What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Kingpin]

1. The extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order for the possibility of human life in relation to the astronomically calculated odds of this happening by chance.

2. Why if you see your name written in the sand on the beach you can not fathom that the waves, rocks, sticks somehow worked in random fashion to scrawl your name but you automatically assume a person wrote it (intelligent being), but when you look at the longest word ever discovered, the human genome (3.5 billion letters in precise order) you assume random chance?

Thank you and look forward to the discussion.

1. You cannot calculate these odds. I'd suggest a refresher of Bayes Theorem. If you think you can generate a probability of humans existing then either you do not understand probability or physics, and most likely don't have a clue about either.

2. The human DNA isn't a word, it's a bunch of chemicals. With your logic I could measure all the heights of a hill along a line, assign different letters to different heights, then claim the hill must have been designed because you spelt out a word.

---

1.  The extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order for the possibility of human life in relation to the astronomically calculated odds of this happening by chance.

The fine-tuning argument must either assume that the possible 'settings' for life are limited and immutable --implying that god is similarly limited, which puts the idea that he created everything in doubt-- or that god can create any sort of universe and make it support life... in which case fine-tuning is bunk because any settings could support life if god wished it so.  So it's really a non-argument.

The fine-tuning argument has had its flaws exposed, time and time and time again.

Posting blogs about debunking fine tuning and talks of multiverses is not an argument.  I can post just as many from the other perspective.  I did not bring God in to the discussion, you did.  I in no way claim that there are not flaws in my argument just as the ones you espouse (multiverses) also have their flaws.  I'm just saying I find it very interesting to see the more we know about science in this modern time, the more scientists are "shocked" about the improbability of our universes existence.  Even the greatest mind of our time and vehement atheist Prof. Stephen Hawking mentioned it in his book, "A Brief History of Time".  Other leading scientists such as Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

These are leading scientists who know far beyond you are I and they do not take the argument lightly.