The Following Argument(s) for the Existence of God are Valid - 1F

seems as if my opponent once again does nothing to attack the meat of my argument " As far as I see the only thing you really seem to attack me on is my car analogy claiming that it states that humans are necessary for the existence of the universe. Yet, you never once told me how my argument implies that humans need to exist for the universe to exist. I even asked you to tell me how my car analogy implies this and you simply say its HIDDEN. Thats hardly a answer if you ask me. Thats like me saying that your argument makes no sense, you then ask me how. I say its HIDDEN! Same concept. "his round have more words from my arguments than his" Completely irrelevant it doesn't matter if I refute your argument with 10 words or 100 words I still successfully argued against each one of your points, you on the other hand did not. " Life started in a much different manner from a "random explosion". There are competing theories, but some popular ones are the iron-sulfur world theory and the RNA world hypothesis, both which are vastly different from a "random explosion." Okay, this does not hurt my car analogy in any way. The existence of a Supreme being is more likely then random elements and events that supposedly created our earth. Where did the volcanoes come from that life according to the sulfur theory come from? Again something can never come from nothing. Every finite thing has at some point had a beginning where does it begin? The RNA world hypothesis meaning no evidence backing it up therefore irrelevant.(Though one can argue that the big bang and the sulfur theory has no evidence to support them either.) ". Once early life was formed, evolution took it's role. A car is quite intricate, as is human life. Therefore, the long gradual process to this stage started from much more simple organisms, which from generations to generations came to us. Who did all of this? The natural process of EVOLUTION, not a sudden event." Did evolution create planet earth? We are arguing the creation of EARTH/universe not the creation of organisms. Evolution does not refute religion since God could have simply used evolution to create life on earth.(Though I do not believe this.) "the Big Bang, allowed for us to exist" What allowed for the big bang to exist? Obviously it came from something. Again I do not believe in the big bang but the big bang does not refute the likelihood of a God creating the Universe. "It's not like when someone rolls a die, and it turns out to be both 6, they go "OH WHAT ARE THE CHANCES!". Even though getting both 6's is somewhat rare, everyone understands that the result could have been perfectly different" But it takes somebody to roll the dice, the universe obviously did not create itself. Science is yet to explain the creation of the universe.(which it never will) The only possible explanation for the existence of the universe if you go back far enough is GOD. "Properties of "God" are not necessary for creating earth AGAIN, no response to this argument. Voters, take note of this" I never once argued that the properties of God were necessary for the existence of the earth. That is something you just told me I said or what I meant. I defined what God was never said that God used those specific properties to create the earth. The only property that applies to the creation of the earth is omnipotence. It takes an all powerful God to create a perfect world. You never once refuted any of my points in my R1 showing evidence of the existence of the Christian God. "I feel like I am repeating myself BECAUSE I EXPLAINED THAT THIS ARGUMENT WAS MEANT FOR THE INITIAL DEFINITION/PROPERTIES OF GOD." ...My car argument does not need to show evidence of properties of God just the intelligent design behind God's earth. No matter which God it is. My argument states only that the probability of the earth creating its self from random processes is the same chance a car would be created through another set of random processes. Even scientists admit that the probability of the creation of earth through their "Random elements" that just happened to come together perfectly that just happened to create the earth, that just happened to put the planet at the perfect distance of the sun, that just happened to create the perfect life sustaining atmosphere, that just happened to have the perfect amount of oxygen in the air and many other things that just happened to come together O so perfectly. Is very very very low. If you ask me I would say you take more faith believing in that, then somebody who believes that God created the universe. " First of all, why did you make a dichotomy between "God" and a "Christian God"? " Because as stated in my round 1 I am showing evidence supporting the probability of the Christian God. Also, as stated in my round 1 the car analogy was meant to show the existence of a God in general. THE REST of my R1 approx. 70% of my arguments you ignored. "Secondly, it's absurd to say that if you can't disprove the properties of the Christian God if you cannot disprove its properties" I did not say that you cannot disprove the properties of the Christian God if you cannot disprove its properties. I said you cannot disprove the Christian Gods properties if you cannot disprove the existence of Him. "Disproving it's properties IS A METHOD of disproving the Christian God!" You have not disproved the Christian Gods properties. You have not shown Why God is not infinite nor omnipotent nor omnipresent. "My opponent does make a reply to my hot dog analogy, but it's once again a strawman. He says it bolsters intelligent design, but he doesn't even realize that the analogy was not even meant to address that point." You have not shown how the hotdog bun could have adapted itself without the help of intelligent design. Therefore this argument does nothing but hurt your case. My opponent has conceded that the Bible has accurately stated that the earth is round. ". He responds to my inquiries concerning the meaning of the verse by asking "what do you think", but gives no response!" I simply asked you what you thought those verses meant to try to kick in your common senses it is pretty clear what these verses mean and you just do not want to answer the questions because you KNOW that these verses could only mean one thing. According to my opponent the Greeks knew that the earth was round since 300 B.C. Even if this is so scholars say that Isaiah was probably written around 700 B.C. some say 1,000 B.C. That is a 500 to 800 year difference in time. How could this writer have known the earth was round? I will remind the voters that the belief in flat earth was the majority opinion until explorers of the 1400-1500s set the record straight. " He says the verse is taken out of context, but he doesn't show WHY THAT IS SO." I did show how the verse was taken out of context if you read the entire verse it is pretty clear he is speaking of the nation rather then the planet. "Isn't it convenient that earth has different meanings, and my verse was wrong but yours was correct?" Neither were wrong both were correct usage of the words. Many different words in the English language has different meanings. For example the word fly Def. 1 :fly-to move through the air using wings. Def. 2 : fly-a. the horizontal dimension of a flag as flown from a vertical staff. As you can see two very different meanings yet still the same word. I guess that's convenient to then. " Why would they use two different words that mean the same thing?" Two different translations. " Hanging on nothing would seem to be evident" First he says the verse is vague and could mean a myriad of things. Now all of a sudden its evident? "A very OBVIOUS observation" The wind going south to the equator swirling around and going back north is not OBVIOUS. I will let the voters decide