promises the poor and weak a better life, an escape from their suffering, but if that's the "sales tactic" then what purpose does Hell serve? Wouldn't that frighten people and make them not listen to you? Moreover, Marx said that, "Religion is the opiate of the masses. " In other words, it keeps the poor from rebelling against the class struggle they're in by being promised an end to their suffering when they go to Heaven, yet Marx fails to address Hell, which is my point. Hell is more likely to turn people away, and hurt this "man-made" religious enterprise, unless there really is one. I'm not concerned with whether the existence of Hell keeps God loving; my point is what purpose does Hell serve if religion is man-made? Con uses a source to argue against the Hebrews knowing the universe came out of nothing and fails to give an explanation. My argument has nothing to do with apophenia, which is a mental disorder, not facts about ancient civilzations. Why did the Hebrews say God created the universe out of nothing, when every other tribe or ancient culture said different? Con's rebuttal using a Nostradmus quote is fallicous, since Nostradamus's prediction of the end of the world has nothing to do with gangnam style. Second, the odds of the Jews getting their land back after 1900 years are staggering. They had been persecuted and killed by the millions and yet they survived. The Bible also clearly refers to them getting their land back; the Nostradamus quote is vague. Yes, anyone can predict anything, but that doesn't mean everyone is right. For instance, Nostradamus said the end of the world would be the year 2000, but it wasn't. I submit that since the debate is "God probably exists" Con should provide reasons why God most likely doesn't exist, and he hasn't.