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

Thanks Pro. I. Preface To Pro's credit, I am very pleasantly surprised by the strength of her rebuttals, however this debate is now dangerously bordering on a battle of semantics, as I will show. Pro's case seems to centre around whether or not even given the evidence of universal fine tuning if an omnipotent and omniscient God is logically justified, or necessary given the facts. I don't intend to quite play by Pro's rules, as they largely seem to be besides the point. But nether the less I do intend to show that the God demonstrated by fine tuning does logically justify an omniscient and omnipotent one. II. The Justification for God Pro has so far dropped my points up to the first conclusion of 'the universe has a fine tuner'. So let's restate the argument: P1) The universe has a fine tuner P2) If the universe has a fine tuner then it is all-powerful and all knowing, and the creator C) The fine tuner is all-powerful, all-knowing, and the creator (God) IIA. Finely-'tuned': First I must get some semantics out of the way, since half of Pro's rebuttals hinge upon them. The the term 'fine-tuning' is used in apologetics and cosmology, it is in always used in reference to their current values. The dials are obviously set to the ones we can empirically measure today, but that doesn't at all mean they were ever originally anything but their current values. So to state something is 'finely-tuned' simply means that any small deviation in where these values are set from their *present* values would lead to fatal consequences for the universe. Moreover virtually all of the natural laws are scaled by using these fundamental constants as 'multipliers' to get a real-world value. One such example of a natural law is Newton's law of gravitation, which obeys the following formula: F = G m1m2/r2 This 'G' value, the Newtonian constant of gravitation, could have been set to anything, we don't know it's limits. But that doesn't mean it ever was set to anything when the infrastructure of the universe which allowed for this law to occur in the first place. It wouldn't have even been set to zero, it's just a non-existent value. Therefore, Pro's objection that tuning is an example of 'improving' an existing creation, or that God was 'not happy' with his original creation are completely off the mark, quite simply. There was never anything to improve in the first place, as the tune is a 'factory setting'. Moreover this was be empirically demonstrated to be the case, as we have ample evidence of the remarkable stability of these fundamental constants, we simply see no evidence of God 'changing his mind' throughout the creation or evolution of the universe.[2] III. Fine Tuning & Displays of Omnipotence & Omniscience: Now to refute Pro's other objections regarding the inability of God to show both omnipotence and omniscience at the time of creation. There is at least one way that these attributes can both be demonstrated (and thus fulfilling premise 3). First consider that the Big Bang, or time or creation is the point in physics where all of our natural laws break down.[1] That is these natural laws by which everything abides by, including the fundamental constants that were 'finely-tuned' were themselves brought into existence, and very arguably simultaneously, in the same event as the 'fine-tuning' of these cosmological constants. If I would draw an analogy, this example would be a demonstration that a harp was manufactured in one go, with it's strings already tuned and ready to play. With that piece of evidence in play, then it becomes very straightforward to draw the conclusion that whatever did the fine tuning of these cosmological constants also did the creation of the system by which these cosmological constants tune in the first place. I'm fact such a conclusion is heavily favoured by Occum's Razor in that it makes fewer assumptions. There simply is no evidence if any additional 'tuning' after the original conditions were set, as the universe has been remarkable uniform and stable. So, clearly we have a very sting demonstration of omnipotence, since God clearly changes and manipulates the rules by which the game plays, which is a level beyond which anything bound by the game is capable of doing. Indeed Pro conceded this much in the previous round. Pro's beef in this case is whether or not this can be a demonstration of omniscience, and her argument against such largely leans on her prior objection that fine tuning allegedly improves a sub-optimal system, which I have already refuted. In fact her general argument that a 'demonstration of omniscience necessitates the presence of limits' seems patently absurd, and has only seen pragmatic support, rather than logical inductive or deductive support by Pro, and went largely bald asserted. Via. The fine tuning argument one can go a very long way towards demonstrating that at the very least an immeasurably intelligent/knowledgable being was responsible, which when coupled with omnipotence gives a very strong case for accepting omnipotence is omnipotence and creation are already supported propositions. To refer back to my harp analogy, God both designed the harp, and tuned it before attempting to play anything on it, BUT God also knew exactly what song he wanted to play with this harp ahead of time. In order for the song to play properly, then virtually all of the notes that are played in the song must be near-perfectly in pitch in order to deliver the desirable result. Therefore God needs to know exactly how to tune the harp, how to design the harp, and very accurately what the song will sound like after a large number of notes have already been played ahead of time in order to be successful. This is very much relevant to our universe, because as I have already argued, any slight variation in either the fundamental constants the universe is tuned to. Or the laws themselves (such as us living in a four-dimensional instead of three dimensional universe) would over time lead to larger and larger deviation in the conditions that allow for life. Imagine that you are aiming for a very small, very precise target over a mile away with your sniper rifle, you will find that in order to have a chance of hitting this target the bullet that is fired must stay very true to the ideal course, or follow this path very precisely in order to have any chance of hitting it's target. Lawrence Krauss famously talks about a similar situation in the expansion of the universe, where the universe is almost perfectly flat, or actually IS perfectly flat.[3] Any tiny deviation from the almost perfect flatness would have been greatest exaggerated over time, and the universe would experience increasingly exaggerated effects of the sub-perfect curved universe. How this ties back to omniscience is that the being that created the universe needed to know exactly what the consequences were for setting the dials of creation to their currently set values before attempting to do so lest he create a sterile universe. Virtually every minor matter collision, star birth, planetary accretion and chemical event would need to be foreseen in order to choose a situation suited for life. This easily required an unimaginably intelligent being, and makes for a strong case of an omniscient one. Here, even if one accepts Pro's bald assertion that demonstrations of omniscience requires the presence of limits is circumvented by the display of omniscience being a part of the creation OF those limits. It is actually quite amusing that Pro firstly incorrectly uses the slippery slope fallacy, and secondly also provides another excellent analogy to demonstrate this case even further. Let's say for example in 1 billion years I want the message "Murder" to be read out to whatever civilisation exists at that time. The only way this message is presentable though is by copying the previous message, which is copied from the message before, which is copied from the message before, etc. What you will quickly find is that ANY tiny imperfection in the replication of the message "Murder" in each replication cycle would eventually lead to the degradation of the message and hence loss of the information that is to be conveyed. Similarly with the universe and life, any small deviation from the current optimal conditions would yield fatal consequences, and thus knowledge of the target, and foresight of billions of years of cosmic evolution is required to be successful. IV. Conclusion: I have amply demonstrated the resolution to be 1. Unsound and 2. False. Pro needs to bring significantly stronger justification for her argument against omniscience than she has already to demonstrate her case. She simply has not done so, despite her heroic attempts to demonstrate as much. V. References: 1. http://www.hawking.org.uk... 2. http://www.iflscience.com... 3. "A Universe from Nothing" - Lawrence Krauss