(April 6, 2025 at 12:04 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 10:22 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I'm not uncomfortable; unlike most atheists I don't deny there is evidence our existence is the result of natural forces. There is more in favor of design and plan. Any time you want to give it your best shot let me know.

You are uncomfortable.

I'm comfortable enough to state there is evidence in favor of naturalism...are you comfortable enough to state there is evidence in favor of theism? Not likely I find it to be a core principles of atheism. A sacred cow actually.

Any plans to actually debate this issue or just your usual hit and run tactics?

(April 6, 2025 at 11:57 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 11:38 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: The evidence of a Creator is the fine-tuning of the universe for life.

That's not evidence. At best, it's a god of the gaps fallacy.

Is the belief in multiverse naturalism in the gaps? Fine-tuning isn't in the gaps its in the numbers that lead scientists to proclaim multiverse.

(April 6, 2025 at 12:28 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 12:04 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: You are uncomfortable.

I'm comfortable enough to state there is evidence in favor of naturalism...are you comfortable enough to state there is evidence in favor of theism? Not likely I find it to be a core principles of atheism. A sacred cow actually.

Any plans to actually debate this issue or just your usual hit and run tactics?

I will happily state that there are  arguments in favour of theism, but arguments are not evidence.

Boru

(April 6, 2025 at 11:38 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 5, 2025 at 6:40 pm)Sheldon Wrote: That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is fallacious to argue that anything is true because we lack an alternative explanation. It is also an objective fact the the universe and natural processes exist, but there is no objective evidence any deity or anything supernatural exists, or that they're even possible.

The universe and natural processes do exist. But they didn't cause themselves to exist right? The evidence of a Creator is the fine-tuning of the universe for life. I just wrote a post detailing some of that.

I'm not sure that a self-caused universe is significantly less plausible than causality operating outside time. Both seem pretty wild ideas. A self-caused universe would be eternal.

(April 6, 2025 at 11:50 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 11:32 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Check your pseudo science at the door. Universes don't evolve like organisms.

Sure they do.

On the ‘fine tuning’ thingy, have you considered that it could simply be a happy accident? Suppose the universe evolved to support life incidentally. . It’s a logical leap to presume that it was intentional. 

Boru

Scientists have dismissed the happy accident theory which is why multiverse is popular. If someone flipped a coin heads 500 times in a row would you be dumb enough to conclude it was a lucky break? 

Quote:Out of a billion skillion universes, at least one was bound to reach a point where life-as-we-know-it could thrive

Fine, you're a multiverse person. Most atheists aren't willing to concede the multiverse theory is necessary and because there is no direct evidence of other universes. I respect it as a plausible theory and an explanation for fine-tuning of the universe for life. However, it also multiplies entities to infinity and beyond ala Occams razor. I consider it the ultimate time and chance, naturalism in the gaps theory.

(April 6, 2025 at 12:28 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 12:04 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: You are uncomfortable.

I'm comfortable enough to state there is evidence in favor of naturalism...are you comfortable enough to state there is evidence in favor of theism? Not likely I find it to be a core principles of atheism. A sacred cow actually.

Any plans to actually debate this issue or just your usual hit and run tactics?

Did you open a thread on AD stating that (paraphrasing) its "hate for religion" that drives atheists towards naturalism, after them telling you multiple times that this is not the case? Everything that does not start with a "yes" or "no" is an evasion. I bet on evasion.

In case you are able to not-evade, please list evidence in favor of naturalism.

(April 6, 2025 at 12:31 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 11:38 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: The universe and natural processes do exist. But they didn't cause themselves to exist right? The evidence of a Creator is the fine-tuning of the universe for life. I just wrote a post detailing some of that.

I'm not sure that a self-caused universe is significantly less plausible than causality operating outside time.  Both seem pretty wild ideas.  A self-caused universe would be eternal.

Sure we can resort to magic. Not sure how that helps the cause. If it was eternal, it wouldn't need to be caused

(April 6, 2025 at 12:29 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 11:57 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: That's not evidence. At best, it's a god of the gaps fallacy.

Is the belief in multiverse naturalism in the gaps? Fine-tuning isn't in the gaps its in the numbers that lead scientists to proclaim multiverse.

Now you are strawmaning. Multiverse isn't the only explanation for the so-called fine-tuning claim. For example, some physicists have made calculations that universes with other parameters could sustain life, but a different life.

(April 6, 2025 at 12:37 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Sure we can resort to magic. Not sure how that helps the cause. If it was eternal, it wouldn't need to be caused

Universe is eternal. Universe existed before the big bang.

(April 6, 2025 at 12:35 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 11:50 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Sure they do.

On the ‘fine tuning’ thingy, have you considered that it could simply be a happy accident? Suppose the universe evolved to support life incidentally. . It’s a logical leap to presume that it was intentional. 

Boru

Scientists have dismissed the happy accident theory which is why multiverse is popular. If someone flipped a coin heads 500 times in a row would you be dumb enough to conclude it was a lucky break? 

Except that it's not known whether the constants represent a conjunctive probability, a single probability, or no probability at all.

You're essentially assuming something that is unknown in order to conclude that your assumption requires explanation. No it doesn't. It's just an asumption.

(April 6, 2025 at 10:52 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Here is a summary of Victor Stengers book.

One of the key arguments presented in the book is the problem of evil. Stenger asserts that the existence of unnecessary suffering and evil in the world is inconsistent with the idea of an all- powerful and benevolent God. He argues that if God truly exists, he would not allow such suffering to occur.

That's a theological argument. How does an atheist use theology to make an argument against the existence of a Creator?

Using the Christian definition of God against it is actually a strong point, by pointing out the contradictions inherent.

You may or may not have heard the phrase, "For the sake of argument". It's a qualifier to announce that while one doesn't agree with a premise being advanced, one will use it in order to demonstrate its own weakness. It's implicit in Stenger's argument here.

So to answer your question, that's how an atheist uses theology to argue against the Christian god.