Via Intelligent Design, an infinitely-inteligent, creator god cannot be logically justified

I. It was a different type of debate to what I was expecting but it was very much enjoyable nonetheless. This debate has come down to solving a rather straightforward 'paradox', which I believe I quite comprehensively refuted last round but I will tidy up my case to make it that much clearer. Simply put, the paradox is irrelevant to my argument, and by itself doesn't affirm Pro's resolution the way she would like it to. II. Straw Men First I need to take out some words that Pro has (annoyingly) put in my mouth for me. My opponent has made numerous attacks my alleged use of 'complexity' in this debate, and I just performed a Ctrl-F on the page for the word "complex", and found 15 hits, 12 are my opponents, 3 are mine, and all 3 of those were in my opening argument stating it is irrelevant to my argument. So why on earth has Pro insisted in attacking arguments I haven't made? That being the case I would like to ask voters to disregard her following statements: "I let P1) "The universe has a fine-tuner" slide because it was logically consistent. Now that P1) means: "the universe has a designer who makes complex things which require such precision should they be constructed minutely differently, they would fall apart". " And. "He argues that: 1. The universe is complex and looks like it was designed 2. The only thing that could possibly design such a universe is an omnipotent, omniscient god C. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient god exists" Just not cool, Pro. "My opponent basically argues that "intricately designed = finely tuned" Please find exactly where I ever made this argument. I only ever referred to the fundamental constants of nature for the purposes of fine tuning, and I have reiterated this statement in multiple ways. "So god can"t create a universe that is differently "tuned", yet still works, is the implication here. Regardless, there is no demonstration of omnipotence. " I never made that assertion, I only made the assertion that the number of scenarios where the universe is 'out of tune' vastly (by several orders of magnitude) outnumbers the number of scenarios in which it is 'in tune'. There may well be other ways to tune the dials, but given that each dial is very sensitively tuned, then turning more than one is going to be even more capricious. III. Fine Tuner: Pro has dropped pretty much all my justifications for there being a fine tuner (C1 from the original argument in my opening), she has dropped all the arguments I have made that there must be a fine tuner, who purposefully tuned the universe to allow for "interesting stuff", especially life, to form. This already satisfies the 'God' and 'Creator' components of the resolution as already argued, which Pro seems to have let pass unchecked. Please note Pro's original definition of Intelligent Design: "Intelligent Design: is an argument for the existence of god or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world" My argument pretty much falls smack within the definition of intelligent design set by Pro, so her arguments regarding irrelevancy are rather off the mark. GIVEN that we know the universe is finely tuned, and given that we know the universe was finely tuned along with the creation of the laws that were finely fined at the Big Bang, then these arguments tie together like a web. Pro has dropped my arguments for this much, that this creation was simultaneous and the best explanation for such is a singular creator, or designer/tuner. Such a hypothesis is also greatly supported by Occum's Razor which Pro spoke about but never addressed. IV. "Tuning": It doesn't matter if I called it the fine "fudging" argument, or the divine "knob twiddling" argument, the semantics of the word tuning are largely irrelevant to this debate and Pro's attack on it have served as nothing but a big fat distraction. I have explained the process that occurs in detail, and all that really matters is that a transcendent conscious entity must have performed the "tuning", or whatever you would like to call it. Also note yet another one of Pro's strawmen: "My opponent"s harp analogy has the fatal problem all his other arguments do. In showing how the universe needs to be this way, it has to be "finely-tuned", you"re implying that god cannot change anything without it all falling apart, hence indicating his lack of omnipotence. " Please note that I never asserted the universe could not be any other way without it 'falling apart' (I never even made the statement it would "fall apart" either, which seems to be yet another strawman), there may well be other "solutions" that would yield comparable results, but the number of positive solutions vastly outweigh the negative solutions given the natural laws, and therefore most require purposeful tuning. VI. Logical Form & "Paradox" The deliberate design of the natural