The Instigator
DiablosChaosBroker
Pro (for)
Losing
115 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
133 Points

The existence of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+13
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 18,780 times Debate No: 6129
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (329)
Votes (42)

 

DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

I affirm that God exists.

"The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today."(1)

The Earth...its size is perfect. The size of the Earth and its corresponding gravity holds an atmosphere of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending to about 50 miles of Earth's surface. "It is at a perfect distance from the Sun; not too hot, not too cold."(2) It has the perfect gravity without the difficulty of heavy gravity and low gravity where humans cannot exist without advanced sophisticated technology. Therefore, the Earth is made specifically for life. "Earth is the only planet in our solar system capable of supporting life. It is the only planet that we can survive on with ease. Earth is perfect for us. It should be, for we came from it." (1)

If we were to accept the fact the Earth supports life, now we have to explain how the Earth was created.

"The universe, our galaxy, our Solar System and the Earth-Moon double planet system demonstrate some remarkable evidence of intelligent design. The probability of it is so small as to be impossible - by random chance. The alternative explanation, design by an intelligent Creator is a more realistic explanation. Either way, one must admit that we are a product of a miracle - either a miracle of chance or a miracle of design."(3)

"When scientists analyze the possibility of life on other planets, they use a series of parameters to determine if a planet can sustain life."(4)
Earth has a large number of traits that explains why it is so unique and is the only planet known to support life:
*Unique location in our galaxy - co-rotation radius
Unique stabilization of the inner solar system
Unusually circular orbit of the earth
Axial tilt and eccentricity of orbit
The presence of an "impossibly" large moon
Unusually thin atmosphere
Slowing rotation makes advanced life possible
Van-Allen radiation shield is unique to Earth
Unique continental crust and tectonic activity
All other earth-sized planets will be either completely deserts or water
Reduction of greenhouse gases with increasing solar luminosity
The need for Jupiter-sized planets at 5 AU from its star(3)

Now according to (3) the uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for life support is calculated to be: Total Probability = 1:(10 to the power of 99)

Could blind luck or randomness create Earth that was perfectly designed for advanced life? Could any logical explanation could explain why "not only is our planet perfectly designed to develop technology capable of advancing society, those resources are conveniently placed within our reach."(4)

If you tried to create a duplicate of the Earth, but shrink its size, some amazing things would happen. A smaller planet would generate a weaker magnetic field and therefore could not protect us from the sun's solar wind
—"which could blow away our atmosphere and with it the ability to sustain life."(4)
If you enlarge the size of the Earth, completely different problems occur. The planet would have a greater magnetic and gravitational field which would disrupt the fine balance of the atmosphere, resulting in an atmosphere "thick" with carbon dioxide and methane. Therefore, the atmosphere would increase in size and make Earth resemble the gaseous giants Jupiter or Saturn.(4)

"The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance." (1)
Natural causes cannot explain for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. Could an electrical blast of lightening or any other natural cause like an explosion in a puddle cause "purposeless" living cells that would then automatically achieve "genetic programming of uniqueness" and instincts, behavior, growth, immune system, healing of injuries, feelings, digestion...? Would you expect life in a vacuum, (such as before the Big Bang) in an empty expanse where it has no cause and no plan. Would you expect it there? No probability at all?
Wouldn't it be more logical for God to make Earth as exactly as he plans it without any mistakes?

If all life came into existence as the result of the Big Bang — where did that Big Bang come from? Could it just happened or could God cause it?

Here are some observations from (5):
# Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
# Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
# Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
# the universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?

'Another source of conviction in the existence of God ... follows from the ... impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity for looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.' — Charles Darwin (6)

How did the Big Bang take place? If nothing was in existence, not even space and time, at the time of the Big Bang, then, what had triggered it off? Just insisting that it happened on its own is not acceptable. Then why not accept that God did it. Secondly, the Big Bang theory assumes that all energy was already in existence. From where did it come?

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. "A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form."(7)

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, why is that any more understandable than a God having no beginning and no end? (8)

We'll all familiar with Albert Einstein equation: e=mc^2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared)
However, he was really trying to solve or "m" so his original equation was m=e/c2 (mass equals energy divided by the speed of light squared).

"With the first equation we learn how to get energy out of mass which has led, for example, to the fission of atoms and getting energy (the atomic bomb and nuclear energy). But in the second equation we learn how mass is created by energy and that, for example, the energy generated by the blastoff of the space shuttle adds mass the weight of a flea to the shuttle."(9)

Since it takes a tremendous amount of energy to create mass, the energy that would be large enough, powerful enough and pervasive enough to create the universe would be God. Everything that exists in the universe is made up of energy. "Since God is energy, and we know that everything that exists is made from energy, and keeping in mind that energy cannot be created or destroyed, we see that God took from the pool of existing energy, which was HIM, and created everything there is." (10)

Sources:
1. http://www.everystudent.com...
2. http://library.thinkquest.org...
3. http://www.666soon.com...
4. http://www.realtruth.org...
5. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...
6. http://www.apocatastasis.net...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://www.answerbag.com...
9. http://www.brendanmcphillips.com...
10. http://www.unhinderedliving.com...
Puck

Con

"The Earth...its size is perfect..."

Let's start with "perfect distance" and uniqueness. Habitable zones are not stable. They are dependent on what life stage their sun is currently in. Stars go through three stages that could foster life. Our Sun is currently in a period, called the "main sequence", and the Earth lies within this stage's habitable zone.

When our star begins to burn its hydrogen in a shell around a growing helium core, it brightens and expands and becomes a sub-giant. The inner edge of this zone remains habitable for several billion years while the outer extreme, where Saturn currently orbits, is habitable for a few hundred million years. The star then fluctuates in brightness for about 20 million years as it switches to burning helium almost exclusively, before becoming a red giant and swelling to 10 times the diameter of the Sun. For around a billion years afterwards, the habitable zone around the red giant extends from 7 to 22 AU, the outer edge of which lies beyond the orbit of Uranus.

The time where these conditions change is large - long enough for life to form (compared to Earth - an estimated 700 million years).

http://www.newscientist.com...

"Therefore, the Earth is made specifically for life..."

Our solar system: Venus was once capable of possible life before rampant greenhouse production. Mars has clearly been shown to have water formed canyons, waterfalls, rivers. Saturn's moon, Enceladus, Jupiter's moons, Ganymede and Callisto have shown to have water and organic compounds. Comets are known to contain ice and organic compounds that were necessary for life to begin on earth.

http://www.astrobio.net...
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
http://www.newscientist.com...

Uniqueness - also improbable. There are close to 10^11 to 10^12 stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps 10^11 or 10^12 galaxies. Meaning there are roughly 10^22 to 10^24 stars in the Universe. 25 percent of Sun-like stars have planets. This means there are at least 100 billion stars with planets in our Galaxy. With about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, suggesting that there are at least 10 trillion planetary systems are in the Universe.

http://arxiv.org...

Earth: Clearly also not made for life - 99% of all known species are now extinct. Indeed, before our distant ancestors fled Africa - they too almost reached extinction, having a population of an estimated 2000 members.

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org...
http://elanso.com...

"If we were to accept the fact the Earth supports life.."

