Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

The universe wasn't designed for life. The argument is that the universe was designed for life here and the fact that we exist is something that needs to be explained BECAUSE the universe is so inhospitable to life.Even earth was inhospitable to life, to begin with. The early earth's atmosphere would be very poisonous to us. The earth was not created as haven for life, it became that way over billions of years. Dinosaurs would have great difficulty living today because the atmosphere is so much different. Understanding this fact, we see that earth wasn't designed for life, but rather life adapted itself for survival on earth. The universe is so old and so massive, eventually the conditions necessary for life will coincide somewhere. Looking at the big picture, the universe is so incredibly vast, to believe the universe was created to support the existence of the earth is absolutely insane. The earth is like a single pore on a single grain of sand, in the ocean, and human life has only existed on that pore for such a miniscule amount of time, equivalent to the last 2 seconds on a clock.http://www.watchonepiecepoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Size-of-Space.jpg I don't buy the argument that "Life is rare, therefore it was created". It is a poor argument.Basic probability in this regards would put the emergence of life on naturalistic means at basically 0 if you accept the prior argument.The chance of getting a Royal Flush your first hand in a game of poker is pretty rare, the chance of getting it every hand in a single game of Poker is even rarer, but play poker every second of every day for 1 million years, 10 million years, 500 million years, 1 billion years, 14 billion years, and eventually it will happen. If you accept the that the Universe is of an infinite age, then that probability essentially becomes 100%A Multi-verse of the Gaps argument then eh?So you saying "God absolutely is the cause" ISN'T a God of the Gaps argument, but me saying a "Multiverse is plausible" IS a multiverse of the Gaps argument?I'm beginning to see the bias in your argument. ;)Science can't explain why the big bang would have a causeThis is awkward phrasing. Why would something have a cause? Because cause precedes effect as we generally understand it. Assuming there even is precedence, if the big bang is the beginning of time, nothing can precede it, not even cause, and on a Planck level of time and a quantum level of space, causality is regularly broken. Particles flicker in and out of existence. If we are to go by the Big Bounce theory, the collapse of a previous universe would cause the inflation of the next.Even if we were to accept that science has no explanation, "God did it" isn't itself not an explanation of HOW the universe came to be. It only provides a WHO, the HOW is still unanswered. Now we must explain both the WHO and the HOW, rather than just the HOW. You are multiplying entities needlessly.Once again this is not proof of anything.It is proof that molecules can self-organize to form the building blocks of life.Another, "It could have happened this way!"I'm sorry to disappoint but this is the majority of what science is anyway. Science avoids absolute certainty, rather it operates on probabilistic cause. No matter how plausible any scientific explanation of a past event is, until we can time travel we cannot be absolutely certain, this is by no measure a reason to resort to less developed less supported pseudo-scientific explanations. Which is what you are trying to convince us to do.BiochemistsThis made me laugh. I don't know what makes you think you are qualified to speak on behalf of all biochemists, but you are quite literally wrong.Many biochemists believe in naturalistic evolution, and in fact the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolution and common descent. The figure is actually quite staggering.See source below:http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm Ah the source of all knowledge, youtube.You say it's not possible; You ask me to explain the steps; I explain the steps; Then you criticize my source. Why am I not surprised?Do you have a refutation or not? Is there anything within the video that is incorrect? I'm inclined to think you prefer denial.You have a library near by, use it?No, don't Bullshit me. You didn't read this from a library, and you don't own the issue. Stop being dishonest. I asked for a source and your refused to give it to me. Unfortunately for you, I do not ask questions that I do not already know the answer to. I know where you got these quotes from. I know the website you found them on. You insist upon being dishonest and your argument will suffer for it.Here is where you got your quote mines from: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_16.html The source which you copied and pasted from, without giving credit to your source. There is a reason I asked for the website. Creationist websites are notorious for quote mining. This is why I needed to know where YOU got the quotes from, not where your source claims to have gotten them from. They use quotes out of context so it appears the quoted person is arguing against something, when in fact they are not. It is a lie by omission.If by well supported you mean virtually no evidence to suggest it could actually happenRight....no evidence.Except for this:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v216/n5110/abs/216029a0.html And this:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389556702000394 And this:http://www.springerlink.com/content/x0j7qr5232730604/ And This:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v331/n6157/abs/331612a0.html Like you said, no evidence.;)What was the evidence for Creationism again?