I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

"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?"

Atheism and materialism are not the same thing, again this argument starts with a fallacy, a false equivalence fallacy. I don't believe anything supernatural exists, or is possible, but this is not a claim that only the material or natural is possible. It carries no burden of proof. nor is this is some sort of semantic dodge or a trick, rather it is sound careful reasoning, that seeks to avoid making unevidenced, and unfalsifiable claims I would not myself accept as true. 

There is another flaw in this argument, as has been explained numerous times. Since it is an objective fact that natural phenomena, and the material exist, but we have no objective evidence that demonstrates that the supernatural is even possible, ipso facto the former is prima facie more probable in any scenario, when discussing causation. 

So whilst Drew is correct, in that he can of course say and claim anything he is minded to, no matter how irrational, since we each set our own threshold for credulity. Drew is just setting a lower bar than I am prepared to, because he wants to believe a deity exists, whereas I want, as far as is possible, to believe only things that are true, and so I set a threshold that will most reliably achieve this. Now of course I subject all claims and beliefs to the same standard, but Drew demonstrably does not, as one could replace the deity in his arguments with any unfalsifiable entity and beg the question by endowing it with sufficient (imagined) power to create a universe ex nihilo, as it were, using what it is ostensibly magic.

[Nay_Sayer]

Drew's stance is, seemingly, that he can't imagine the universe having existed in some other way, so, therefore it must have happened the way he thinks.

I can't say for sure since it also seems he's taken to ignoring me entirely.

[Deesse23]

Drew's stance is, seemingly, that he can't imagine the universe having existed in some other way, so, therefore it must have happened the way he thinks.

Unfortunately for him, the universe doesnt care how he thinks it should be.

[Sheldon]

Drew's stance is, seemingly, that he can't imagine the universe having existed in some other way, so, therefore it must have happened the way he thinks.

I can't say for sure since it also seems he's taken to ignoring me entirely.

Oh I don't think his position is caused by a lack of imagination, but rather an a priori bias in favour of theistic, or perhaps deistic, belief. If anything he is failing to draw a line between what he imagines to be true, and what can be objectively and reliably demonstrated to be true. 

His core argument is that despite something having happened, and the only causes science has ever evidenced being entirely natural, that this one requires a creator deity. When examined on why he believes this, we have the usual argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, or "what else could it be". This is of course not evidence, nor is it rational. that he claims the emergence of life as fortuitous, is not an objective truth, but rather a subjective perception, and that long odds have apparently been thwarted to achieve this is a) irrelevant, improbable and impossible are not the same (another false equivalence he's implied), and b) we have only one universe to examine, so how would one reliably measure the probability of such a universe existing? 

We are of course touching on subjects best examined by theoretical physics, but all one need do is switch on any news channel, or research the level of atheism among elite scientists, to know the preponderance of scientists in that field, especially elite scientists, do not share his view about "fine tuning". 

In stark contrast we get one author and one book title, and he bizarrely chose an atheist?

[Drew_2013]

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.

While not all scientists subscribe to naturalism, mainstream science operates under the framework of methodological naturalism, seeking natural explanations for phenomena, without considering supernatural or divine interventions.

Take your foot out of your mouth and wash it off for god's sake.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

I really want to respond postively to this post, because you're taking al lot of heat, but you had to throw in that bit at the end.

[arewethereyet]

You are tiring.

[Drew_2013]

 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.

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.

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.

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.

Bullshit. What natural causation caused the universe to exist? It wasn't like anything like the natural forces that came into existence since they didn't exist yet. 

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.

The prevailing scientific theory, the Big Bang Theory, suggests that the universe began from a singularity (a hot, dense point) about 13.8 billion years ago, marking the beginning of space, time, and matter.

Whether intentionally or the result of mindless natural forces the universe (spacetime matter) began to exist. That's creation. I didn't think I needed to tell you this.

 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 

Man, are you grasping at straws. Big bang isn't a metaphor its a catchy name the person who first proposed BB theory and it stuck. It wasn't initially big and it didn't cause a bang since there was no medium for sound to travel through.

"we can't explain X, therefore god did it."

The contention it was intentionally caused does explain why we live in a universe that caused life to exist. The counter explanation is multiverse did it. However as I pointed out fine-tuning is indicative of things caused by intent. Fine-tuning of this universe doesn't cause other universes to exist. 

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.

Are you ignorant or lying? Fine-tuning isn't a metaphor its a scientific term that describes things that requires several components in specific values and ranges to cause something to happen. A laptop is fine-tuned to cause computing to occur. You're still in denial as to why so many scientists subscribe to multiverse theory. They believe as you do it wasn't intentionally caused so multiverse did it.

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?

No comment?

[Drew_2013]

You are tiring.

Take a nap.

[Fake Messiah]

mainstream science operates under the framework of methodological naturalism, seeking natural explanations for phenomena, without considering supernatural or divine interventions.