The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

Doesn't the "fine tuning" argument also argue for a god who is beholden to those very limits? As I understand it, the argument goes that certain universal constants are tuned precisely as they must in order for the universe to support life. But that implies that god had no other option than to set those constants in exactly those positions

How does it imply that? If I engineered a new car wouldn't I have free reign on how to do things?

That is correct, a 'fine-tuned' universe is the only kind of universe in which a supernatural explanation is NOT required to explain our existence.

According to atheists there isn't any phenonmena or event that requires a Creator.

I didn't ask for an example of something that can't be mathematically predicted, I asked for something that can't be mathematically described. Predictability wasn't part of your claim, the capacity to be described mathematically was.

Actually I used the word explicable in mathematical terms. I don't think there is any mathematical algorithm that would make the random noise mathematically explicable. I suppose in some sense it could be mathematically described.

I appreciate you trying to provide an example, but the fact that you had to resort to predictability instead of the criteria you outlined illustrates my point that your criteria apply to absolutely anything. The only reason I can think of to bar the laws of physics is to support your argument. Think about that: if you have to imagine the laws of physics not applying in order to bolster your argument, that's where you'll go. You know that the laws of physics are exactly what makes life possible, right?

Absolutely. The point is anyone can decide for themselves whether a universe that appears compelled to behave in a certain manner that allows life and sentient life to exist is best explained because it was designed to do so or whether some other method apart from a designer better explains it. In spite of my detractors I would argue that apart from a designer, planner or engineer, we'd have to chalk it up to fortuitous happenstance. It surprises me how vehemently opposed the opposition is to the notion we owe our existence to most outrageous stroke of luck imaginable, yet at the same time deny it was intentionally and deliberately done which would nullify the stroke of luck. I guess they don't like the notion were the result of happenstance and luck any more than by design and engineering.

Care to support the notion that something can only produce something like itself? This is what is sad about theistic indoctrination. Smart people can't see their own nose if it's inconvenient to their argument.

I mentioned early on that the persausiveness of these arguments is predicated on peoples life experiences and thier own sensibilites which you agreed is the case. I didn't make a categoric statement that like only produces like. I didn't state it as a law. In our everyday observations it holds true and I could cite innumerble examples in which it is true. If I am mistaken, then in a rare example lifeless matter turned into life. That is what MUST have happened if atheism is true. Atheism (IMHO) doesn't start from the observation that sentient beings came into existence in a universe that allowed there existence, it starts with what is accepted as an irrefutable fact that God doesn't exist (although all atheists will deny this is true) then works backwards to explain how our existence and that of the universe could have come about apart from God. Any theory apart from God carries instant weight and merit because it has to have occurred apart from God.

Given the laws of physics, it's inevitable that if somewhere among the billions of billions of planets in the universe, a molecule able to replicate itself occurs, life will be a predictable result. The 'mindless forces' that will lead to more and more complex life forms over long periods of time are well-understood.

That is the theory of abiogensis. To say it has to happen appears to be a naturalism in the gaps argument.

An omnipotent being need not be restricted by fine-tuning, if it wants humans, it can have them in any conceivable universe. The only kind of universe that doesn't require a supernatural explanation for our existence is one in which it is possible for us to evolve and survive.

The word omnipotent is a religious characteristic of God. If our existence turned out to be the experiment of a scientist in a parallel universe theism would be true.

Then you're going to get nowhere. You're building a case that doesn't support the conclusion you want it to reach. 'Therefore God or something else' is a conclusion we already agree with. You think it was God, we think it was more likely to be something else.

I don't expect to go anywhere with atheists convinced of atheism, particulary ones on a discussion board who argue in favor of atheism rigorously. However if we were arguing this case before people who are neither convinced of theism or atheism I'd do quite well because the availble evidence supports the theistic position. I know you and others think highly of your counter arguments and attempts to explain away the evidence that comports with a Creator, but thats because your already convinced there is no God ergo some other explanation MUST be true. Therefore you give a great amount of credence to theories that scarcely have any evidence in their favor and which you may even think are false because even if that particular theory doesn't pan out...something like it MUST be true. You and others are philosophically committed to your postion. Many atheists begin by despising religion or some religious people they met who make their skin crawl, then they transfer that loathing to belief God doesn't exist. Then they come to sites like this where they learn all the pat atheist 101 answers and counter theories which they subscribe to without applying a modicum of critical thinking.

Have you considered holding your positiion on faith instead of logic? If you're determined to believe what you do, why drag logic and science into it? As a famous lawyer once said, 'if the Bible said Jonah swallowed the whale, I'd believe it'.

I believe we are the result of a Creator because the preponderance of available evidence leans that way. Not all the evidence by the way and if I were an atheist, I'd make a case from facts that support the atheist model rather than offer all kinds of nebulous counter theories.