I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

If that is Stenger's argument, then he isn't using theology. He's just using logic.

I am open to the possibility of the existence of a creator; I don't think there are any universe origin stories that are intuitive to me.

But I can, with certainty, disqualify any number of possible deities and religions as being true. Even the most devout religious person does this as well, seeing as they have to accept one god/religion and reject all others. And a God who claims to be concerned with my wellbeing and my future prospects, but does nothing to address those concerns, is pretty easy to dismiss. Heck, any God that created our universe and our world out of a desire to have anything to do with us, and then never ever shows up, can be tossed on that pile as well. There are a long list of ways in which pretty much every God that people worship isn't real.

"God has to exist, check out these proofs" is simply unconvincing and unsatisfying. Explain how the one YOU believe in is actually real.

I believe the universe was intentionally caused to exist by a being capable of doing so. I 'm a philosophical theist.

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws.

The problem is your reasoning thus far has been demonstrably flawed and often fallacious. It misunderstands / misrepresent scientific terms like fine tuning, which is a metaphor to describe natural characteristics of the universe, by falsely implying it represents scientific evidence of a supernatural cause to the universe, and you have used fallacious arguments, and tacked on large assumptions, without even the pretence of any objective evidence. 

Our existence could be the result of a scientist in another universe.

Could it? How would you even start to demonstrate this is possible? It seems like a sweeping, unevidenced,  and unfalsifiable assertion to me.

[Nay_Sayer]

I wasn't going to interact with you in this thread, Drew, but are you sure most atheists deny there is evidence our existence is the result of natural forces? That seems to be the implication of not doing that while most atheists do. Doesn't really sound right.

Maybe you meant that most atheists deny evidence that our existence is NOT the result of natural forces but you do not deny that there is evidence that our existence IS the result of natural forces?

I meant that unlike atheists who deny there is any evidence our universe was intentionally caused I don't deny there is evidence to support belief in naturalism. Most if not all atheists deny there is a shred of evidence, data or reason to think it was intentionally caused. They are to cowardly to admit otherwise.

Care to share this evidence?  Blessings. RAmen

[Sheldon]

Argumentum ad Wikipedia Copy-N-Pasta? Seriously dude, learn how to do basic attribution.

The Wikipedia article (<--- See? Like that!) goes on to debunk everything that you stated here. Here's a selection of fun quotes for you (emphasis mine):

"Because physicists have not developed an empirically successful theory of quantum gravity, there is no known way to combine quantum mechanics, on which the standard model depends, and general relativity. Without knowledge of this more complete theory suspected to underlie the standard model, it is impossible to definitively count the number of truly independent physical constants. In some candidate theories, the number of independent physical constants may be as small as one."

"Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. But the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires". He also said that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently"."

"Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the existence of multiple universes introducing a survivorship bias under the anthropic principle."

"Belief in the fine-tuned universe led to the expectation that the Large Hadron Collider would produce evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, but by 2012 it had not produced evidence for supersymmetry at the energy scales it was able to probe."

Most scientists are philosophically committed to naturalist explanations.

That's a pretty dubious claim, we know that natural phenomena exist, and are possible, and everything science has helped us understand about the universe involves natural phenomena, whereas there is absolutely no empirical or objective evidence or data for anything supernatural for science to examine? Many of the claims are unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific. Science cannot study anything that provides no data to examine, and of course this would be true of all non-existent things. it is risible to lie that this represents bias on the part of the methods of science. 

Is this where you've arrived at, risible global conspiracy theories about science, dear oh dear.

[Sheldon]

I wasn't going to interact with you in this thread, Drew, but are you sure most atheists deny there is evidence our existence is the result of natural forces? That seems to be the implication of not doing that while most atheists do. Doesn't really sound right.

Maybe you meant that most atheists deny evidence that our existence is NOT the result of natural forces but you do not deny that there is evidence that our existence IS the result of natural forces?

 I don't deny there is evidence to support belief in naturalism. 

This is hardly saying much, since the existence of the natural physical universe, and natural causation, is an objective fact, one might as well deny the rotundity of the earth. 