Abiogenesis: The pre-biotic environment was largely composed of basic fatty acids; under a range of pH they form vesicles which are permeable to small organic compounds. A vesicle encountering any free fatty acids will incorporate these (growth is driven by thermodynamics). Vesicles divide through mechanical processes - the pre-biotic environment and had basic nucleotides some which spontaneously polymerise. Monomers will base pair with a single stranded template and self ligate. These too can polymerise to form new templates or expand existing ones. A polymer due to surrounding ions will increase ionic pressure, stretching the vesicle membrane, again through simple thermodynamics. An encountered vesicle with fewer polymers and can be absorbed. Any vesicle that contains a polymer which would self replicate faster, will grow and divide faster, and become dominant. Any mutation that advanced rate of polymer replication would be selected for i.e. mutation plus natural selection accounts for increased information.

"The universe, our galaxy.."

The universe is largely driven by forces that are not random. Assigning probabilities on that assumption are worthless. Additionally - he conditional probability of the universe being as it is, given the existence of observers to notice it, is one.

The lists of supportive conditions are irrelevant in supporting a designer - all fall under the false presumption that human life is a goal and additionally assume uniqueness in a largely unexplored Universe. Of note however..

"Unusually circular orbit of the earth"
Orbit is elliptical.

"Axial tilt and eccentricity of orbit"
It's circular and eccentric?

"The presence of an "impossibly" large moon"
Its presence would indicate its lack of impossibility. :D

"Slowing rotation makes advanced life possible"
Which indicates nothing of a designer - or life for that matter.

"All other earth-sized planets will be either completely deserts or water"
Lol. Try again. Mars, Venus - and that's just in our solar system.

"The need for Jupiter-sized planets at 5 AU from its star"
Also not unique. :D. Current modelling estimates arrive at a rate of 25-50% of extra-solar planetary systems will have a habitable zone capable of supporting an earth like planet. Jupiter sized planets are also the only ones we are able to spot at distance due to their effect on gravity..

"Now according.."

See above for probabilities. Your error is that human life is the benchmark. Evolution is not that certain were we to rewind and start from an earlier point again that humans would again arise.

"Could blind luck or randomness create Earth.."

Neither. Luck is irrelevant - the universe does not run on randomness. Size of Earth rubbish is basic anthropomorphic error - that human life is a goal. The universe doesn't care if there is life or not.

"The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance."

Natural yes, random no.

"Could an electrical blast of lightening .."

Someone's seen too much Ben Stein. Read above for basic Abiogenesis. I can add more in further rounds.

"Would you expect life.."

Big Bang formed from a singularity - not a vacuum.

"Wouldn't it be more logical.."

No mistakes? Read above for how close we came to not actually existing as a species. Arguments from ignorance are also not logical and neither is faith.

"Advances in molecular biology have revealed .."

Genetic information certainly doesn't require a designer. Read Abiogenesis section.

"the universe is ordered by natural laws.."

What would an unordered universe look like? False assumptions being that the universe 1. Can exist without naturally forming order - which contradicts your randomness assertions - and that a universe with different degrees of control would be wholly unacceptable to both the universe and life existing.

"Another source of conviction.."

Fallacy - Appeal to Authority. Quote mining. *tsks*

"How did the Big Bang take place?"

Fallacy - Argument from ignorance. A singularity is a quantum state; quantum theories are where you should be looking.

"If energy cannot be created or destroyed.."

Contradicts both your required first cause clause and the fact that you assert the universe has a beginning - which includes time and space. A being outside both those dimensions by definition cannot interact within the set universe. The fact *you* can't understand the Laws of Thermodynamics doesn't make your personal assertions any more valid. :D

"We'll all familiar with Albert Einstein.."

A singularity is of near infinite mass.
Debate Round No. 1
DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking this debate, and I wish him the best of luck.

"Let's start with "perfect distance" and uniqueness."

There is a conflict with the concept of habitable zones. It assumes that all alien life if existing has exactly the same requirements as terrestrial life. Even assuming this, other circumstances may result in suitable planets outside the "habitable zone" For example, "Jupiter's moon Europa is thought to have a subsurface ocean with an environment similar to the deep oceans of Earth." The existence of extremophiles on Earth makes life on Europa even more likely, despite the fact that Europa is not in the presumed circumstellar habitable zone within a solar system. "A discovery of any form of life in such an environment would expose these hypothetical restrictions as too conservative." Basically, the forms of life we have researched and known is life on Earth, not anywhere else. (1)

So why am I attempting to refute this? Because aliens don't have to exist under the conditions of humans if they exist. However, since we can't confirm their existence, we would have to explain why we didn't yet. Obviously my opponent attempts to refute the probabilities I stated by saying:

"With about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, suggesting that there are at least 10 trillion planetary systems are in the Universe."

Because aliens are not confirmed yet to exist, the Fermi paradox apparently contradicts "between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations." Given the extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars, it suggests that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common. If advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy and in the universe why evidence such as spacecraft, radio transmissions or probes are not seen or detected.
The following explanations are:
*No other civilizations currently exist.
*No other civilizations have arisen.
*Human beings were created alone.

"See above for probabilities. Your error is that human life is the benchmark. Evolution is not that certain were we to rewind and start from an earlier point again that humans would again arise."

The statement "Total Probability = 1 :( 10 to the power of 99)" may be roughly calculated, but it poses a solution to why extraterrestrial life is not common or at least easily detected: the chance that civilizations have been created on another planet other than Earth is so low, it seems almost impossible that Earth could have existed. "Even if Earth was the result of "winning the cosmic lottery" against inconceivable odds, after decades of intense research scientists have made no progress on their quest to explain how the first living organisms came into existence." (3) I will explain this later.

Earth was formed specifically for life. But why not other planets? I have shown you that if you ever tried to create a duplicate of the Earth, but change almost everything about it, then it could not support life. Venus and Mars cannot support life because it is either too far or too close to the Sun and will affect temperature. Similar with the size of the
Earth, if you change the size, you will change the power of the magnetic field and gravitational field. (3)

"Saturn's moons, Enceladus, Jupiter's moons, Ganymede and Callisto have shown to have water and organic compounds."

You have started your argument with the concept of habitable zone yet you have stated that the moons of Saturn and Jupiter have been shown to have organic compounds. Why couldn't have Earth been outside of a habitable zone? If the moons of Saturn and Jupiter contain life, why aren't they intelligent enough to create spacecraft and probes so that we can confirm their existence? If those moons contain life, then what would be exactly the concept of a habitable zone? If the moons contain life and there wasn't a concept of a habitable zone, it would seem that life can only thrive on organic matter. If that was true, then explain why we can't detect radio transmission from aliens in our Milky Way galaxy even thousands of miles away?

"Earth: Clearly also not made for life - 99% of all known species are now extinct."

Yet we still have life, unlike Mars and Venus.

"The most famous origin of life experiment was completed in 1953 by Stanley Miller at the University of Chicago. The Miller/Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with methane, ammonia, hydrogen gases (representing what they thought composed the early atmosphere) and water vapor (to simulate the ocean)."
Due to character space, the experiment could be found at (5).

Although the press widely spread the news that "proving" the origin of life could have occurred on Earth under natural conditions without intelligence, the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. There are numerous reasons why creating life in a test tube with organic and inorganic matter turned out far more difficult than Miller or anyone else expected are numerous which lessens the chance that natural processes can create life by itself without intelligence. Although amino acids are the building blocks of life, the key to life is information. That is why by itself a bunch of bricks alone don't make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Without intelligence, natural processes alone cannot write a book.

