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

It seems as if my opponent once again does nothing to attack the meat of my argument - the anthropic principle (to be precise, it's more like anthropic reasoning). It is his inadequate understanding of this principle that forces me to repeat my arguments. Since this is the last round, I will attempt to really clarify my arguments. But if he consistently doesn't even come to UNDERSTAND my argument, let alone effectively refute it, then the vote is obviously CON. ==================== Argument from FT - Anthropic Principle/Reasoning ==================== I can easily tell from my opponent's response that he has no clue as to what I am doing - whether it be my argumentation procedure or the actual argument. Not only does his round have more words from my arguments than his (perhaps a hint to the veracity of his actual arguments), but they are either strawmen or misunderstandings. For example, I've made it pretty clearly that the argument from FT pressuposses human existence/earth is crucial or necessary for the universe, but my opponent somehow finds it "funny". Is he not familiar with the logical procedure of examining an argument and showing the hidden premise's? Of course he never stated that the argument from FT presupposes this - I am arguing it's a HIDDEN PREMISE. And by showing this hidden premise is false, I will have successfully undermined his argument. So disregard several of his "rebuttals" to my claims - they are simply misdirected. That being said, he does have at least 2 counterarguments. The first is the example of a car being made out of an explosion - this is supposed to demonstrate the infeasible randomness of our own existence. The second is against the idea that given such physical constants, our existence is a 1 out of 1. I will refute both, and demonstrate why my opponent's position is vacuous. ==================== Argument from FT - Anthropic Principle/Reasoning - Car Analogy/100% probability Rebuttal ==================== First up is his analogy with the car. There are numerous flaws with this analogy, and this demonstrates his misunderstanding of both my argument and of evolution/abiogenesis: 1. 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." 2. 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. The second thing to point out is that my opponent found flaw with my claim that given we already exist, the physical constants must be right. My argument stated that human life DOES NOT NEED TO EXIST. It just happens to be that the current physical constants, which were put into place closely after the Big Bang, allowed for us to exist. If it was slightly different, then we wouldn't exist - as you would agree to. However, the problem is that you are committing selection bias[1], in the sense that you are looking at the results and distorting how it came to be. The argument from FT is revering cause and effect; we are simply an effect. It could very well have been different, but we just happened to be. 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 (1 and 1, 1 and 2, etc.). The current state of the universe is the same. If gravity was 3 times larger and made the Milky Way vacant of life, then oh well that's a possibility! If the sun was 10x times closer to Earth, thus eradicating all life there, then oh well that's a possibility! ==================== Properties of "God" are not necessary for creating earth ==================== AGAIN, no response to this argument. Voters, take note of this. "Yes, the Christian God is infinite,omnipotent, and omnipresent but in my first argument I was arguing for a God in general not the Christian God...I feel like I am repeating myself since you do not seem to understand." ----> I feel like I am repeating myself BECAUSE I EXPLAINED THAT THIS ARGUMENT WAS MEANT FOR THE INITIAL DEFINITION/PROPERTIES OF GOD. I never stated this was directed towards the Christian God (though it's equally valid). "I am arguing for the existence the a Christian God. The definitions are just some of the properties of God. If you don't disprove the Christian God you cannot disprove its properties." ----> First of all, why did you make a dichotomy between "God" and a "Christian God"? It just makes it confusing. Secondly, it's absurd to say that if you can't disprove the properties of the Christian God if you cannot disprove its properties. Disproving it's properties IS A METHOD of disproving the Christian God! 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. It was meant to address the relationship between cause and effect; how the effect will turn out to be depending on the nature of the cause. Because hot dogs are long and slender, buns became suited/adapted to it's shape. In the same respect, because the physical constants are what they happen to be, humans because the effect/product. ==================== Refuting Bible verses pointing to the Christian God ==================== A. Shape of the Earth "He says that the earth is more of a sphere then it is circular, well here is one of the definitions of circle." ----> This was not my main refutation of the verse, so I can very well drop it or don't care about it. I mean't to say it's an ellipsoid, but does this even matter? We should focus on my main argument, not bicker about petty mistakes. 1. He responds to my inquiries concerning the meaning of the verse by asking "what do you think", but gives no response! What kind of rebuttal is that supposed to be - why should it matter whether I know the actual meaning, it's just the fact that there are many viable possible alternatives that matters. However, let's assume it does refer to a spherical earth. Big whoop, this fact was known since Aristotle's' time[2], in at least 300 B.C. 2. He says the verse is taken out of context, but he doesn't show WHY THAT IS SO. Isn't it convenient that earth has different meanings, and my verse was wrong but yours was correct? Yes, the prior verses say the tree was in the middle of the land, but that doesn't contort the definition of "earth". Why would they use two different words that mean the same thing? B. Earth hanging on space "Please explain to me how this verse is metaphorical lingo...what else can this verse possibly be talking about?" ----> Because first of all, space isn't just nothing and because what else can people back then have thought of? Hanging on nothing would seem to be evident, since they cant' conceive of anything else. C. Direction of water/wind "I am sorry to disappoint you but the ancients did not know how the rivers or the wind ran." ----> Ipse dixit. The verse uses complicated language, but all ti states is that the wind goes south then north over and over again. A very OBVIOUS observation that does not need scientific tools. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I am quite disappointed. Instead of refuting my argument, anthropic reasoning, my opponent has completely evaded it. My opponent will obviously disagree with this, but I'm sure the conclusion is different with the voters. I am interested in seeing what the response is. Thanks for the debate.