Most if not all atheists deny there is a shred of evidence, data or reason to think it was intentionally caused. They are to cowardly to admit otherwise.

Oh dear, firstly and for the second time it is too much, not to (sic) much, and the idea you know what most, let alone all, atheists think is too stupid a claim to do anything with but point and laugh. I can only speak for myself, and am happy to state categorically that I have never encountered, nor am I aware of any objective evidence that the universe was created, nor any sound argument for the same. For the record, you have failed utterly to do so. 

If you think you have evidence the universe was created by a deity using supernatural powers, then present it, but you will need to a lot better than misrepresenting scientific terms like fine tuning, as this scientific term explains only natural physical attributes of the universe. It does not evidence anything supernatural, this is the core error you started with, and haven't the integrity to address. 

The term fine tuning is a metaphor, like the term the big bang, nether are meant literally, and neither idea, nor any established scientific idea, has ever evidenced anything supernatural. The scientific term differs from the theological argument using that term, the apologetics argument from fine tuning, points at the natural physical characteristics of the universe, and then uses an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, namely "we can't explain X, therefore god did it."

Nothing Drew has presented, goes beyond the use of that fallacy.

[Drew_2013]

@Sheldon

Among creationists maybe, but certainly not among scientists. The term remains a metaphor used to describe the astonishingly narrow parameters of certain characteristics of the universe, and that if they altered even a vanishingly small amount, then the carbon life we know of, could not have emerged. So what? The universe is almost entirely hostile to life, you don't seem to be reading anything into that, could your bias be more obvious.

My 'bias' is the result of 'the astonishingly narrow parameters of certain characteristics of the universe, and that if they altered even a vanishingly small amount, then the carbon life we know of, could not have emerged'. The best evidence the universe wasn't intentionally caused would be our non-existence. Would it be more difficult for mindless natural forces to cause a lifeless universe? Not at all folks in charge of the virtual universe not the slightest tweak here or there causes a life prohibiting universe. As a thought experiment would you think that if mindless natural forces came into existence somehow it wouldn't be surprising if they caused a universe with laws of physics, gravity, stars, planets, solar systems, with the physics that would cause supernovas to produce the exotic matter necessary for life to exist? Would you expect mindless natural forces to cause a universe chalk full of mathematical equations that describe the universe?


Is E=MC^2 a metaphor for the relationship between energy and matter? 

Wouldn't it surprise you in the least bit if the laws of physics written into the fabric of spacetime dictate that stars going supernova create the very matter necessary for planets and humans to exist? Why would those 'laws' be written into the fabric of the universe by forces that didn't care if life existed. On the other hand if the laws were intentionally written into the fabric of space for the purpose of causing life then its not as surprising is it? Scientists act as if the fine-tuning of this universe is evidence of an infinitude of universes. Would you think to yourself (all alone in your thoughts) if mindless lifeless forces came into existence somehow it wouldn't surprise me if they stumbled upon the formula to accidentally cause something unlike itself to exist...life and mind.

You have cited only one person, and even your example does not believe a deity exists, so that's a bit of comedy gold right there. And as I evidenced earlier, atheism rises sharply among scientists, and is almost universal among elite scientists, like The National Academy of Science, where 93% are atheists and agnostics. Are you saying they are not best placed to know if the scientific evidence indicates the universe was fine tuned by a creator deity? Seriously you ought to have the integrity to admit at least to yourself, when your arguments are so absurd they are comedic.

They don't dispute the universe is fine-tuned for life; they replace a Creator with an infinitude of universes of varying properties. As part of the theory they state other universes can't be detected. A lot of atheists I run into seem to loathe the multiverse hypothesis as unnecessary claptrap because they deny the universe is fine-tuned for life. I note atheists can spot a God in the gaps argument a mile away but are totally oblivious to naturalism in the gaps arguments. Multiverse is the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps hypothesis. 

Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Lee Smolin, Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Martin Rees. Part of the reason for multiverse is the unlikelihood of one universe having properties for life. That would leave intent and design as the cause. 

I took Hawkings name off because it causes some people to have intense heart burn.