Explain how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into protein. Presumed conditions of primordial Earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation without intelligence. Imagine that scientists had all the ingredients that would link up into a protein. Those ingredients would be left at a puddle and then the scientist would wait for natural causes that would supposedly form proteins. No one is allowed to touch the ingredients since Earth had no intelligence before life was created. In fact, "If the process starts down deep at discrete vents, they say, it can build amino acids--and link them up--right there."

"Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis." (6)

"Fallacy - Appeal to Authority. Quote mining."
Quote mining? Didn't Charles Darwin lead to the creation of the theory of evolution? "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism." (7) Charles Darwin said exactly my points: blind chance or necessity. I'm simply arguing for what he quoted, not because there was anything positive about Darwin.

"Fallacy - Argument from ignorance"

I'm trying to prove God's existence, not that God existed only because it has not been proven false.

"A being outside both those dimensions by definition cannot interact within the set universe."

God made all concepts including and space because he is omnipotence. Because he is energy or acts like energy, he cannot be created or destroyed. The universe had a beginning - the Big Bang.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.windmillministries.org...
4. http://www.realtruth.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.christiananswers.net...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Puck

Con

"There is a conflict with the concept of habitable zones. It assumes that all alien life if existing has exactly the same requirements as terrestrial life..."

No - it only makes assumptions about life as we know it - that's the difference. Asserting probabilities on the formation of life based on principles we know life is not based on is pointless.

"So why am I attempting to refute this? Because aliens don't have to exist under the conditions of humans if they exist. However, since we can't confirm their existence, we would have to explain why we didn't yet."

Asserting, even if based on nothing, that life can evolve from other known forms that what we know - only further indicates that Earth is not unique.

"Because aliens are not confirmed yet to exist, the Fermi paradox apparently contradicts ..."

Several false and unfounded assumptions about the nature of other life here. Firstly that it must be advanced. Secondly that it details its existence within our (human) observable time. Thirdly that travel, contact would ever be a goal. Fourthly that advanced equates to travel and contact. Lastly that such travel and contact is possible or even directed to us.

"Given the extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars, it suggests that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common. If advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy and in the universe why evidence such as spacecraft, radio transmissions or probes are not seen or detected."

False assumption being that the conditions that arose for life here are common at all. It may well be that the conditions for life here were highly improbable - which is discrete from habitable zones. Or that it is not. Either assertion however details nothing about the existence of a god, or design. To reiterate - the universe has no need for life to be present - no goal for it to be so. And again, false assumptions that life must be advanced, again must occur within our observable time, must create analogous technology to ours. That such technology would be directed for us to observe.

"*No other civilizations currently exist.
*No other civilizations have arisen.
*[therefore] Human beings were created alone."

See above for the errors in your premises. Also not created. :P You have yet to fulfil that burden.

"Earth was formed specifically for life. But why not other planets? I have shown you that if you ever tried to create a duplicate of the Earth, but change almost everything about it, then it could not support life. Venus and Mars cannot support life because it is either too far or too close to the Sun and will affect temperature."

Your continuous error is you assume the goal of the universes structure is life developing on this planet. Life here may simply be an aberration, it may not. You have yet to prove the necessity of a god that requires it to act contrary to natural laws for the formation of life here to be - both as a species and as the Universe as a whole. Note also that Venus may once of had life - now extinct, Mars too. Mars also just manages to inch out of the habitable zone, but will enjoy it when our sun begins to die. Additionally you continuously use human life as the benchmark - there is no such dictate that we are the pinnacle of evolution. We evolved (somewhat poorly) to fit the requirements imposed on by us by our location, not the reverse. Again - rewind evolution and start earlier the chances we would be here again are infinitesimally small. Note again your continuous arguments from ignorance. Lack of evidence does not presuppose something else with additional lack of evidence.

"You have started your argument with the concept of habitable zone yet you have stated that the moons of Saturn and Jupiter have been shown to have organic compounds. Why couldn't have Earth been outside of a habitable zone? If the moons of Saturn and Jupiter contain life, why aren't they intelligent enough to create spacecraft and probes so that we can confirm their existence? If those moons contain life, then what would be exactly the concept of a habitable zone? If the moons contain life and there wasn't a concept of a habitable zone, it would seem that life can only thrive on organic matter. If that was true, then explain why we can't detect radio transmission from aliens in our Milky Way galaxy even thousands of miles away?"

Life may not be in those locations - it also may and be basic single cellular organisms. Or there may have been life which is now extinct. It may encourage life as the sun expands. Life does not equal advanced life, it does not equal largely successful life. In case you haven't realised - when the sun expands, Earth will be very much not part of the habitable zone. :D

"Yet we still have life, unlike Mars and Venus."

You appear to be unaware of the nature of time. :D

"Although the press widely spread the news that "proving" the origin of life could have occurred ..."

Miller-Urey experiments may be the most noted - they are however not the most recent, or advanced. It is analogous to concluding helicopters are not possible based on Da Vinci's sketches.

"Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis."

This is the problem with relying on creationist websites for scientific information.
Yes there is evidence of pre biotic environments Yes we have experiments detailing a range of *spontaneous* formations of vesicles under a range of pH conditions. Evidence of basic amino acids arriving to earth etc.

http://www.iop.org...
http://findarticles.com...

"Quote mining?"

Fun creationist tactic of using individuals' quotations out of context to support an argument. The fallacy is using the person's identity as an indicator of the veridicality of its statement - which you appeared to do.

"I'm trying to prove God's existence, not that God existed only because it has not been proven false."

The fallacy was you claiming lack of evidence and understanding was an indicator for the presence of a god.

"God made all concepts including and space because he is omnipotence."

Firstly simply asserting something doesn't make it true. Your burden to prove remember? Secondly it still doesn't resolve the issue of a being outside of space interacting within it. If god is within space then it is bound within that dimesnions rules - i.e. if you want god to be an active force it cannot be a creator. Thirdly omnipotence is self contradictory. Contradictions do not exist in reality. An all powerful being can perform an act that is greater than itself to accomplish > contradiction therefore non-existent. Finally you still haven't resolved a being outside of time. Any action is an action over time. A being outside of time is static - and our friend Einstein has shown that time starts from the beggining of the Universe.

"Because he is energy or acts like energy, he cannot be created or destroyed. The universe had a beginning - the Big Bang"

You still contradict yourself by the earlier assertion of first causes. What evidence do you have of a god of energy? If I burn coal I have initiated a system of energy - are you saying my lump of burning coal is god like?
Debate Round No. 2
DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

"No - it only makes assumptions about life as we know it - that's the difference. Asserting probabilities on the formation of life based on principles we know life is not based on is pointless."

The Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support roughly calculates the chance that of a planet that could provide life support and provides us a list of explanations in detail of the factors that could affect whether that planet could sustain life or not based on life on Earth. That would mean that chance and coincidence powers atheism, although I know from experience that no atheist would claim that. However, the fact that no living life has ever been observed on Venus on Mars which proves that factors affect whether a planet could sustain life or not based on life on Earth and that without God, chance would have to be considered. (1)

"Asserting, even if based on nothing, that life can evolve from other known forms that what we know - only further indicates that Earth is not unique."

There could be hundreds possibly thousands of conditions that are "needed for the rich abundance of plant, animal and human life on earth, which have not been found elsewhere in the known universe." I have already told you which ones (1) and those factors explain why Venus and Mars did not turn out to become Earth.

