The Existence of God

<"You have no way of knowing whether the universe is a closed system or not."> +The universe is an isolated system. See: [1] and [2]. So, yes I do know. <"The idea that an infinite is impossible is simply an idea based on mathematical concepts, not a fact."> +I refute the possiblity of an infinity, yet my opponent counters that it is simply an idea. Right.. <"You can't make up a reason for a failed hypothesis to be true. What is the evidence that anything supernatural or non-physical exists?"> +That is what we're debating here. You can't get pissy just because God is not defined as existing physically. <"It's true that it was refuting the Watchmaker Argument against evolution, but it can also be applied to the Watchmaker argument against the universe.>" +We're not debating books here. We're debating each other. <"I was pointing out that man-made objects such as watches aren't valid examples, since the only explanation for their existence is a human creator. Life and the universe on the other hand, have explanations that don't involve a creator."> Exactly my point. The only expanation for the existence of watches are creators, because they are so complex. The only existence of humans are creators, because they are so complex. You just proved my point. Also, you didn't offer any alternative explanations <"Intelligent design is simply a synonym for Creationism in an attempt teach students biblical myths while avoiding the Separation of Church and State clause. Creationism is not science, as it is based off of mythology, not empirical evidence."> Ok, you gave your opinion on the etymology of intelligent design and you gave your opinion on creationism. This does not refute what I said though. <"I've already refuted your 'proof' that the universe necessitates a designer."> Lol, what? You've barely responded to any of my points, you've simply copied and pasted a few select sentences that are barely relevant. You have failed to counter much of anything. <"Why? Because 'intelligent design' is legitimate science?>" More stupid responses. <"You're making these contentions without having anything to back them up. As I said, jumping to conclusions does not make a good case for your argument."> It's been packed up with logic, reason, and my sources. You're not even attempting to refute. <"I was making a logical argument that there would be many planets discovered with life, and many mentions in religious texts of them if we had a fine-tuned universe. Obviously we are talking about any of the Gods of religions, as that was the definition I put in Round 1."> First off, why would there be more planets with life? Even if this were true, we have not the technology or capabilties to find out if there actually is life or not on any other planets. Also, your definition is not talking about Gods or religions. You gave countless definitions - I don't have to prove a specific God. I simply have to prove a deist God. <"Aside from the fact that your claim being tagged with a source does not necessarily make it superior, I was simply making a possible explanation. I wasn't claiming that was the actual reason. Besides, a probability argument holds no ground, as statistics don't govern the universe. An improbable occurrence does not mean that event even didn't happen."> More nonsense from my opponent. I write a thorough argument and explanation and my opponent makes a possible explanation approximately one sentence long not backed up by a source. Ridiculous. ============================================================================ Conclusion ============================================================================ My opponent has not even countered most of my arguments and contentions. If he has attempted to refute something, he simply cuts and pastes a couple sentences and then gives an irrelevant rebuttal. This debate has been incredibly dull and repetitive with my opponent refusing to debate anything of substance. Con hasn't even offered any contentions of his own yet. The resolution has been easily affirmed thus far. ============================================================================ Sources ============================================================================ [1] http://www.springerlink.com... [2] http://rationalwiki.com...