No it doesn't, that's a lie. 
Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Its the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a Creator of the universe. What does that leave to cause a universe to exist? I can say I lack belief in the ability of mindless lifeless forces to unwittingly cause a universe with all the properties and conditions necessary to cause life to exist*? Then claim the burden of proof rests solely with atheists? Are you an A-naturalist as well as an A-theist? 

So called weak atheists who lack belief in the existence of God, don't deny or dispute God exists, they simply lack that belief. If people who call themselves atheists don't deny God exists why should theists? 

*Which is actually a reasonable belief. 

That just looks like subjective bias to me, since I have no other universes to compare this one to, I can't say this one is "fortuitous". However heads coming up instead of tails in a coin toss can be perceived as fortuitous, this does not suggest intent or design behind the result.

Its certainly fortuitous to humans that mother nature provided all the things necessary for life. Natural forces we know of can't plan to intend anything to happen. They don't have any say so in what they do or what effect it causes. Its the opposite of intelligent beings such as humans that can. As intelligent beings we decided to cause a virtual universe to exist. Mindless natural forces didn't have any choice in the matter. They had to cause spacetime to exist. They didn't want to cause the conditions for life...they had to.

Suppose tomorrow some startling new evidence comes forth and the majority of scientists conclude the universe was intentionally caused to exist. They don't say who or what, just that it was intentionally caused. Would that be a horrible day for you? Would you walk around in a haze for days on end? Can you deny its possible our existence was intentionally caused knowing in a few dozen years we maybe able to cause virtual people to exist in a virtual universe. No doubt some of the virtual people will believe there existence was intentionally caused. Would they be wrong?

[Nay_Sayer]

@Drew_2013

It's the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of FSM What does that leave to cause a universe to exist? I can say I lack belief in the ability of mindless lifeless forces to unwittingly cause a universe with all the properties and conditions necessary to cause life to exist*? Then claim the burden of proof rests solely with atheists? Are you an A-naturalist as well as an A-theist?

So-called weak Theists who lack belief in the existence of FSM, don't deny or dispute FSM exists, they simply lack that belief. If people who call themselves Theists don't deny FSM exists why should anyone?

Fixed it for you. RAmen

Side note: Your inability to think of other possibilities isn't evidence. Still waiting.

[Deesse23]

Most scientists are philosophically committed to naturalist explanations.

Bullshit
They are committed to empiricism and falsifiability, stuff you dont bother with. You are committed mainly to logical fallacies and strawmen, q.e.d.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Argumentum ad Wikipedia Copy-N-Pasta? Seriously dude, learn how to do basic attribution.

The Wikipedia article (<--- See? Like that!) goes on to debunk everything that you stated here. Here's a selection of fun quotes for you (emphasis mine):

"Because physicists have not developed an empirically successful theory of quantum gravity, there is no known way to combine quantum mechanics, on which the standard model depends, and general relativity. Without knowledge of this more complete theory suspected to underlie the standard model, it is impossible to definitively count the number of truly independent physical constants. In some candidate theories, the number of independent physical constants may be as small as one."

"Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. But the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires". He also said that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently"."

"Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the existence of multiple universes introducing a survivorship bias under the anthropic principle."

"Belief in the fine-tuned universe led to the expectation that the Large Hadron Collider would produce evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, but by 2012 it had not produced evidence for supersymmetry at the energy scales it was able to probe."

Not surprising Paul Davis is an atheist. 

You quoted this...

"Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the existence of multiple universes introducing a survivorship bias under the anthropic principle."

I've had plenty claim erroneously that multiverse theory has nothing to do with the fine-tuning of the universe. Most scientists are philosophically committed to naturalist explanations.

What's wrong with using sources to back up what I'm saying. Its better than a lot of folks here who quote themselves as authorities on any subject.

(Bold in red is mine)

Ad hominem.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

You're free to say you lack belief in your strawman of Atheism, though that won't shift the burden of proof onto the Atheists in anyway. Until you demonstrate the existence of god, atheists have a sound position and don't have to come up with alternative explanations to  God nor does  not accepting  a god mean they are pushing for any other positive position or explanation. This attempt sad at burden-shifting or trying to give your position de-facto legitimacy fails.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Most scientists are philosophically committed to naturalist explanations.

Nope they are committed to science