Remember a time where you had to do a book report in school, but procrastinated? It takes intelligence to create a book report, not natural causes. I cannot leave all the ingredients of a chocolate cake in a bowl and hope that natural causes would bake it. I cannot depend on natural causes to do my work and tests at school. Similarly, natural causes cannot create intelligence without intelligence itself. Construction of a house requires the blueprint of the map. Then all the materials must be gathered. There is also more things to consider: the house design, the location of the house, the size, the type of materials need, where all the rooms are, etc. How could natural causes know all this information?
The construction of life is more complex than a house. Why could natural causes create life, but could not create anything simpler such as a house, computer, paper, or even cooked food?

"See above for the errors in your premises."

I'm changing the argument to:
*There might have been current or extinct life on all planets of the Solar System.
*No other intelligent life currently exist that is observable or detected by humans.
*Humans beings have intelligence.
*Human beings could not detect other intelligent civilizations because of:
1. Intelligent civilizations did not want to discover if they were not alone.
2. Intelligent civilizations lived way too far for radio transmissions to be effective.
3. Intelligent civilizations other than life on Earth did not exist.
*Therefore, it is more likely possible that humans beings are the only civilizations known granted with intelligence.

"You have yet to prove the necessity of a god that requires it to act contrary to natural laws for the formation of life here to be - both as a species and as the Universe as a whole."

When a scientific study of the universe has been conducted, it suggests a conclusion that "the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician" indicating intelligence. In our galaxy, we know that countless details of Earth have been created and especially adjusted for a particular purpose. Of all the innumerable factors influencing the balances in the universe, a change in the position of Earth is enough to bring chaos. The slightest variation in the distance between the Earth and the moon could give rise to significant imbalances. But these balances are never upset. Since natural causes contain no intelligence, how could you explain that those causes could lead to a universe that allows life on Earth. I'm sure that without intelligence, you can't build a house, especially without instructions. Natural causes cannot create books, houses, cars, robots, or any product of the human's intelligence alone without intelligence. (2)

On Earth, there are "fingerprints of an engineer who left markers—clues—careful design." You claim the universe has doesn't care whether life exist or not — that there is no goal for humans and life to be created. I disagree. There are treasures waiting for millions of years to be uncovered such as the ancient global positioning found in rocks containing magnetic elements, such as iron. These rocks can be used to pinpoint the location where they hardened and by measuring its magnetic field, scientists can determine its exact original location. Scientist had collected specimens from around the world and came to the conclusion that continents currently drift at a rate of about one centimeter per year. Then after hundreds of measurements are taken, a road map of how our planet transformed begins to appear. Then scientist have came to a conclusion that Pangaea had existed. To develop a time line of the world, they have used many kinds of geological "layering." But why would this information even exist? How could natural causes form clues about the history of the world? If the universe didn't care about whether life existed, then why did humans have access to those clues and eventually form theories about the history of the Earth? Information could only be created by intelligent as proven when without intelligence, products of human's intelligence could not be created. (3)

"Life may not be in those locations - it also may and be basic single cellular organisms."

This may be true, but cellular organism on other planets may not be granted with intelligence. See my revised argument above.

"Miller-Urey experiments may be the most noted - they are however not the most recent, or advanced."

However, they became a basis for many experiments and inspired others.

"Yes there is evidence of pre biotic environments Yes we have experiments detailing a range of *spontaneous* formations of vesicles under a range of pH conditions. Evidence of basic amino acids arriving to earth etc."

Yet you still think that it isn't possible that God used intelligence to conduct any similar related to the Miller-Urey experiments since it still takes intelligence to conduct any experiment in the first place?

"Fun creationist tactic of using individuals' quotations out of context to support an argument."

It is not who the person is but what he said that makes my point.

"Omnipotence is self contradictory."

I understand the paradox and what you mean by it, but this may be a false dilemma. How? Okay, let's make a game similar to the Sims, but much more advanced, so advanced that the people in the game actually represent people in real life. They live like a human in reality by free will. As a game designer, I have total control over every element of my game. One day, I observed a guy who didn't believe in a creator. So this guy says,"if the intelligent cause exist, then he can either make a rock that he cannot lift, then he won't be omnipotence. If he could, he still would still not be omnipotence since he doesn't have that ability." This guy thinks that I cannot exist, but if I'm not omnipotence, then would I still exist? After hearing that, would I just vanish? No, the paradox is a false dilemma, because it is God who designs the video game of reality, therefore, creating his own laws for humans to obey. Even if I can't make a square circle in the game, I would still exist. Therefore, God is like a game designer that doesn't have to follow his own rules that he made in this video game reality. (4)

"What evidence do you have of a god of energy?"

To be tackled in later rounds.

Sources:
1. http://www.666soon.com...
2. http://www.harunyahya.com...
3. http://www.realtruth.org...
4. http://www.relevantmagazine.com...
Puck

Con

"The Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life.."

Here is your major hurdle. As detailed already the Universe doesn't care about life forming. It's presence here doesn't pose a problem to those of a non godly persuasion- it's presence or lack of elsewhere doesn't either - all that is needed are the right conditions for it to begin here. Once. The "uniqueness" you continue to assert is also false - 20 light years out Gliese 581 d, the third planet of the red dwarf star Gliese 581 - our nearest habitable zone. Life does not have to evolve the same elsewhere - it would not evolve the same here again - uniqueness probabilities are based off the erroneous end point of human life under the assertion that the planet was made for our survival. No. We evolved by necessity to survive the conditions of this planet and even then we so very nearly failed. Near extinction is grand design?

http://arxiv.org...

"That would mean that chance and coincidence powers atheism.."

Atheism is discrete from evolution or abiogenesis. It details only the presence and/or belief of god(s). Additionally it is a complete non sequitur to state, because we have not found evidence of life in our measurably short time of being able to, that god therefore exists. And again, chance does not rule the universe, nor randomness - only creationists appear to claim that one. If science postulates utter randomness as you so erroneously continue to assert - then all your probability arguments fail as they need measurable constructs (no matter how improperly used in this case) to formulate percentages.

"There could be hundreds possibly thousands of conditions that are "needed for the rich abundance of plant, animal and human life on earth.."

And you continue to ignore factors associated with time. That they may have before conditions made that impossible, just like later in time, conditions will be more suitable elsewhere in our solar system, just like in time Earth too will be dead of life. That one is a certainty too. If the sun doesn't start dying first and kill life, then the Andromeda Galaxy will. It's set to rip the Milky Way Galaxy apart in a few billion years.

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org...

"Remember a time where you had to do a book report in school, but procrastinated? It takes intelligence to create a book report.."

Fallacy - False analogy. We know human products are designed - we also know the universe does not need a designer - i.e. it is natural. You have yet to detail at all a god necessary to supersede natural laws for events that have happened.

"The construction of life is more complex than a house. Why could natural causes create life, but could not create anything simpler such as a house, computer, paper, or even cooked food?.."

Animals don't shelter in caves, nest in trees etc? :D Forest fires don't burn animals? A computer is made of inorganic components -why on earth would you expect evolution to come up with a comparable variant? Oh wait- we have brains. :D

"[1]There might have been current or extinct life on all planets of the Solar System.
[2]No other intelligent life currently exist that is observable or detected by humans.
[3]Humans beings have intelligence.
[4]Human beings could not detect other intelligent civilizations because of:
1. Intelligent civilizations did not want to discover if they were not alone.
2. Intelligent civilizations lived way too far for radio transmissions to be effective.
3. Intelligent civilizations other than life on Earth did not exist.
[5]Therefore, it is more likely possible that humans beings are the only civilizations known granted with intelligence."

