I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

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.

Yeah it was a rude editorialization. I should say intellectually dishonest and I can prove that all day long. They accept facts that support their view as evidence in favor of what they believe. When theists do the same its circular reasoning.

[Nay_Sayer]

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.

Yeah it was a rude editorialization. I should say intellectually dishonest and I can prove that all day long. They accept facts that support their view as evidence in favor of what they believe. When theists do the same its circular reasoning.

Now, this is textbook projection. Poe levels nearly.

[Angrboda]

@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'.

Can you cite a scientific result showing that any of these characteristics could vary? (Rees' book is a popularization, but if you can quote where he claims that they could vary and backs it up with citations, that at least would be a start.)

[The Architect Of Fate]

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'.

So incredulity on top of bias

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

A claim you keep insisting were making when we are not and no natural forces doing something you think is unlikely  isn't a miracle an entity (God) directly intervening in the cosmos is very much a miracle

Miracle 

1. : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. the healing miracles described in the Gospels. 

[The Architect Of Fate]

The universe occured however it did any notions of improbability or incredulity is a you problem

[The Grand Nudger]

Credo quia absurdum. A thing is not miraculous in a theologically important sense unless some set of rules has been broken. The trinity, for example, is a miracle and a mystery because 1+1+1 is not equal to 1. Because it violates the law of identity. In common use we might say that a pilot landing a plane on a river is miraculous...but ofc it isn;t. We know that pilots crash land planes, sometimes on rivers, even damaged ones. Theologically speaking, a miraculous plane landing would (perhaps) involve no pilot and an inoperable plane gently floating down onto the river were it floats as if it were tarmac. Why is this a miracle and a proof of one's god? Because it is absurd.

[Paleophyte]

I've had plenty claim erroneously that multiverse theory has nothing to do with the fine-tuning of the universe.

It isn't erroneous. They're two entirely different hypotheses. One is one possible explanation for the other but neither one affects the other. The multiverse hypothesis could be entirely disproven without ever affecting fine-tuning and vice versa.

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.

You don't use sources, you copy shamelessly without attribution.

[Paleophyte]

I meant that unlike atheists who deny there is any evidence our universe was intentionally caused ...

Your Word of the Day is: Equivocal. Literally, equally vocal. Data that supports neither argument because it supports two mutually opposing arguments.
Use in a sentence: "The existence of the universe is equivocal."

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK. Is the existence of the universe as the nuts claim it is, and specifically in the case of being fine tuned for life, equally supportive of it being made by a supernatural god or natural forces. Even if we accepted a god created the universe as such it suggests a natural god working within natural constraints. Had it been just this way or that way different, god could not get what god wanted (and if that's not true, if they could have been whatever and god could have still gotten us....a much better circumstance to argue for a god in, btw...then they mean nothing in particular....).

Bringing us handily to the other half. Mindfulness. Would it matter? A natural god working within natural constraints can no more do the non natural because it is mindful than we can because we are. Mindless forces, if the universe is tuned for life, are capable of producing life and the products of mindful things, even if they weren't tuned mindfully...just as a tree can make a chair.

If fine tuning were true, and true as believed in by nuts, the creator god is a natural force.