The Fine-Tuning Argument Is Sound

Addressing Pro's Initial Claims "I have explained to you the cycles of nature." - Pro I never disagreed with the cycles of nature. This is a red herring. "I have explained to you the circle of life." - Pro I never disagreed that there is a circle of life. However, nothing about the circle of life implies that we were put here by an intelligence being. "I have explained the processes of the brain." - Pro The process of the brain has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. "I have explained intelligence." - Pro Everyone knows what intelligence is. Pro has to prove that intelligence fine-tuned the initial constants at the Big Bang that gave rise to life. "I have explained genetics." - Pro Why does genetics imply God? "I have explained artificial intelligence." - Pro We all know what artificial intelligence is. I already explained why the robot analogy falls flat on its face. "I have explained robotics." - Pro I have explained why your robot analogy is logical invalid in my last entry. "I have explained seed dispersal." - Pro Seed dispersal? What does this have to do with anything? Pro is just rambling. "I have explained the cycle of water." - Pro We all know about the cycle of water. The point is that none of this does anything to prove that an intelligent being fine-tuned the universe. "And I have explained how all of this affects ethics and thus morality." - Pro I have rebutted your claims. Also, none of the sources mentioned actually supports Pro's position. "I have referenced Christianity" Cool, Pro has referenced Christianity. What does this have to do with the fine-tuning argument specifically? Nothing. That is the problem "I have referenced Hinduism" - Pro This has nothing to do with fine-tuning. Pro has simply just listed random things and tries to conclude God based on a non-sequitur. None of the things Pro mentions implies an intelligent creator of the universe or humans in any way. The cycles in nature are due to nature itself; no God needed. Intelligence and the brain are here due to abiogenesis and evolution; no God needed. None of the things Pro mentioned require God in the slightest. Philosophy Pro speaks in an unjustified condescending tone when he says "let me explain to you philosophy". However, judging by his arguments, he is the last one to talk down to anybody in such a manor. He then rambles on about how God is the discipline by which he approaches philosophy. What does this have to do with anything? Pro has the burden of proof to show that the constants of nature were fine-tuned by an intelligent creator. Pro has done virtually nothing to even begin to attempt to establish this resolution at this point in his round. It seems Pro thinks he can win the debate off of countless red-herring's; that is not going to fly. Fine-Tuning Pro commits a straw-man argument by implying that I am arguing that randomness can produce the order we see. Just because there is not an intelligent designer, that doesn't mean everything is random. The patterns we see in nature, are due to nature and the laws within it. This is not completely random, but no intelligence is designed either. Snowflakes have patterns and look beautiful, but they are created not completely randomly but by chemical reactions in clouds. Once more, no intelligence needed. Just because something is not intelligently designed, that does not mean it is completely random either. That would be a false-dichotomy. Fine-Tuning Pro has not shown that life cannot spontaneously generate. If it did, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a completely random process in the first place. As some of the top scientists in the world point out: “Be it on Earth or some other world, life had to begin via processes known as abiogenesis Obviously, there must have been an evolutionary progression beginning with simple chemical compounds to proto-life, then to DNA-equipped life capable of replicating itself. As detailed in this text, those prebiological evolutionary steps may have taken place in submarine alkaline hydrothermal vents and required various chemical interactions and divisions involving amino acids, polyphosphate-peptide synergy, the creating of biosynthetic pathways and the emergence of sparse metabolic network, and the assembly of pre-genetic information by primordial cells, with some championing compartmentalizaton, others, vesicles, and all this leading to an RNA world in which viruses and retroviruses played an important part. The origin of life and evolution of prokaryotes was not a matter of chance, but deterministic, probable and necessary and that these bioenergetic principles are likely to apply throughout the universe …" - Michaell Russell (Editor), Nick Lane, Edward N. Trifonov, Pabulo H. Rampelotto, Stephen Freeland, John F. Allen, Eugenio Simoncini, Christof B. Mast , Andrew J. Pratt, Anne Volbeda So life springing up wouldn't be random, but deterministic. Pro claims he has provided sources to support his position, but he posted 0 sources that support his position. All the sources he posted in his last round were just random links to things that don't actually help my opponent out with the resolution. My opponent also claims he showed the relationship between God and man. Of course, he did not. I showed why all of his arguments failed. We are simply left with no reason from Pro as to why anybody should believe the universe is intelligently designed. Even if it isn't intelligently designed, that doesn't mean it has to be completely random either. This was the error in my opponent's reasoning that led him to his erroneous conclusion. Pro then commits the fallacy of begging the question when he states: "The instigator uses the very materials of God, God's own work to seek to disprove God." - Pro This assumes that the universe is materials of God; which is the resolution Pro has to establish in the first place. This circular reasoning is invalid. He then says that I want him to believe that the universe just "sprang up". There is nothing wrong with that assumption, and it is taken very seriously by scientists. Alexander Vilenkin's model describes a universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a sufficient cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It is plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without an initial cause, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress implied by the model, and no initial cause is needed: "As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin Again, no God needed. Pro then talks about purpose, but doesn't explain why it has to have purpose: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless” - Steven Weinberg Pro then says I must disprove God. That is a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof. Pro has the burden of proof. Conclusion Pro had no relevant sources, and just posted random thing. All of his arguments are logically invalid, and I refuted every one. Since Pro failed to meet the BoP; vote Con Sources [1] http://www.amazon.com... [2] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181) [3] http://www.goodreads.com... PS. Remember Pro, you cannot argue again in your next round as per the rules.