God exists

Deism Deism, as defined by Oxford dictionary is the “belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.” [emphasis added] Other definitions include God not being involved with human affairs at all. Fine Tuning Okay, let me go into more detail on the fine tuning argument. The only logical explanations are chance, necessity, or design, this we agree upon. Let's say for the sake of argument that the probability of chance and necessity are close to zero. How do we know that the likelihood of design isn’t equivalent? The likelihood of design could very well be the same as chance and design or even worse. But in truth, we really have no idea, and my opponent shows this by not presenting any numbers on the likelihood of God. To compare the hypotheses of chance, necessity, and design, the probability of all potential options must be shown, otherwise you’re comparing apples and oranges. Why couldn’t design result in a lifeless universe? To propagate at least some variants of the design hypothesis, one must assume God wanted to make life on Earth, rather than something else such as bazillions (scientifically tested number) of black holes and stars. If we are to change the fundamental constants, why couldn’t the equations be changed as well? At that point we would have universes that we can’t even imagine, let alone work out the physics of them. We do not know enough about mathematical physics to say, and may well never. They may sound somewhat sci fi, but then again, we’d be changing the equations of the universe.. And arbitrarily dictating that only the constants may be tweaked amounts to begging the question. The hypothetical multiverse is in fact taken seriously to some degree or another by a multitude of sophisticated people such as Hawking, Vilenkin, Carroll, Kaku, and Tyson (not the boxer that rips off people’s ears). The many worlds interpretation is one of the mainstream views in quantum mechanics, and string theory and superstring theory rely upon the idea. However, there are skeptics of the idea, and I only said that there was the possibility. Again, as I said in my rebuttal, I am not a scientist to any degree, and I’m willing to bet that neither is my opponent. More likely than not, neither of us are well qualified enough to debate this topic to do it any justice. The same likely also applies to our knowledge of cosmology and astronomy. But my rebuttals aren’t reliant upon the existence of the multiverse. Introspective To assert that I haven’t read/skimmed through your argument does not mean that you can ignore my rebuttals. I could easily do the same. I honestly only mentioned the quote since I thought, if taken out context, could justify the existence of almost anything. Ontological To merely assert I haven’t read an argument does not make it stand or fall. One of the greatest theologians of Christianity St. Thomas Aquinas disparaged the argument. It isn’t like he was one of the famous skeptics like Russell and Kant, people who you would honestly expect to reject it as they so did. Aquinas and Gaunilo both rejected the ontological argument, and it isn’t a bandwagon fallacy to say that one of the greatest thinkers of the Christian faith thought it to be a load of rubbish. To be a bandwagon fallacy, an argument must be accepted or rejected due to most/everyone believing something. A few theologians and philosophers aren’t everyone. Russell famously described all Ontological Arguments as bad grammar, and I agree with him on the matter. I merely cited the example to show why my opponent needs to prove that God is even possible. My opponent has failed to do so. I honestly find the limits of omnipotence and such really confusing, and I do actually know people who think God can do the logically impossible such as making a round square or a Michael Bay film without explosions. Divine Hiddenness Let me elaborate on the matter, for either my opponent has not understood my rebuttal, or I haven’t explained it well enough. I’ll assume the latter. Under your view that God will reveal himself to self to whoever earnestly seeks him, you’ve set up a win win scenario for yourself. If someone doesn’t experience God, it’s their fault. If they do, the problem is averted. Not even the authors of the study came to such broad conclusions as my opponent did. According to Pew Research Center, 40% are 18-29, 37% are 30-49, and 23% are 50 or above. And if all atheists are all brainwashed, why do they score better than all other groups on general religious knowledge tests and score better than almost every other Christian group on Bible Knowledge and Christianity. It’s a sad day when it's more likely non-believers know more about your religion then you do. I could cite example after example of those de-converted, such as the aforementioned Dillahunty, Dan Barker, and Charles Templeton. And some atheists are willing to change their mind again, otherwise, the existence of the C.S. Lewises and Lee Strobels of the world would be impossible. Compare this to those that say they that they can be ridiculed, tortured, and killed, but they will never change their mind. This is not to say all Christians are dogmatic and closed minded, but the ball is somewhat in your court. My age has no weight on the debate, as it would one part of the whole demographic. I could too assert you have been brainwashed, but both of us know no debate is ever done right with ad hominem attacks http://www.pewforum.org... http://www.pewforum.org... Poor Design If aliens exist, the universe isn’t fine tuned just for us; it is also fine tuned for them. They may, in fact, exist (and kidnap cows), but they too would be wiped out in Heat Death. God doesn’t need to set up a variety of different temperatures and Goldilocks zones. He’s God, he doesn’t need to worry about thermodynamics. I cited Lutherans and Calvinists for their beliefs in predestination and such. Why is this a guilt by association fallacy? Specifically, the guilt by association fallacy is like saying John is a con artist and has black hair. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists. I merely cited their beliefs showing that some of my opponent's own brethren in Christ disagree with him. I did not say all Christians don’t believe in free will. My opponent then goes on to ignore my other arguments against the free will theodicy, so they still stand. Many Christians believe just on avoidance of hell even without absolute proof; this was the entirety of the basis of Pascal’s Wager. I don’t understand my opponent’s counter argument on free will and miracles, if he could elaborate, it would be much appreciated. You mentioned fine tuning being mentioned in the Bible and the Quran, can you cite those verses? I want to mark those down. I must conclude this round, and I now hand it off to my opponent.