Premise 4.1 is unfounded as is 4.3 - past tense is also your issue. Nothing about our current life assumes life must have preceded us elsewhere, or will not arise when we are dead. 4.2 Also doesn't address previous rounds statements about analogous technology or why radio signals are a universal benchmark for intelligence. Premise 1 is also arguably false. Gaseous planets like Saturn and Jupiter would not reasonably support life as we know, nor those planets in the current extremes of coldness like Neptune and Uranus. Conclusion (5) is again a non sequitur. Granting intelligence is not in any of your premises, nor is it possible to infer it. Evolving it is very different to having it granted. :D Its presence also doesn't make a case for your god either. You appear to be getting sidetracked. :D Your burden to prove a god, remember?

"When a scientific study of the universe has been conducted, it suggests a conclusion that "the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician..""

Never mind your source is horribly biased and is an appeal to authority... the quotes in question belong to a 1930 book. Hardly current or relevant. Also note the ambiguous term "appears". :D Again - what would an unstructured universe look like? :D

"On Earth, there are "fingerprints of an engineer who left markers clues-careful-design." You claim the universe has doesn't care whether life exist or not.."

The universe put things there to help us out? I'm afraid not. They are the remnants of the processes that occurred naturally with no foresight. They would exist without us knowing or not, as they did for the billions of years until we were able to start knowing. Assuming some sort of sentient Earth to let us in on its secrets for our benefit is frankly laughable and conceited. If the Universe wished for us to know then skipping the 'blaming natural events on god' part would have been more useful one would think. :D

"This may be true, but cellular organism on other planets may not be granted with intelligence."

Life also does not equal intelligence - our planet is evidence of that - it is simply a process that occurred over time through evolution.

"However, they became a basis for many experiments and inspired others."

Which is also irrelevant to what is done now and which I detailed from.

"Yet you still think that it isn't possible that God used intelligence to conduct any similar related to the Miller-Urey experiments since it still takes intelligence to conduct any experiment in the first place?"

Since god doesn't exist it using intelligence is moot. The universe is also not an experiment.

"It is not who the person is but what he said that makes my point."

You made no point. :D

"I understand the paradox and what you mean by it, but this may be a false dilemma. How? Okay, let's make a game similar to the Sims, but much more advanced.."

Your source is amusingly irrelevant to your statement. Firstly as a game designer you are not equitable to being omnipotent - it is discrete from having variable control over simulations - the simulations are still bound by the coding environment - you by the coding used. Secondly it does not refute in the least that the reality in which you live, it is not possible to contain any one contradiction. The Law of non Contradiction is not a "rule" only humans our bound to, it's a statement about reality itself - your omnipotent god cannot exist. Your god can't make the rules of the universe then say I don't like this game and I don't want to play by these rules anymore. :D Also please be making a case for your god sometime soon - you are running out of rounds. :D
Debate Round No. 3
DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

"As detailed already the Universe doesn't care about life forming."

If the Universe didn't care about life, then why would it have natural laws or the Big Bang in the first place? The Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life already list all the factors for a habitable planet capable of supporting life based on Earth. You said that all that is needed are the right conditions for it to begin there. Won't that indicate chance and randomness? For example, why should we have a moon at all? If the moon had never collided with the Earth, there would be no ejection of the majority of the earth's primordial atmosphere. Then the atmosphere would be similar to that of Venus, which has the runaway greenhouse effect, leaving a dry planet with a surface temperature of 800�F. Therefore, there would be no life at all on Earth if that happened. That was just one factor of hundreds of factors why the Earth is unique. The probability for the "right conditions" to occur has been roughly calculated to be 1:10^99 which indicates chance. Since the probability is so low, it explains the Fermi paradox. There is an extremely low chance for the "right conditions" to occur and therefore explains the lack of evidence for, or contact with, intelligent, advanced civilizations. (1)

"And again, chance does not rule the universe, or randomness - only creationists appear to claim that one."

There are possibly endless conditions why Earth has life and other planets that we observed don't. How can you explain how the natural causes made the Earth so unique? I already told you that changing the size of the Earth will already affect whether life will develop or not. Natural causes has no intelligent and could not determine how to create the Earth. How natural causes could form Earth with these exact factors without intelligence:
*magnetic field
*oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
*thickness of crust
*distance from parent star
*mass of body colliding with primordial earth
*oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
*volcanic activity (1)

That was just 7 factors that I stated. With just 7 factors, I have explained why Mars or Venus doesn't currently have intelligent advanced life, but Earth does. Indeed, I have never known that without knowing all the factors of why Earth is unique, scientist would have suggested the possibility that Gliese 581 may have suitable conditions for life.

"And you continue to ignore factors associated with time."

How? If Gliese 581 could support life, then why doesn't life over there intelligent enough to be in contact with humans? Why don't we send radio transmissions to that planet and see if there is intelligent life there? I don't see fossils indicating intelligent life on Mars or Venus. Earth is unique because it is the only planet that we observe that currently has intelligent life - Mars and Venus surely don't. Maybe there was previous life on Mars or Venus, but they didn't survive, further indicating that Earth is unique.

"We know human products are designed..."

Extremely clever, I daresay. Natural causes cannot create intelligence, could it? "The scientific process was invented by and depends on intelligence. Testable, un-contradicted evidence, in diverse areas of life, confirms that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent." (2) Without intelligence, why are rules formed and obeyed? "Random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied limitations/laws." I have already proved that the chance was needed for ALL conditions (possibly endless) that made Earth unique without intelligence. I have already proved that you need intelligence to make a computer, book, house, cars, or even rubber bands, didn't I. You even need more intelligence to create life out of organic materials that no one currently has ever done. Did scientist have ever created cells without intelligence? Of course not! Yet you think natural processes are more "intelligent" when it comes to create life from organic material.

Thank you for detecting the flaws of my argument. I'll revise it to:

[1]. Based on life on Earth, there are no current intelligent, advanced life civilizations other than on Earth itself.
[2]. Human beings cannot detect other intelligent civilizations because 3 different scenarios:
[1]. Intelligent civilizations don't or want to discover or can't if they were not alone.
2. Current technology is not advanced enough to detect any other intelligent civilizations.
3. Intelligent civilization other than Earth doesn't exist.
[3] Therefore, the Fermi paradox is best explained either by blind chance or God due to hundreds (possibly endless) conditions that indicates a chance to form a habitable planet where life on Earth can be emulated.

"Never mind your source is horribly biased and is an appeal to authority... the quotes in question belong to a 1930 book."

So if I quoted, "1 + 1 = 2." from Adolf Hitler, the statement is an appeal to authority and therefore is a logical fallacy?
"There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the statement made by an authority is true." (3)

What would an unstructured universe look like: a universe with no laws, rules, logic, or mathematics and therefore, breaking the law of no contradiction.

"Assuming some sort of sentient Earth to let us in on its secrets for our benefit is frankly laughable and conceited."