world is exactly what I spent most my opening round defending, and the logical form of the second part of the argument is logically valid (modus ponens, affirming the antecedent), so Pro needed to dispute the premises to avoid the inescapable conclusion: P2) If the universe has a fine tuner then it is all-powerful and all knowing, and the creator P1) The universe has a fine tuner C) The fine tuner is all-powerful, all-knowing, and the creator (God) Symbolic form: P2) If P then Q P1) P C) Q Pro attempts to attack the form of this by stating it is an "argument from final consequence", well I am not sure what this fallacy is formally, since it doesn't appear in philosophical journals. Instead it appears that Pro is asserting that I am actually making an affirming the consequent argument, which seems to be in rough agreement with the blog pages where I could find this fallacy. [1] Which is as follows: P2) If there is an all-powerful and all knowing, creator then the universe has a fine tuner P1) The universe has a fine tuner C) The fine tuner is all-powerful, all-knowing, and the creator (God) Symbolic Form: P2) If P then Q P1) Q C) P Which of course fails because there may be other candidates for other fine-tuners. But everything I have argued so far in defence of the original premise 3 (and premise 2 in the simplified argument) argues that the fine tuner necessarily must be both omnipotent and omniscient. Pro's burning house example isn't even written out correctly, but if it can be shown that the *only* possible source of fire in this case was indeed the person with the matches, then the argument can be made in modus ponens form similar to I have, and be valid by replacing premise 2 with: "If the house is on fire, then the person holding the matches did it" Obviously in this specific case it would be a very tough premise to defend, since there are many possible sources of house fire in reality. The same however does not apply to the fine tuner & creator of the universe. The fact she has not addressed the argument as I have presented it in my opening renders most her objections above irrelevant. First, let me try and condense my arguments and show they do not run into Pro's alleged 'paradox'. 1. The origin of the universe, where the fine tuning also occurred, simultaneously involved both the creation of the natural laws and 'tuning' of the fundamental constants that these laws ('first principles') work via. 2. The creation and manipulation of the natural laws is clearly a demonstration of omnipotence, as the creator transcends the framework our universe operates within. He changes/creates the rules of the game, which is something with no amount of power within our universe will ever be capable of, since they are bound within the laws of the universe. 3. The manipulation of the natural laws and the fundamental constants are both demonstrations of omnipotence and omniscience. Since setting the 'tune' (fundamental constants) of the universe is again transcendent of what anything bound by those natural laws & constants is and ever will be capable of. It is a demonstration of omniscience because it requires foresight across billions of years across the entire universe to see if the constants set will be the correct ones. This also transcends the universe, and whilst this prima facie is an omniscient-tier as it is impossible to know everything in the universe whilst being confined within the universe. Now with this in hand let's return to Pro's central thesis: 1. Demonstrations of intelligence requires the presence of limits 2. Demonstrations of omnipotence requires the absence of limits I never agreed with either of these premises, and I had argued that Pro has only provided pragmatic support for them. But regardless, the thesis I have pushed both creates & manipulates the limits in a way where foresight that equates to omniscience is required. To state that God must be limiting himself, in these cases seems rather non-sensical, and as I already argued it doesn't necessarily matter what God's motive, or plan is, so long as the end result *necessarily* requires a god with the attributes as defined in the resolution. Therefore, all four of Pro's alternative suggestions fail due to reasons already given. I have already established that omnipotence, omniscience are necessary given there is a conscious fine tuner. And a conscious fine tuner I already showed is most likely in my opening. VII. Conclusion: I have shown that Pro's case is based on unsound premises, which even if true do not demonstrate the resolution true. Therefore, I pass with confidence onto the voters, that I have not only demonstrated the resolution unsound, but also false, where the fine tuning argument, in light of modern cosmology, leads inescapably to the conclusion of an di-omni creator god. I again thank Zarroette for her participation, and best of luck in the voting! VIII. References: 1. . http://tinyurl.com...