The Existence of God

============================================================================ Defense ============================================================================ Contention 1: KCA. My opponent's objections are as follows: 1. The Law of Conservation of Energy disproves KCA. 2. "How do you know that an infinite is impossible? That is simply an idea thought up by fellow humans, it isn't necessarily true." 3. "You can't simply assert that 'God exists outside of time,' and 'is not bound by any laws of the universe or any restrictions thereof.'" 1. Well, I've never heard that one before. I have multiple rebuttals to this, but I will just make it short. The Law of Conservation of Energy only applies to closed systems [1], while the univese is an isolated system [2]. 2. I already proved this. "It is impossible for an actual infinite to exist. Since the universe has currently reached now, and it is impossible to count from negative infinity to now, then it is safe to conclude that infinity does not exist." I challenge my opponent find a way that we could currently reach now if infinity exists. 3. Yes I can. God is metaphysical and of the supernatural, the definition does not demand God to exist physically. My opponent has failed utterly to refute KCA, and all of my premises stand, thus my contentions stands. Contention 2: Watchmaker argument. My opponent's objections are as follows: 1. "There's actually a whole book debunking this argument, it's called 'Evolution is a Blind Watchmaker,' by Richard Dawkins." 2. "The reason we know things such as watches, paintings, and Boeing 747s were created, is because we have no other explanation for their existence." 3. "But we know that things such as life, planets, stars, and the universe itself were not created because we do have scientific explanations for their existences. For instance, we know evolution is the cause of the diversity of life on Earth, and abiogenesis started life. We also know that the cause for the universe is the Big Bang." 4. "Jumping to conclusions once again." 1. The book by Dawkins does make references to Paley's Watchmaker, but the book is a defense of evolution, not a refutation of the Watchmaker Argument. Regardless, Dawkin's words have no sway over this debate. 2. My opponent's claim is baffling to me. He claims we knows things like watches were created, because we have no explanation for their existence. This makes no sense to me and doesn't stand up as valid. 3. Just because things have scientific explanations does not mean that the things were not created by God. It's called intelligent design. 4. How am I jumping to conclusions? You conceded that the universe necessitates a designer. A designer of the universe would be recognized as God. Pretty simple. My opponent's refutation of the Watchmaker Argument does not stand either. Contention 3: Teleological argument. My opponent's whole rebuttal is a straw man. "The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design." Now, the universe doesn't physically need to exist, this is obvious. The universe didn't come about by chance either, although my opponent can try to prove that. Thus, the universe is designed. My opponents talk about the universe being hostile to life is moot because life does exist, so the hostilities don't matter much. Also, it doesn't matter that there are no mentions of extraterrestrial life in religous texts (although I'm sure there are) - as we are not talking about any of the Gods of religions - we are talking about a God that fits the definition of God. Contention 4: Fine-tuning argument. My opponent's sole objection is: "This is not true, life would have simply evolved differently to adapt to the different environment." 1. My claim was backed up by a reputable physicist - it is recognized as fact. 2. My opponent objected without a source of his own, he fancies himself smart enough to make claims without evidence. 3. Since my claim was backed up by evidence, and my opponent's is not, my point stands. ============================================================================ Conclusion ============================================================================ All of my arguments stand as of now, without much effort necesarry. As long as one of them stands at the end of this debate, I shall be the victor. That shall be all for now. ============================================================================ Sources ============================================================================ [1] http://www.nyu.edu... [2] http://www.springerlink.com...