To power society, the location of the resources which Venus and Mars happen to lack is required. Fire is primarily derived from trees and the ability to heat homes provided the ability to study and research rather than just pure survival. Before we had exhausted this resource, research efforts led to our next power source, coal. Before petroleum could run out, scientists are finding ways for new resources: wind power, solar power, etc. If you were to change even small aspects of our planet's environment, sustainable power sources may not even exist. Mars and Venus surely don't have them. Since early times, "it has been proven time and again that the minerals and materials we need are in locations that make them relatively easy to extract." That is exactly why our current society exists and Mars and Venus don't. (4)

As a game designer, I have all control of every element of that game. Wouldn't that alone make me omnipotent in that game? I could create almost anything in that game and it would exist in that game. God can make the rules of the universe and still break them, because He won't be bound by these laws that He created. Law of non Contradiction applies to God? Ever heard a glitch or hack such as infinite life or resources? Those can exist and the game still would exist. "If God created this video game he is not trapped by these laws (needing creation)" and therefore God is the First Cause for the universe. God can use energy to create the universe because that energy existed before the Big Bang "in a singularity as you claimed it." If God made the universe, he can do whatever he wants. You know that there are rules in a game and reality. But God doesn't need to follow his own rules he created for the universe. Neither do I if I created the game. I can make the game whatever I want it to be and I would still exist, whether that person believes in a Creator or not. How do I not have complete control? If I could make anything "logically possible" in that game, would you consider me omnipotent or another adjective describing unlimited power to do anything in this game? Anyway, He doesn't have to follow any laws of non-contradiction, because He made them and those rules don't apply to him. (5)

Source:
1. http://www.666soon.com...
2. http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.realtruth.org...
5. http://www.slayerment.com...
Puck

Con

"If the Universe didn't care about life, then why would it have natural laws or the Big Bang in the first place?"

Life is not a needed goal for these things to have occurred. That life is possible within these conditions says nothing except - life is possible to occur naturally. Not design. Not purpose. Not fine tuning. The universe is not sentient, it has no emotions. It is not caring whether you die.

"The Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life.."

How is that randomness? The universe doesn't run on chance, chemistry doesn't occur through chance, physics doesn't (apart from a minority of quantum effects) operate through randomness.

"For example, why should we have a moon at all?"

The moon is the result of a collision not the cause of one.

"Then the atmosphere would be similar to that of Venus.."

Which proves absolutely nothing of a god or design. There have been at least 3 major impacts on this planet - and at least one major extinction causing impact.

"That was just one factor of hundreds of factors.."

As already noted on false assumptions of human endpoint. If endless then how can you derive probabilities?

"Since the probability is so low, it explains the Fermi paradox."

Not at all. Please be reading the prior rounds why Fermi is not a paradox. :D

"There is an extremely low chance.."

Right conditions for life here is not equitable for those conditions necessary to occur elsewhere. :D Microbes exist in nuclear reactors, there are microbes that love acid. Entire ecosystems have been discovered around deep sea vents where sunlight never reaches and the emerging vent-water is hot enough to melt lead. The conditions are not tuned to us. Life by necessity must fit to the prevailing conditions.

"There are possibly endless conditions why Earth.."

You do not have access to the Universe. Claiming uniqueness is a bit hasty. Again - life elsewhere being possible or not possible poses absolutely null issue. The conditions only needed to be available once.

"I already told you that changing the size.."

Again - that life is here matters little given that we are. Were it not so - then that would also be perfectly reasonable given the nature of the universe.

"That was just 7 factors that I stated.."

Life like on earth and not intelligent at that. :D Nothing of those conditions presupposes an evolutionary journey towards intelligence that we exhibit.

"Indeed, I have never known that without.."

Contradiction -if it's unique it can't occur elsewhere. That we may seek it elsewhere based on a set of parameters indicates that uniqueness is less than that.

"How? If Gliese 581 could support life.."

TIME. That states nothing about whether life currently occurs there, did occur there and may occur there after we are gone. Life does not equal intelligence. Search for life does not necessitate search for intelligent life. Again the basis on assuming life even if intelligent would/could make contact is flawed especially given the nature of time, age of the universe and our position within that as observing beings. It says absolutely nothing on the presence of a god. You have failed to indicate at all where a god is necessary for life to occur.

"Why don't we send radio transmissions.."

We can't land missions to Venus with any reasonable length of time - Mars is hardly well explored. Even if life was not there, it still only states life was not here. That is all.

Earth is unique because.."

Fallacy - Composition. What we observe is not by necessity represent of the whole Universe.

"Mars and Venus surely don't.."

TIME. Earth was not always endowed with life it will most certainly not retain it.

"Natural causes cannot create intelligence, could it?"

False analogy - nature is not designed it evolves. There is a difference.

"Without intelligence, why are rules formed and obeyed?"

What rules? What is obeying? What pattern?

"I have already proved that the chance.."

You have proven nothing. The universe doesn't run on chance. Planets don't just form by chance. Atmospheres don't just appear by chance, comets don't just smash into planets and create oceans by chance. There are rules that determine how/if these things occur. God is not needed.

" have already proved that you need intelligence.."

We also haven't had millions of years and a planet sized laboratory
.
"Did scientist have ever created cells.."

I have never stated the process is guided by intelligence. It does not require it. It does not hold a capacity for it.

"Based on life on Earth.."

Premise 1 is unfounded - you do not have access to the entire set which is the Universe. 2.1 Is unfounded - it just details WHY it might not occur, not that it is a certainty. 2.2 Also false - depends on what is required to be received to note a presence. Also contradicts your claims of 3. 2.3 Appears to be a conclusion - your premises fail. Second conclusion 3 is a non sequitur - a paradox can't explain anything - otherwise it would not be a paradox. God is not in any of your premises. You have yet to detail still its necessity.

"So if I quoted, "1 + 1 = 2"

The error is using the author's status - in this case a physicist and mathematician as an indicator of the truth of a statement - this is distinct from the content. Your author made the fallacy, you make the same one.

"There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the statement made by an authority is true."
Read above.

"What would an unstructured universe.."

The point you fail to grasp is that such a Universe is impossible - given that there is one then states only that such things are necessary components for it to be. Asserting that it must be god, given X laws and form is devoid of meaning.

"To power society, the location of the resources which Venus and Mars happen to lack is required.."

Society is not proof of god. We use the resources we are able to obtain. Were they not there, or unable to be obtained, we would be less advanced or extinct. Our being alive is not any indicator of something going 'hmm they might need iron one day, best put that closer'. It is from processes that occurred naturally removed from our future presence.

"As a game designer.."

No. Your game is not reality. You are still constrained by your medium.

"I could create almost anything.."

Omnipotence is not "almost". :D

"God can make the rules of the universe and still break them.."

It details laws of reality. If you want your god to be self contradictory - then it does not occur in this reality. Simply stating 'oh but its god' does not even resolve the contradiction to start with.

"If God created this video game.."

Why does your god not need creation again? Is your god also in a simulator? :D Non sequitur to assert creation too. Yet to prove that at all. Simply saying 'god done it' is meaningless.

"God can use energy.."
Not in those quotes though. O.o Again - your god is currently outside of both time and space, contradictions and not possible. Your god is unable to act.

"If God made the universe, he can do whatever he wants."

No. You are yet to show that he is either present or necessary - and he is still bound by reality.

"You know that there are rules.."

Please be reading above for how your simulation analogy fails.

"How do I not have complete control?"

You are not omnipotent. You cannot make you simulation act in contradiction to the coding used to create the simulation. You additionally cannot make them live, exist outside the simulation etc. Also your simulation is contained within the bounds of your programming tool. Where's this higher universal 'computer' located for here? You also have no basis for asserting a second set of non reality rules - please be laying down some evidence soon. :D

"Anyway, He doesn't have to follow.."

