The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1C

I thank my opponent for his excellent response and I agree that I have to show that the existence of God is likely. My opponent states that showing that something is possible holds little water regarding the validity of its existence, or the probability of it being so. I agree and now will start with the debate. 1. Fine-Tuning of the Universe A. Anthropic Principle Of course if there were a slightly different universe, then we wouldn't exist. My opponent thinks that Earth is not a special planet, but a typical planet. This claim would be supported if it has any evidence that other intelligent life has existed on other planets. This leads to the Fermi paradox which I will explain later. B. Statistical Argument Did my opponent checked the source that I listed? (1) Because if he did, he would came to the conclusion that the probability is roughly estimated. My opponent is indeed correct that you will need to account most if not all the factors that come into play. However, if my opponent wishes for the probability to be even higher, I would gladly add more factors to do so. But the low probability already states that random chance would be almost impossible to create a habitable zone where Earth is. It should be noted that I did not state the probability for abiogeneis or cosmological evolution. I only stated the probability of a galaxy of having a habitable zone similar to Earth. Almost anybody can understand that if the Earth was too far away, it would be too cold and if the Earth was too close to the sun, it would be too hot for life to exist. My opponent misunderstands the probability and states that there is no evidence. However if my opponent actually looks at the source, he would understand that Earth cannot be too large or too small. C. Multiverse Theory This theory has several flaws: 1. There is no empirical correlation and testability for this theories, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable.(2) ("Simply stating something is possible does little to show the validity of it's existence, or the probability of it being so.") 2. Postulating an infinity of unseen and undetectable universes just to explain the one we do see violates the Occam's Razor. (2) 3. If the bio-friendliness of the natural world were the result of randomness, we might expect the observed universe to be minimally rather than optimally bio-friendly. (3) 4. It is really philosophical wishful thinking for atheists to try to discard the need of an intelligent Creator. (4) 5. Our part of the multiverse has managed to make itself completely inaccessible to contraction and future expansion.(4) 6. If it were possible for one part of the multiverse to become thermodynamically dead, it would be expected to be possible for others. (4) 7. It makes absolutely no sense that the universe is eternal with the characteristics that we observe. (4) 8. Infinite universes will lead to infinite regress and infinite qualities do not occur in reality. 9. What caused the creation of the multiverse? 10. Without an observer, the universe has no purpose in existence. 11. If a theory allows anything to be possible, it explains nothing; a theory of anything is not the same as a theory of everything. If there is only one universe you have to have a fine-tuner. If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse. D. Alien design My opponent has suggested that aliens might have created the universe. This already leads to infinite regress because who created the aliens in their universe? Another alien species? Who created them? Who created their creator? The Simulation hypothesis has been proposed to state that our universe in fact is a simulation - which is more likely of God's. For example, if life was a simulation of an alien species, who created the aliens? What if the aliens live in a simulation also, who created that simulation? Either way aliens could not create us because it would lead to infinite regress. >>Time on Earth<<< My opponent has misunderstood this argument. Earth formed 4.54 billion years ago and if comets, meteorites, or asteroids had collided with the Earth, they could stop evolution by killing all life and made the Earth unsuitable for life. Venus is very similar to Earth and is believed to contain water at one point. Venus has lost all the oceans on its surface due to rampant greenhouse production. Then something changed on Venus 600 or 700 million years ago to make the surface all the same age. So after Venus lost its water, tectonics shut down and the surface of the planet was resurfaced by lava one last time. Therefore, Earth was the "lucky one" while Venus had lost the capacity of supporting life. 4.54 billion years ago is a very long time and whatever had changed Venus to its current state could have turned the Earth in the same way too. (5) >>>The Fermi Paradox<<< A. Civilizations don't have to arise The paradox wasn't addressing life but specifically technologically advanced life. Evolution, particularly macroevolution, is very slow and for the planet to be successful of supporting life, none of the 66 factors could be altered in millions of years. The Fermi paradox states that the extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggests that if the Earth is typical, intelligent extraterrestrial life should be common. B. Doomsday Argument and we don't have technological power/haven't searched long enough For species self-destruction to provide a good answer to Fermi's Question, it would have to be very nearly universal, meaning that the probability has to be near 1. However, if they even destroyed themselves, archaeological evidence of past civilizations may be detected through deep space observations. Perhaps we haven't searched long enough or don't have enough technological power. However, "simply stating something is possible does little to show the validity of it's existence, or the probability of it being so." In short, there is no evidence to suggest that intelligent life has arose on other planets other than Earth. >>>First Cause Argument<<< My opponents states that virtual particles are un-caused. This is a ignorant fallacy simply because we don't know what causes them does not mean necessarily that they don't have a cause. Even if the virtual particles are un-caused, they're not considered as possible causes of the universe. A singularity is not a virtual particle, is it? For the singularity to become a virtual particle would cause them to lose their distinction to pop in and out of existence. Can you cite a source stating that laws such as cause and effect won't be the same in other universes? >>>Final Argument<<< An entity of 95% power instead of 100% would fail to create the universe because he doesn't have omnipotence - the ability to do anything non-contradictory according to logic. The entity could mess up badly if he didn't have the power to create all things. If God and an entity coexisted, the entity would be powerless against God, but he can affect what God created. For example, that entity could lead humans into temptation and causing them to destroy each other. However, he would be unable to directly destroy any creations of God. "In fact, there are an INFINITE amount of anonymous entities that can create the universe according to my opponent's argument." Why don't you list some examples? Sources: 1. http://www.666soon.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.smh.com.au... 4. http://www.godandscience.org... 5. http://www.astrobio.net...