The existence of God

"No - it only makes assumptions about life as we know it - that's the difference. Asserting probabilities on the formation of life based on principles we know life is not based on is pointless." The Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support roughly calculates the chance that of a planet that could provide life support and provides us a list of explanations in detail of the factors that could affect whether that planet could sustain life or not based on life on Earth. That would mean that chance and coincidence powers atheism, although I know from experience that no atheist would claim that. However, the fact that no living life has ever been observed on Venus on Mars which proves that factors affect whether a planet could sustain life or not based on life on Earth and that without God, chance would have to be considered. (1) "Asserting, even if based on nothing, that life can evolve from other known forms that what we know - only further indicates that Earth is not unique." There could be hundreds possibly thousands of conditions that are "needed for the rich abundance of plant, animal and human life on earth, which have not been found elsewhere in the known universe." I have already told you which ones (1) and those factors explain why Venus and Mars did not turn out to become Earth. Remember a time where you had to do a book report in school, but procrastinated? It takes intelligence to create a book report, not natural causes. I cannot leave all the ingredients of a chocolate cake in a bowl and hope that natural causes would bake it. I cannot depend on natural causes to do my work and tests at school. Similarly, natural causes cannot create intelligence without intelligence itself. Construction of a house requires the blueprint of the map. Then all the materials must be gathered. There is also more things to consider: the house design, the location of the house, the size, the type of materials need, where all the rooms are, etc. How could natural causes know all this information? The construction of life is more complex than a house. Why could natural causes create life, but could not create anything simpler such as a house, computer, paper, or even cooked food? "See above for the errors in your premises." I'm changing the argument to: *There might have been current or extinct life on all planets of the Solar System. *No other intelligent life currently exist that is observable or detected by humans. *Humans beings have intelligence. *Human beings could not detect other intelligent civilizations because of: 1. Intelligent civilizations did not want to discover if they were not alone. 2. Intelligent civilizations lived way too far for radio transmissions to be effective. 3. Intelligent civilizations other than life on Earth did not exist. *Therefore, it is more likely possible that humans beings are the only civilizations known granted with intelligence. "You have yet to prove the necessity of a god that requires it to act contrary to natural laws for the formation of life here to be - both as a species and as the Universe as a whole." When a scientific study of the universe has been conducted, it suggests a conclusion that "the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician" indicating intelligence. In our galaxy, we know that countless details of Earth have been created and especially adjusted for a particular purpose. Of all the innumerable factors influencing the balances in the universe, a change in the position of Earth is enough to bring chaos. The slightest variation in the distance between the Earth and the moon could give rise to significant imbalances. But these balances are never upset. Since natural causes contain no intelligence, how could you explain that those causes could lead to a universe that allows life on Earth. I'm sure that without intelligence, you can't build a house, especially without instructions. Natural causes cannot create books, houses, cars, robots, or any product of the human's intelligence alone without intelligence. (2) On Earth, there are "fingerprints of an engineer who left markers—clues—careful design." You claim the universe has doesn't care whether life exist or not — that there is no goal for humans and life to be created. I disagree. There are treasures waiting for millions of years to be uncovered such as the ancient global positioning found in rocks containing magnetic elements, such as iron. These rocks can be used to pinpoint the location where they hardened and by measuring its magnetic field, scientists can determine its exact original location. Scientist had collected specimens from around the world and came to the conclusion that continents currently drift at a rate of about one centimeter per year. Then after hundreds of measurements are taken, a road map of how our planet transformed begins to appear. Then scientist have came to a conclusion that Pangaea had existed. To develop a time line of the world, they have used many kinds of geological "layering." But why would this information even exist? How could natural causes form clues about the history of the world? If the universe didn't care about whether life existed, then why did humans have access to those clues and eventually form theories about the history of the Earth? Information could only be created by intelligent as proven when without intelligence, products of human's intelligence could not be created. (3) "Life may not be in those locations - it also may and be basic single cellular organisms." This may be true, but cellular organism on other planets may not be granted with intelligence. See my revised argument above. "Miller-Urey experiments may be the most noted - they are however not the most recent, or advanced." However, they became a basis for many experiments and inspired others. "Yes there is evidence of pre biotic environments Yes we have experiments detailing a range of *spontaneous* formations of vesicles under a range of pH conditions. Evidence of basic amino acids arriving to earth etc." Yet you still think that it isn't possible that God used intelligence to conduct any similar related to the Miller-Urey experiments since it still takes intelligence to conduct any experiment in the first place? "Fun creationist tactic of using individuals' quotations out of context to support an argument." It is not who the person is but what he said that makes my point. "Omnipotence is self contradictory." I understand the paradox and what you mean by it, but this may be a false dilemma. How? Okay, let's make a game similar to the Sims, but much more advanced, so advanced that the people in the game actually represent people in real life. They live like a human in reality by free will. As a game designer, I have total control over every element of my game. One day, I observed a guy who didn't believe in a creator. So this guy says,"if the intelligent cause exist, then he can either make a rock that he cannot lift, then he won't be omnipotence. If he could, he still would still not be omnipotence since he doesn't have that ability." This guy thinks that I cannot exist, but if I'm not omnipotence, then would I still exist? After hearing that, would I just vanish? No, the paradox is a false dilemma, because it is God who designs the video game of reality, therefore, creating his own laws for humans to obey. Even if I can't make a square circle in the game, I would still exist. Therefore, God is like a game designer that doesn't have to follow his own rules that he made in this video game reality. (4) "What evidence do you have of a god of energy?" To be tackled in later rounds. Sources: 1. http://www.666soon.com... 2. http://www.harunyahya.com... 3. http://www.realtruth.org... 4. http://www.relevantmagazine.com...