Amusingly petty response and also false. Read above.
Debate Round No. 4
DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

A challenging great debate this has turned out to be.

I will list all the points that my opponent did not refute:

1. My argument that the universe is fine tuned a valid one. My opponent just stated "life is not a needed goal for these things to have occurred." as fact without proof. On the other hand, I have proved that the universe is fine tuned by stating a "number of amazing "coincidences" seem to have happened, without which no life could ever have developed." (1) If the universe had not been fine tuned, then these coincidences may not have happened.

"It is typical of skeptics and pessimists that they will sometimes rather timidly use the word Purpose; but blush at the very mention of the word Person" - C.K.Chesterton (1)

Before my opponent says that this is a logical fallacy of appeal to authority, I would like to remind him that it is true that he has declared that there is no purpose that he has not proven, which I gave many examples that there is evidence:

*mass of body colliding with primordial earth
*oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
*volcanic activity

Even if the density of the universe one second after the Big Bang had differ even by the slightest chance, he universe would have collapsed after ten years. Is it chance or design?

"If endless then how can you derive probabilities?"

Then my opponent must concede that the chance may be even lower than 1 in 10^99, because in the future, we may even discover more possibilities why Earth has intelligent life, but others don't.

"Right conditions for life here is not equitable for those conditions necessary to occur elsewhere."

My opponent still conceded that intelligent life is not microbes. There is an extremely low chance that the conditions have been tune elsewhere to intelligent life based on Earth. If that statement was false, explain why Venus and Mars don't have intelligent life, but Earth does. No intelligent life could ever adapt to Mars or Venus without advanced technology, otherwise we would have already saw them by now.

"You do not have access to the Universe."

My opponent is amazing indeed! With keen precision he is able to deduce, without ever meeting any of them, that intelligent life may not have to adapt to conditions that are on Earth. Otherwise, the probability of 1 in 10^99 still kicks in. If my opponent is correct, explain why there is no current intelligent life on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or even Neptune.

"TIME."

My opponent has also contributed time as another factor here. I cannot believe it. Now we have to add time to the probability and perhaps make it even lower. What are the chances that the right conditions could occur "at the same time?" My opponent's contributed factor, which is time, already makes the Earth more unique than I could imagine possible. Time has separated Earth from all other planets in the habitable zone.

"What rules? What is obeying? What pattern?"

My opponent is extraordinary indeed! Right after those questions, he has stated:

"There are rules that determine how/if these things occur."

My opponent has refuted and contradicted himself.

"I have never stated the process is guided by intelligence. It does not require it."

I can't believe this either. My opponent had said that the Miller-Urey experiments were conducted recently and in the past with scientist with no intelligence. By that statement, a three-year old toddler has as much chance of creating cells as much as educated scientists! Scientists who want to conduct experiments to tend their hypothesis about the origin of life should quit because my opponent has stated: "It does not hold a capacity for it."

"Based on life on Earth..."

My opponent demonstrated his intelligence again. He states that because we don't have access to the entire set of the universe, we should quit studying about life on Earth, and start investigating endless number of theories without proof of any imaginative creatures they could think of.

"The error is using the author's status."

Once again, my opponent did not attempt whatsoever tried to refute the quote made by Charles Darwin, but tried to indicate the logical fallacy. If you can't refute it, concede the point made from the quote. If you still don't recognize my point supported by the quote, perhaps Google will help. :D

"The point you fail to grasp is that such a Universe is impossible."

What you fail to grasp is that rules are made to be broken as in these individuals:

*The Boy with Sonar Vision (Ben Underwood)
*King Tooth (Rathakrishnan Velu)
*The Magnetic Man (Liew Thow Lin)
*The Man who doesn't Sleep (Thai Ngoc)
*The Torture King (Tim Cridland)
*The Lion Whisperer (Kevin Richardson) (2)

Science cannot explain most of these things. If they could, please enlighten me.

"Were they not there, or unable to be obtained, we would be less advanced or extinct."

My opponent gave another reason why Earth is unique. He explains why intelligent life can't develop on any other planet in the solar system: the resources were actually there to help sustain society that might have been extinct long ago such as Venus or Mars. Is it again chance or design?

"Your game is not reality"

My opponent once again calculated the chance of every human in the future that could make this game with keen precision that he came to the conclusion that no game can and will emulate reality.

"It details laws of reality."

My opponent has failed to acknowledge who created the laws of reality. Intelligence was needed to create any law in reality or in any video game.

"Why does your god not need creation again?"

It is the exact same reason why energy doesn't need creation, but everything else in reality does. If God created this video game reality, he can create the law of creation and that still wouldn't apply to him.

"You are not omnipotent."

You are totally missing the point. If I'm not omnipotent, give me a better adjective. If I could create the universe, angels, demons, computers, clocks from out of nowhere, I would be omnipotent outside of my own simulation, won't I? When playing the game, I would be limited to the rules of logic, but can still break other laws or reality. I can create a character "Jesus" that overrides the laws of reality like a glitch or a hack in an ordinary game. My opponent still has to explain why contradictions cannot occur in reality if a hack or glitch can in a video game. (3)

"Your simulation is contained within the bounds of your programming tool."

God used a computer? Remember if God is omnipotent, he wouldn't need a programming tool, wouldn't he?

"Where's this higher universal 'computer' located for here?"

This is a hypothetical theory here. There are laws in reality like in a video game. I'm not proving that God made reality like a video game. However, I'm proving how God can be omnipotent and not need creation at the same time.

I believe I met the burden of proof by:
1. Proving that without intelligent design, that other option is chance.
2. Proving that chance is too low to explain why the Earth is unique and currently supports intelligent life.
3. Showing that my opponent has added two factors: time and resources within our reach to further explain the Earth is unique.
4. Proving that God is omnipotent and doesn't need creation by the video game analogy.

A hypothetical conversation:
Puck: "Astronomically speaking, man is insignificant,"
I reply, "Astronomically speaking, man is the astronomer "who can observe it, and can also worship the One who planned it all,"
I state: "Would there be any point in having a universe if humans were not here to observe it?" (1)

Thanks for the debate from a challenging atheist.

Sources:
1. http://www.christianity.co.nz...
2. http://www.oddee.com...
3. http://www.slayerment.com...
Puck

Con

"My argument that the universe is fine tuned a valid one.."

That it has occurred is self evidentiary.

"On the other hand, I have proved that the universe is fine tuned.."

No. You have proven absolutely nothing. If life did not exist on Earth, its formation could still have been identical, the Universe itself identical. Life or no life is not a goal. That requires a sentient Universe. That life has appeared only states one thing. That life can arise through natural processes. You have utterly failed to show that god was needed at any stage at all, from the start of the Universe, to present.

"Before my opponent says that this is a logical fallacy of appeal to authority.."

The quote is also irrelevant to any point you make. I do not have to prove non purpose. What would non purpose evidence be? :D All I need to do is show your god of design is irrelevant in opposition to the ways you state that it is. All there needs to be is naturalistic alternative.

"Even if the density of the universe.."

NEITHER. Physics.

"Then my opponent must concede that the chance.."

No. I have never agreed with the probability arguments you proposed at all as they are based on erroneous assumptions. You also seem to be stuck on "intelligent", again life does not equate to intelligent life.

"My opponent still conceded that intelligent life is not microbes.."

