God exists

Thanks to Envisage for his well structured and organized opening round. By the end of this rebuttal though, I think his arguments shall become shaky at best. The burden is on him, so he must satisfactorily rebolster the arguments and refute my rebuttals.God and the argumentsFor this part, I shall assume, for the sake of argument, that the arguments succeed. That being said, my opponent has to show several properties of God.i God is intelligent. ii God is all powerful (omnipotent)iii God preserves the universe in existence.The Fine Tuning Argument (FTA)The fine tuning argument, if successful, does indeed demonstrate that God is intelligent, however it doesn't satisfy (ii) and (iii).(i) All-powerfulIf the fine tuning argument is successful, it does show that God is most powerful, but most powerful does not necessarily mean all powerful. Essentially, my opponent argues:C1 The universe has a conscious fine tunerP3 If the universe has a conscious fine tuner, it must be all-powerfulC2 The universes" conscious fine tuner is all-powerful (God)Now, not to downtalk my opponent's structure at all, but this can easily be converted into the following BARBARA syllogism, which I think will better explain my rebuttal.P1 Whatever has a conscious fine tuner is all-powerfulP2 The universe has a conscious fine tunerC The universe is all-powerful.This is an accurate representation of the argument. Let me elaborate and show this is the same argument, just in categorical terms instead of hypothetical terms.P1 If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortalP2 Socrates is a manC Socrates is mortalis converted to...P1 All men are mortalP2 Socrates is a manC Socrates is mortalLet's say that God is limited to 100 units of power. It takes 25 units of power to create the universe.100 - 25 = 75 units of powerSo then God would be left with 75 units of power.Now of course, God would be more powerful than anything in the universe, since he has 75 units of power, and there is only 25 units in the universe, however the point is that God is not all powerful.That means, it's perfectly possible for God to create the universe while having limited power.Thus, my opponent has not successfully defended the premise that the creator must be all-powerful. Of course, he must be "most" powerful, but this is a far cry from infinitely powerful.Furthermore, if there were an action which required more than 100 units of power, God would not be able to do this. For example, he wouldn't be able to create a universe which containts 200 units of power. Precisely because he isn't able to. However, a universe which is made out of 200 units of power is a perfect logical and metaphysical possibility. It's just as possible as a 25 unit universe.Thus, God is not necessarily omnipotent.(ii) Preserves the universe in existenceFurthermore, simply because God created the universe, this does not mean that he preserves the universe in existence. For example, I need a car to get me to work, but I don't need a car to *stay* at work. So even if God did create the universe, we don't necessarily need him around anymore. Who knows, he could have died, dropped out of existence, killed himself, etc.So just because God creates the universe, this doesn't mean at all that the universe is preserved in existence by him.Rebutting the argumentsThe FTAI shall first ask my opponent what he means by "finely tuned." It does indeed sound rhetorically nice to say "fine tuning implies a tuner" or "design implies a designer" or "moral laws imply a moral lawgiver", however this is a sort of equivocation.Yes, the human body is "designed" in the sense that it survives well in its environment. However, the word "designer" is an equivocation here. An apparent "design" or "law" doesn't always mean there is a designer. We as humans recognize patterns, and call it "design". My opponent is arguing on a lack of scientific knowledge of the origin of the universe. Let's not forget that before scientists knew about evolution, the human body was thought to be "designed". And of course, using the same reasoning as my opponent, design implies a designer. Right? Not really. Often times when things appear to be "designed" science finds out that this was due to our lack of knowledge.The appearance of design looks almost identical to design. The appearance of tuning looks almost identical to tuning. Do we really have enough scientific knowledge about the beginning of the universe to be able to tell that this is a real example of tuning, and not just the apperance of tuning?My opponent must establish that we are in a position to even tell the difference between what just looks like tuning, and what actually is fine tuning. With the given scientific knowledge, all we know is that the universe appears to be finely tuned.Second of all, my opponent creates a true and false dichotomy.It's true, that I am arguing that the fundamental constants were not caused by an intelligence. However, this doesn't necessarily mean it is random.Third, my opponent is arguing from the point of view that life is somehow better or more interesting than not. And since there's only a small area which allows for life, there's probably an intelligence that made this interesting thing happen.However, the idea that life is inherently better than non-life is unsupported. If you were buying a lottery ticket, the possibility that you get the number 1111111 is just as interesting to the printer as the possibility of the winning ticket. They're equally as unlikely. But neither is more interesting.Fourthly my opponent assumes that the way life has come about is the only way for life, or intelligent beings, to come around. However, this is a tremendous assumption. It seems entirely plausible to suggest that there are other ways for intelligent beings to come around with different fundamental constants.John Lofton States,"It seems like the very purpose of the universe is to produce black holes (not life). There are more black holes than life bearing planets (a lot more)...The universe is almost entirely a vacuum, in which black holes, not life, thrive. We barely struggle along, having a very difficult time surviving, in brutal competition for resources on a microscopic island of life that will be melted by the sun in some time.""The biggest and most fatal criticism is that it is a tautology. The universe has to be ‘fine-tuned’ for life. Life developed within the universe, and so life has to be evolved TO the universe. Life cannot develop dancing to the tune of another universe – this is nonsensical. Therefore, any life that starts in any universe, by definition, must be ‘fine-tuned’ by that universe and thus every life-permitting universe will appear to be fine-tuned for life." [4]The KCAMy opponent begins by making the fallacy of a sweeping generalization fallacy. [1]Yes, everything we see around us that comes into existence has a cause. No, the universe isn't comparable. Causality we see around us, which my opponent uses to prove this premise, is always on a macroscopic level, in time, within the universe.However, when the universe began to exist, it wasn't on a macroscopic level, was not in time, and was not within the universe.My opponent is comparing apples to oranges, and is applying a principle which works well in day to day encounters, but doesn't necessarily work in special cases... such as the beginning of space and time.Furthermore, the PSR is considered to be very controversial, as stated in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [2]. "The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle:."Finally, the KCA only works under A-series time. However, it does not work under B-series time. Even Craig states, ""From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived."However, we have no reasons to think that A-series is true.Finally, even if the universe does have a cause, it doesn't need to be God. Why can't the cause be an immaterial, causally able, non-intelligent substance? Why say it's intelligent if we don't need to?ConclusionIn conclusion, either my opponent's arguments are sound, or they're not. If they're not sound, my opponent hasn't met his burden. If they are sound, my opponent still hasn't proven God to be omnipotent or to preserve the universe in existence, and thus hasn't met his burden. So in either case, the resolution remains unaffirmed.Thank you.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] Blackwell Companion to Natural Theologypp 183-184[4] http://tinyurl.com...