Does God Exist

. http://www.youtube.com...Unfortunately for my opponent, he appears to not have researched the "Kitzmiller vs. Dover" trial very well. Please feel free to watch the youtube video provided for your viewing pleasure. I believe it is the complete PBS NOVA special (award winning, no less) on this particular subject. Kitzmiller wasn't about creationism. It was about Intelligent Design. Unfortunately for ID proponents (who apparently conveniently seem to forget their own history), ID was shown beyond the shadow of any doubt to be nothing more than "creationism repackaged". In the words of judge John E. Jones III, who before the trial had been chosen by President Bush (another known creationist) for this job; a judge well-known for his conservative position and his right leanings, not to mentioned favored by the defendants in this case (i. e. the creationists): "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. " P31"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. " P43"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. " (page 64)His final statement in the conclusion of his ruling:"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. "Again, as I usually do state: DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. READ IT YOURSELF, DO YOUR HOMEWORK: . http://ncse.com...----------------------------As to your "problem" with understanding simple calculations, I will illustrate the issue for you as thus. What follows is the heart of your statement, quoted from above:"Gravity is also an extremely fragile piece of our universe. Mathematicians have calculated that if the force of gravity was altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent (I did not do that randomly, that's 38 digits after the decimal point), then our sun would not have been able to form, thus terminating the chance of our existence. "I am beginning to understand from the statements you made in this round that you appear to not be as versed in science and mathematics as I am. I have completed several courses in upper level mathematics (calculus, differential equations, etc) and physics (engineering level) at a college level many years ago. I suspect that this is not the case for my opponent. I do not fault him for not knowing, but for failing to question the right question when given this drivel in the first place. PRO, here is the problem:G, the universal gravitational constant, is known to only a few digits accuracy. In fact, the most accurate measurement I could find was 6.67384x10^-11 m^3/(kg x s^2). You are literally stating that even though the error in such a measurement is someone on the order of 10^-12, you and your "Intelligent Design Calculator" have managed to extrapolate that a difference of 10^-38 is enough to unravel the universe! This is the equivalent of someone saying that car parts won't fit together correctly if they are misaligned by a thickness of less than 1/1,000,000,000,000th of the width of an atom? !There are literally 26 decimal points between what you report to be infallible mathematics, and what is the very best known measurement. An atom has a width of approx. 0.1 nm, which is 10^-9 m. Notice how G is also measured in meters? I did. You're still off by an order of 10^26 places, or even more than my example. Is it starting to sink in just how ridiculous your math is? It's like someone coming up the NIST standards commitee and declaring that all maps are off by thousands of miles because the standard meter, kept in France for almost one hundred years behind protected glass is off by a trillionths of a nanometer. And then when an idiot like myself comes along and asks the obvious question: "HOW DID YOU FIGURE THAT OUT", you, PRO, only reply with a meek "I dunno but you dunno either". Unfortunately, PRO:I DO KNOW. I do know that the math is crap. I know that it's made up simply to make people like you believe in Intelligent Design and other pseudo-science. And all I had to do to prove it is look up the known (since Newton, for pete's sake) value of "G" and compare it to your assertion of "38" digits. Total nonsense. I hope you and your crazy ID mathematician never get near my tax preparation software. I would owe the US government $100,000,000 Trillion by your calculation! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lastly, look up any 5th grade definition of science. There is nothing about supernatural in science. At all. No superman, no ghosts, no magic forces. And yet, here is what you report: "1. There is no need for me to prove my designer wasn't designed. The debate is about the existence of the designer, that's all.2. The "alien" will have to be outside time, matter, space and energy in order to create all of it, and we call that "alien" God.3. Science doesn't exclude the supernatural, it only wishes to explain the natural. Therefore, my God doesn't have to be of the natural world. If he was, it wouldn't make sense that he created the natural world. "Or in other words: In your worldview science is all about supernatural hokus pokus because you need that in order for your god magic to work. Unfortunately, you did the same thing Kirk Cameron did years ago: Promised not to invoke anything except logic and science, and then at the first sign of trouble retreated into everything OTHER THAN SCIENCE. Science is about natural forces, physical things, things we can measure. Again - my 3 questions stand. Thus far, you have utterly failed to stand up to your own presuppositons about this debate. I am deeply disappointed and ashamed to have let myself be pulled into such an infantile debate using nothing more than "magic gods" and "magical math". Shame on PRO for not being honest upfront. Shame on PRO for not having the decency to check his own sources. Shame on PRO for not using "science and logic" as he promised.