I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

The irony of this they don't think mindless natural forces, minus any plan or intent or a physics degree causing a universe to exist with the all the conditions for life to exist is a miracle. Causing things to happen intentionally isn't miraculous.

Hoorah! You got something right, well partially right, since it is not even remotely ironic, but baby steps.

[Sheldon]

The irony of this they don't think mindless natural forces, minus any plan or intent or a physics degree causing a universe to exist with the all the conditions for life to exist is a miracle. Causing things to happen intentionally isn't miraculous.

You miss the point, as usual. To claim a supernatural explanation of something is not to explain it at all and, even worse, to rule out any possibility of its ever being explained. Because anything ‘supernatural’ must by definition be beyond the reach of a natural explanation. It must be beyond the reach of science and the well-established, tried and tested scientific method that has been responsible for the huge advances in knowledge we have enjoyed over the last 400 years or so. To say that something happened supernaturally is not just to say ‘We don’t understand it’ but to say ‘We will never understand it, so don’t even try.’

He doesn't understand, bless him. He thinks that science's inability to examine the supernatural is a flaw in its methods, and or a grand global conspiracy. This really is comedy gold.

[The Grand Nudger]

The irony of this they don't think mindless natural forces, minus any plan or intent or a physics degree causing a universe to exist with the all the conditions for life to exist is a miracle. Causing things to happen intentionally isn't miraculous.

Are your arguments here aiming to prove a Prime Mover only? 

Do you have steps that get us from a God that intentionally creates the universe, to the Christian God specifically? 

Do you conceive of this creator as a "personal God"? I've never been quite clear on how a Prime Mover and a Personal God go together. 

Thanks.

A god that intentionally creates the universe is a "personal" god.  Intent is "personal".

Deist's gods. Personal but not intervening. Theist's gods. Personal and intervening. The term doesn't refer to whether or not a given god is some specific persons "personal" god, it's just an archaic way of saying that the given god has characteristics or attributes we traditionally attribute to people, to personhood.

[Tonus]

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

Is your reason for believing this a form of 'god has to exist'?

I do like the concept of a god that is a scientist, and for whom this universe is an experiment. This god would not care about us at all aside from our usefulness as data. This version of god would explain all of the questions theists have about the universe that they feel cannot be explained without a god, while also explaining why such a being shows no interest in us whatsoever.

I don't believe in this god, for the same reason I don't believe in any other: there's no evidence in favor of it. The closest I can get is the 'god has to exist' approach, where gaps in our knowledge and understanding (and more accurately, gaps in MY knowledge and understanding) still have enough room to fit whatever fantasy I can cram into it. Is this also your dilemma, or do you have something more that gives you reason to believe?

[The Grand Nudger]

That one is worrisome for a number of reasons, one of which has caused various christian cults to abandon natural theology. As you note, in the notion of the god that must exist the term god can operate as placeholder for what you don't know...but it can also be said that the term would refer to whatever must exist. The god that must exist might be a negative space in your mind or it might be gravity. Neither outcome is useful to theistic superstitions or religious doctrines.

[Alan V]

Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include... Neil deGrasse Tyson...

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

Do you mean Stephen Hawking by any chance? 

Drew meant that he took Stephen Hawking off the list of scientists who supported the multiverse idea, I assume largely because I informed him that Hawking had proposed his quantum cosmology as an alternative to anthropic multiverse cosmology. Hawking thought the multiverse idea was philosophical rather than scientific.

This also means that the multiverse versus intentional design is a false dichotomy, since there is at least one more alternative in quantum cosmology. Drew keeps assuming the universe was caused, but that does not have to be the case if it started as a quantum fluctuation. Symmetry breaking in the quantum vacuum rather than a cause per se might have started the ball rolling.

As usual with science, it's more complicated than theists typically have the patience to grapple with. It is certainly difficult for me to understand, though I read a book on the topic.

[arewethereyet]

Someone send up a flare when the proof is finally revealed.

[Nay_Sayer]

You are tiring.

Take a nap.

Provide evidence other than your own personal feelings.

[arewethereyet]

You are tiring.

Take a nap.

That won't make you seem more interesting...or smarter.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Drew_2013

Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include... Neil deGrasse Tyson...

It’s a huge stretch to call Tyson a ‘proponent’ of these hypotheses. He acknowledges them as a possible consequence of various cosmological theories, but seems to always stress that there is no direct evidence for multiple universes.

You should read what he writes more carefully.

Boru