I will prove to you that God exists

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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? 

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.

I thing you’re looking at it wrong. If you flip a coin 500 times, you can expect roughly half heads and half tails. If you could flip it an infinite number of times, you could expect it to land on edge, or explode, or turn into a polka dot dolphin and fly away.

The multiverse simply doesn’t support design or deliberate creation.

Boru

[Drew_2013]

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.

The universe exists...if didn't exist it would falsify the claim. 
Nature exists...if it didn't exist it wouldn't be a possible cause of the universe and life.
The universe is very old much of it hostile to life. Much of the universe is chaotic.
Evolution is a plausible explanation for life becoming more complex.

These facts are evidence that make the claim our existence was due to natural causes more probable. That's what evidence is. 

I offer many facts that are evidence that make the claim our existence was intentionally caused more probable.

[Angrboda]

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

You've missed the point. I'm pointing out that Goddidit is no more plausible than a self-caused universe, as both require things that are highly counter-intuitive (timeless cause vs causal loop)

[Deesse23]

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

Its also, for some yet unknown reason, possible that there is only one universe, but it had to be exactly the way it is. Its also possible that the (one and only) universe bounces back and forth, having to end with the natural laws we have, or laws like those. We dont know, and he doesnt know either. The difference is, we admit to not knowing. He ...even cant imagine that the universe is not fine tuned. Its one big argument from incredulity.
Drews schtick is to claim fine-tuning, wait for people to mention the possibility of multiverses and then try to shot down the idea of multiverses. As if that would make his very particular god (he is arguing for theism, but he isnt a theist in general) real. He is not even trying to substantiate his very particular god. He is trying to smuggle him in. As if we havent seen that a gazillion times.

[Deesse23]

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.

The universe exists...if didn't exist it would falsify the claim. 
Nature exists...if it didn't exist it wouldn't be a possible cause of the universe and life.
The universe is very old much of it hostile to life. Much of the universe is chaotic.
Evolution is a plausible explanation for life becoming more complex.

These facts are evidence that make the claim our existence was due to natural causes more probable. That's what evidence is. 

I offer many facts that are evidence that make the claim our existence was intentionally caused more probable.

You decided to take the bait and skip my "yes or no" question, and go right to the hook and sinker. You really thought i would let that go unnoticed!? How many atheists have you met here on AF yet, who just "hate religion"?

If the universe didnt exist, that would falsify......any claim for the cause of the universe. Thus its evidence for....nothing.  
Same for nature.
The age and hostility to life is also no evidence for its cause.
Evolution.....has nothing at all to do with the cause of the universe.

Remember when i told everyone that its impossible for you to even imagine the universe isnt fine tuned? It is indeed. You pretended to imagine evidence for a naturalistic universe but you just couldnt. Its like asking a rock to fly. It cant.

And now, please provide evidence for your position. As was pointed out: Fine tuning is an argument, a bad one. Its only evidence for your incredulity. Finally tell us why you are a theist, although you stated you have so much evidence for a universe without supernatural influence.

[Alan V]

One possible explanation for the apparent biofriendliness of the universe is anthropogenic multiverse cosmology.  Another is quantum cosmology, which Stephen Hawking developed because he wasn't happy with the multiverse idea.  "We learn from quantum cosmology that biological evolution and cosmological evolution aren't fundamentally separate phenomena but two vastly different levels of one giant evolutionary tree." -- quoted from On the Origin of Time: Stephen Hawking's Final Theory (page 259) by his associate Thomas Hertog.  In ways I cannot personally understand, quantum entanglement can create a holographic universe in which biofriendliness is an evolved characteristic.  But this is really a hypothesis rather than a theory at this point.

Quantum cosmology does not require the complexity of a whole other spiritual level to reality which theists prefer.  Their own hypothesis is anything but economical, since as you pointed out it goes so far beyond anything observable.  So again, theists prefer God-of-the-gaps arguments, regardless of how unlikely they are in the face of what we already know about the universe.

I mentioned the above book to Drew at the Atheist Discussion forum as well. Still, he keeps talking as if scientists aren't working on the problem of the biofriendliness of our universe, or as if God is really an explanation, given what we know about the universe. He ignores the assertion that the God-concept can be discarded for other important reasons even without considering the cosmological argument.

I am not impressed by the idea of a Creator who made the universe for life, but who required billions of years to evolve life, who made dinosaurs the dominant lifeform on earth for millions of years, or who made 400,000 species of beetles for that matter. How long has humanity been around, for a few hundred thousand years at most? That doesn't speak of any plan to me.

[Drew_2013]

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

You've missed the point.  I'm pointing out that Goddidit is no more plausible than a self-caused universe, as both require things that are highly counter-intuitive (timeless cause vs causal loop)

Do you agree the existence of the universe was either intentionally caused or unintentionally caused to exist? So either Goddidit or Naturedidit is more plausible than any other theory since one or the other is true. What's counter intuitive about the universe having been intentionally caused to exist? Scientists have caused the virtual universe to exist. Some day they many populate with virtual people who experience reality as we do. Alan Guth believes scientists maybe able to cause a universe to exist. If they can would you concede it was intentionally caused?

[Fake Messiah]

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?

He's just using simple logic. It's no different as if he said "If Spiderman existed than these crimes would not happen in New York."

[GrandizerII]

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.

There is no direct evidence of God either, so we're even.

Also, people subscribe to a multiverse view for various rational reasons, and not because they need it to explain something like the assumed "fine-tuning" of this local universe. Even some theists have argued for a multiverse view in favour of God because of things like the principle of sufficient reason.

The multiverse is just as much about "chance" as God is. Is God "chance"? Nope? Then good luck arguing the multiverse (without God) is any different in this case.

Also, multiple worlds doesn't mean less simplicity, especially if fundamentally they are all of the same "quality". One could argue the addition of a supernatural being to what is otherwise a natural reality is unnecessary and is therefore what violates Occam's razor.

[Drew_2013]

The universe exists...if didn't exist it would falsify the claim. 
Nature exists...if it didn't exist it wouldn't be a possible cause of the universe and life.
The universe is very old much of it hostile to life. Much of the universe is chaotic.
Evolution is a plausible explanation for life becoming more complex.

These facts are evidence that make the claim our existence was due to natural causes more probable. That's what evidence is. 

I offer many facts that are evidence that make the claim our existence was intentionally caused more probable.

You decided to take the bait and skip my "yes or no" question, and go right to the hook and sinker. You really thought i would let that go unnoticed!?

So you noticed...what about it? You don't think I noticed you never answer any of my questions?