I will prove to you that God exists

[Ravenshire]

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.

More comedy gold, and atheism is still not a belief...and that's confirmation bias not circular reasoning, fuck me, you can Google the definition of a circular reasoning fallacy in seconds...this has to be a windup...surely?

(my bold)

From all appearances, he's every bit as intentionally ignorant as he appears.

[Paleophyte]

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'.

You seem awfully fixated on carbon-based life. Or humans. Or life as we know it. It reveals your bias since none of those are necessary. Once you accept the possibility of "life as we don't yet understand it" the odds become much greater. You don't seem to be able to get around your anthropocentric biases here.

Part of the reason for multiverse is the unlikelihood of one universe having properties for life.

What exactly is the probability? Kindly show your work. When you cube "I have no fucking clue" please remember to carry the zero.

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?

What part of "I don't know?" do you not understand?

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?

No, you'd be fine if you simply ended it there. What you do or don't believe is entirely up to you. It's when you then use your lack of belief in X as proof for Y that we all fall over laughing.

[Paleophyte]

More comedy gold, and atheism is still not a belief...and that's confirmation bias not circular reasoning, fuck me, you can Google the definition of a circular reasoning fallacy in seconds...this has to be a windup...surely?

(my bold)

From all appearances, he's every bit as intentionally ignorant as he appears.

Never misunderestimate human stoopidity.

[The Valkyrie]

So, has god been proven yet?

Are we all Christians now?

[Angrboda]

[Sheldon]

So, has god been proven yet?

Are we all Christians now?

Is Drew a Christian? Why on earth has he wasted this thread then, lamely using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, failing to demonstrate a deistic god?

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon

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.)

Exactly, I already asked him how does he know any other type of universe is possible, of course he skipped past it. I don't think he understood the significance of the question. 

However, something else Drew doesn't understand, is that even if we assume, for the sake of argument, the universe is the only one that's ever existed or is ever going to exist, and we further assume it could have been very different, and that the odds it could support life are vanishingly small, and lets throw in that the life we observe is the only kind of life possible. This still is not objective evidence it was created, let alone that it was created by a deity. All we have is Drew asking "what else could it be?" Which is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 

Again he seems pretty determined never to acknowledge the fallacious arguments he has used. While hurling generic accusation of intellectual dishonesty at atheists. I know, irony overload right.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If the any of the multiverse theories are correct, I don’t see how this helps the fine tuning argument for deliberate creation. Couldn’t a Creator who had the goal of intelligent life in mind have done it with just one universe? It seems akin to building an infinite number of cars to make sure one of them will work.
 
Boru

[Paleophyte]

So, has god been proven yet?

Are we all Christians now?

Is Drew a Christian? Why on earth has he wasted this thread then, lamely using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, failing to demonstrate a deistic god?

Yes. Lapsed but definitely Christian. He's at that stage where he has enough sense to ditch the church but not all the baggage that they saddled him with.

[Alan V]

If the any of the multiverse theories are correct, I don’t see how this helps the fine tuning argument for deliberate creation. Couldn’t a Creator who had the goal of intelligent life in mind have done it with just one universe? It seems akin to building an infinite number of cars to make sure one of them will work.
 
Boru

Drew looks askance at multiverse cosmology because he thinks it is an overly-complicated way for naturalists to avoid confronting what look like unaccounted-for biofriendly properties in the only universe we know about.  Stephen Hawking acknowledged the problem, and maintained that such biofriendly properties needed their own explanation, though he attempted to do that through his quantum cosmology.

Both divine creation and anthropic multiverse cosmology share the idea that the laws of physics transcend the natural world.  Hawking thought they evolved within the first split second of the big bang.  What was important to him was not the time which had elapsed but the range of temperatures traversed.  He pointed to such things as the electroweak force breaking into electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, as well as the Higgs field coming into play to cause that transition only at a certain reduced temperature, as examples of what he envisioned.  This is similar to other grand unified theories, but it incorporated elements of holographic cosmology as well, in which one natural constant influences another through quantum entanglement.  It's the hypothesis he was working on when he died in 2018.

At least that is the sense I made of it.  A lot no doubt depended on the math.