The Existence of God is More Probable than Not

b) There is no such broad agreement among my physicist friends. For PRO and Paul Davies to make such claim, one should have at least do some poll among physicists.” a) No because I gave some evidence that Cosmologists and Physicists have shown and proven. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I was just simply using that to show that my opponent is disagreeing with the undisputed opinion held by majority based upon the evidence. I wasn’t using majority alone to prove something true. My opponent needs to show why the Universe isn’t fine-tuned despite the overwhelming evidence that has been proven beyond a doubt by leading Cosmologists. b) That’s not true. You won’t find many cosmologists that dispute the evidence. So far only a small minority of cosmologists actually dispute it such as: Victor Stenger and Fred Adams.[1] [2] “This is a false dichotomy (fallacy). [2] PRO claims that, either the existence of life in the universe is a coincidence, or there is a reason for the existence of life (and that reason is "God"). Well, it could be that it is not a coincidence (outcome of a random experiment) and there may simply be no reason. We like to have reasons for everything, but there is no guarantee that there always is a reason.” No it’s not a false-dichotmoy because I gave more than 2 options to choose from. What we’re looking for is the best-explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe. So far, the only options we have are 1) Physical Necessity (Theory of Everything) 2) Chance 3) Design. I’ve already proven why 1 and 2 are false in my opening argument. I don’t merely assume anything. Remember I gave good reasons for thinking why 3 is the best-explanation for the fine-tuning in my opening argument. “How many free parameters are there? 26? more than 26? Physicists don't seem to have a definite answer. The number of parameters seems to be ever increasing. On the other hand, IF a unified theory is found, then the physical constants of the standard model will be explained from the unified theory, and so they wouldn't be free anymore.” 25 at least are shown right now, according to the standard model of particle physics. I don’t really see how this defeats my argument. This is somewhat of a “red-herring”. The point is that 25 parameters exist, which is one of the lines of evidence I used to show that the Universe is finely-tuned. My opponent needs to show why Physical Necessity or the (TOE) can explain the fine-tuning, but so far he hasn’t. “I am not arguing from ignorance. I am not saying that the universe is not fine-tuned, because there is no proof that the nature's constants are independent. I am just saying that there is no proof that the universe is fine-tuned, because there is no proof that the nature's constants are independent. The universe may or may not be fine-tuned. I am not convinced that it is.” Yes there is proof that the universe is fine-tuned. I gave two arguments in round 3 of my rebuttal that showed how the Universe is fine-tuned. 1) The 25 parameters and 2) Martin Rees 6 constants that are necessary for the Universe to exist. To say otherwise is without Justification. “Regarding the multiverses, I did not understand what PRO meant with "simple" universe.” If you remember in your rebuttal, you said: “First of all, if we change the value of the constant, we may get a different universe that does not support life as we know it. However, it might still support life in a very different way. Organic chemistry may not be the only way to support life. But let us assume, again for the sake of the argument, that only one possible value of the constant supports life because we are life. One also may argue that all those other parallel universes are not real, only our universe is real. But what is real? It means that it can be observed by us. But if is observed by us, then it must support us, and therefore, that universe must support life. The conclusion is, that every universe that is real, must support life.” I responded to this by saying “simple” because you and Dawkins think that values and constants don’t make a big deal because different material or life would have formed in these other universes that are part of the multi-verse. I am simply saying that each universe in the ensemble is not simple but is characterized by a multiplicity of independent constants and quantities. So even if a multi-universe did exist, we still would want to know why is it so finely-tuned for life to exist in every universe. That’s the question we want to know. Why is the Universe so finely-tuned? Conclusion: My opponent hasn’t really shown why Physical Necessity or Fine-Tuning would be the “best” explanation of our Universe or in other words, my opponent has really shown how Physical Necessity or chance is more probable than God. I on the other hand think that we have very good reasons and evidence for thinking that God is the best explanation and or the most probable explanation than Naturalism. I gave Scientific facts and evidence to back up my statements, as well as show why the other two options are false and un-reasonable. The purpose of probability is to show what is more likely to be true. Scientific evidence points in the direction of an Intelligent Mind beyond our Universe(God) and not Naturalism/Atheism. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I wish him the best: D Remember to vote fairly. Sources: [1] Barnes (2011). "The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life". arXiv:1112.4647 [physics.hist-ph [2] Adams, F.C. (2008). "Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2008 (8): 010. arXiv:0807.3697. Bibcode:2008JCAP...08..010A. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010.