Conceeded? Lol. Have you not read anything about what I've typed prior? Life does not need to evolve in the exact conditions as here. Life does not need to evolve like it did here. Life does not *need* to evolve at all elsewhere. Life may or may not, we like to try and find. If it does then great, if not then that poses no problem either as we know why it occurred naturally. No intervention from the divine. No cosmic fine tuning. You have utterly failed to show why a god is needed.

"No intelligent life could ever adapt to Mars.."

Again, life does not equal intelligent life. We evolved our intelligence. You have ignored that and evolution in general consistently. Again they are not representative of our Universe. They are not representative of our solar system across time.

"With keen precision he is able to deduce.."

No. The basis is that all life does not evolve to the same environments. Please be reading more clearly. Again. Life may or may not evolve. Life does not equate to intelligence. Life may evolve later.

"My opponent has also contributed time as another factor here."

That is a facet of our sun, not the Earth. You appear to have missed the point however. It does not make us unique over time.

"My opponent has refuted and contradicted himself."

I was asking for clarification. You appear not to want to so fine. What I was referring to were the various forces electro-magnetic, gravity, and strong and weak nuclear forces, physics and chemistry are based in part from these. I do not need to assert a random universe at all.

"I can't believe this either"

Straw man. I stated that Miller Urey were basic experiments. That recent ones are more advanced. Evolution is not guided by foresight, neither was abiogenesis - there can be no intelligent guidance to it, apart from what we as humans and to a lesser extent other animals do with selective breeding.

"He states that because we don't have access to the entire set of the universe.."

Straw man. I have indicated nothing of the sort.

"Science [I] cannot explain most of these things. If they could, please enlighten me."

Science can. Sonar is well...sonar, he just needs to be very directive of his clicks. King Tooth breaks what rules now? Liew Thow Lin has high surface body friction not magnetism, Thai Ngoc refuses to be tested and stays in his village. Tim Cridland..lol..sideshow performer, laying on 1000 nails redistributes ones weight and pressure nicely, pain management is a bonus. Kevin breaks what rules exactly? I'd be impressed if he went to pet two males fighting for territory and family in the savannahs and walked away unscathed. Otherwise not so special.

"My opponent gave another reason why Earth is unique.."

Again life is not equal to intelligence. Again claiming uniqueness is erroneous. Again it is neither chance nor design. This case geological processes.

"My opponent once again calculated.."

Emulation is not reality.

"My opponent has failed to acknowledge"

You have utterly failed to show in any manner that natural laws needed to be and were created. That they needed to be usurped for life.

"It is the exact same reason why energy doesn't need creation, but everything else in reality does. If God created this video game reality, he can create the law of creation and that still wouldn't apply to him."

Conservation of energy deals with closed systems, you fail there - the only thing your god can do is change form. Energy also has a source - is in relation to other components - as a concept it is not free floating.

"You are totally missing the point. If I'm not omnipotent, give me a better adjective."

It's your argument, not mine. :D

"If I could create the universe.."

You are still constrained by your medium. You have still failed to show this second reality outside the simulation where the programmer resides. Simulations are based on prior known parameters, that's what makes it a simulation. You are still not omnipotent.

"When playing the game.."

Which is based on the original coding - you still have not broken the rules of the imposed code at all, your Jesus can still not act outside of that code. It can only act in the parameters of the simulation still.

"My opponent still has to explain why contradictions cannot occur in reality if a hack or glitch can in a video game."
Read above.

"God used a computer? Remember if God is omnipotent, he wouldn't need a programming tool, wouldn't he?"

Your analogy not mine. You have still haven't adequately resolved omnipotence. Still haven't shown how the programmer is actually omnipotent on his own merits, removed from any simulation, to not need a programming tool.

"Proving that without intelligent design, that other option is chance."

Please be reading prior rounds where the Universe does not run on chance or randomness.

"Proving that chance is too low to explain why the Earth is unique and currently supports intelligent life."

Uniqueness is only a problem for the theist so they feel special. Life elsewhere or not matters not at all when you understand the processes involved.

"Showing that my opponent has.."

Eh. Read above. You added resources. Then stated Earth did it as a favour for you - a sentient Earth? Please. You still fail to realise that time makes the chances of life here less unique. That in time life here will be gone. That one is a certainty.

"Proving that God is omnipotent and doesn't need creation by the video game analogy."

Fail there. Yet to show even why your god is needed at all, let alone resolve omnipotence. Or the contradiction.

"Would there be any point in having a universe if humans were not here to observe it?"

Well that is somewhat conceited. The Universe is here for me? No.

Pro has failed to show why a god is necessary, why a god would have poor designing ability to let us become near extinct. He has ignored evolution as a factor of intelligence and evolution as a whole. He has not resolved god's inexistence both as a contradiction and as a being that operates outside of time and space. His god of energy fails as an explanation, he dropped his attempted syllogisms, has failed to prove why uniqueness requires a god even if given we are unique. He refused to address that Earth is not some cosmic safe haven designed for us. The simulation analogy additionally fails utterly.
Debate Round No. 5
329 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Um, just because some astronomer theorizes that life is possible on some spec of light in the sky is hardly evidence.
Posted by quantummechanics97 5 years ago
quantummechanics97
"Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say that the chances for life on this planet are 100 percent. I have almost no doubt about it," Steven Vogt, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at University of California Santa Cruz, told Discovery News.

She was talking about a recently discovered planet similar to ours. Seriously. Go to Google and look up "are there any other planets that could support life. i got this quote from the first website I clicked on. I originally got it from watching a tv show on an educational channel.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Your source that says they have discovered "100's of planets" with life on them or could supprot life. And also the source that shows how they proved this. In order for life anything like life on earth there must be a "magic formula" for it to happen. If any single parameter is missing life can not suvive. The most you are going to come up with is oh the found one the same diameter somewhere similar in distance to a sun twice the size as our sun. No they have not discovered any planets that would or could support life. But you can go ahead and show me this what should be absolute front page news source.
Posted by quantummechanics97 5 years ago
quantummechanics97
Well it must have been quite a long time then cuz they've discovered hundreds like ours that could support life, and there are a ton yet to be discovered
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Um last I checked the scientific community has discovered no such planets that will supprt human life let alone a cockroach
Posted by quantummechanics97 5 years ago
quantummechanics97
K i dunno if this was mentioned cuz there's no fricken way i'm going to read this whole debate. anywhoozle earth is not the only planet that was "finetuned" for us. tons of others have been discovered and we've only discovered a few. there are still a ton more
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
Interesting and wholly enjoyable. :)
Posted by imotz12 6 years ago
imotz12
What's life without faith?
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
Or a Barack Obama debate.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
"this Debate is full of ****, we all know the religious people have already decided that GOD exists before even reading PUCK's side" Kinda like a global warming debate?
42 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Amethist17 5 years ago
Amethist17
DiablosChaosBrokerPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
DiablosChaosBrokerPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
DiablosChaosBrokerPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
DiablosChaosBrokerPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by beastboy838 6 years ago
beastboy838
DiablosChaosBrokerPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by skepthinker 6 years ago
skepthinker
DiablosChaosBrokerPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Voltar143 6 years ago
Voltar143
DiablosChaosBrokerPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
DiablosChaosBrokerPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by imotz12 6 years ago
imotz12
DiablosChaosBrokerPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Floid 7 years ago
Floid
DiablosChaosBrokerPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05