I will prove to you that God exists

[Drew_2013]

Do you know of some force inside spacetime that caused spacetime to exist? We have mountains of evidence that natural forces came into existence. That tells us nothing about what caused them to exist or why the myriad of exacting properties and characteristics for life obtained.

All you're demonstrating is that in any epistemological system the root cause has to be treated specially.

Put more simply, if you keep asking "Why" long enough you get to a point where you can't easily find an answer. This is true for everybody regardless of belief. Here's how it goes:



Theist:
Q:Why does the universe exist?
A: Because of the Big Bang.
Q: Why does the Big Bang exist?
A: God made it.
Q: Why does God exist?
A: I don't know.

Both camps arrive at the same inevitable conclusion, but theists use an extra step that invokes an all-powerful supernatural entity for which there is no evidence and no possible explanation. That step has negative value for a long list of reasons. First and foremost, it cuts the throat of your argument with Occam's razor due to the addition of an infinitely complex and utterly inexplicable entity. It also prevents any further examination by terminating the chain of reasoning in the ineffable. Ending with "Goddunnit" means that mortal minds can inquire no further, which is why the last answer you'll frequently hear from theists isn't an honest "I don't know" but rather a "Die heretic!" By contrast, the atheist, and anybody looking to natural explanations for that matter, can end with, "I don't know yet, but we're still looking." That gets you out into the wilderness of speculative cosmology, but at least there isn't a priest holding a big sign reading "Thou shalt not ask!" The root cause may always terminate at "I don't know" but that's no excuse to stop trying to push back the boundaries.

Is this the best you can do make up a conversation between yourself...and yourself?

Why do laptops exist?
A. Because scientists, engineers and programmers collaborated to make a laptop exist.


A laptop which is simplicity in itself compared to the universe, requires an extra step as opposed to mindless natural forces accidentally causing a laptop to exist. Are there things which are beyond the capability of mindless natural forces? Fortunately we know how the virtual universe came into existence, once again it was the result of scientists, engineers and programmers using intelligence and intent to cause one to exist. Is it conceivable that mindless natural forces without plan, intent or a degree in engineering could somehow cause the virtual universe to exist? As an atheist you have to say its possible since according to atheists natural forces without plan or intent or an engineering degree to caused the real one to exist. 

Your other complaint is your mistaken belief that if a Creator caused the universe to exist that ends all scientific theory and inquiry. Isaac Newton considered the father of physics, believed there is a mathematical explanation for the movements of planets and celestial objects precisely because he believed the universe was intentionally caused to exist. He believed there was a creator, acted on it and as a result he uncovered many formulas and he's considered the father of physics. We know pyramids were intentionally caused to exist by intelligent beings, that doesn't stop scientists from figuring out how they Egyptians did it. Science won't stop tomorrow if they discover conclusive evidence our existence was intentionally caused. It will proceed as it always does. 

Theism is an explanation for why a universe came into existence and caused intelligent life to exist. Its not an explanation for why God exists. For that you need to speak to a theologian...which I am not.
 
Atheist
Q:Why does the universe exist?
A: Because of the Big Bang.
Q: Why does the Big Bang exist?
A: I don't know.

If that was truly your position (or the position of atheists) you'd say the claim it was intentionally caused to exist is as good as any other explanation since in fact we don't know. That's never the position of the atheist. It's true they don't know why the universe came to exist, however despite the admission of ignorance they believe it was unintentionally caused by mindless natural forces. In short Naturedidit.

I notice you're leaving multiverse out as a potential explanation presumably because it violates Occam's razor to infinity and beyond!

[Drew_2013]

Lets try again:

1. Why do you think the only two choices are:
a) Certainty no deity created the universe?
b) Belief in a deity? 
2. Do you know what a false dichotomy fallacy is?
3. Do you understand that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive?
4. Do you know what agnosticism means? (I only ask, as you misrepresented atheism several times)
5. If you don't know whether something is true, is it reasonable to believe it to be so?
6. If you don't know, and so don't believe, that any deity exists, what word(s) best describes you?
7. If some god claims can be disproved, but others not, but you still don't know the latter are true, what word(s) best describe you?

Can we start a betting pool on how many of these questions will be answered?

Boru

1. Why do you think the only two choices are:

a) Certainty no deity created the universe?
b) Belief in a deity?

The universe was intentionally caused to exist or it was unintentionally caused to exist. If you claim that's a false dichotomy you need to explain why its a false dichotomy. The burden is on the person who makes a claim right?  

3. Do you understand that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive?

That's not a question its a statement. 

5. If you don't know whether something is true, is it reasonable to believe it to be so?

If you don't know whether something is true is it reasonable to believe it isn't true? I didn't know for certain the sun would rise this morning but I believed it would. I believed the chair I'm sitting on would support me...I could be wrong, it may have worn down to a point it was on the verge of collapsing. I believe OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman but can I be absolutely sure? No.

7. If some god claims can be disproved, but others not, but you still don't know the latter are true, what word(s) best describe you?

Specify what claims you're referring to.

[Nay_Sayer]

Right back to the watchmaker fallacy. Also didn't answer a single question so.....LET ME GET THOSE WINNINGS!

[Fake Messiah]

A laptop which is simplicity in itself compared to the universe, requires an extra step as opposed to mindless natural forces accidentally causing a laptop to exist.

This is fallacy because it has been observed that the universe keeps creating itself - like stars, planets, black holes, etc. While laptops constantly need to be developed and maintained by humans.

Theism is an explanation for why a universe came into existence and caused intelligent life to exist.

It's not an explanation because saying for something that "god did it" is not to explain it. Just like people used to say for thunders, earthquakes and winds that god did them.

[Angrboda]

@Drew_2013

If you cannot name where you provided evidence, nor can provide evidence that the characteristics could be other than what they are, we must presume that you don't have any evidence.

Is that not reasonable? You've been given many opportunities to support this key premise and you've yet to do so.

[Sheldon]

Can we start a betting pool on how many of these questions will be answered?

Boru

Sheldon: 
1. Why do you think the only two choices are:
a) Certainty no deity created the universe?
b) Belief in a deity? 
2. Do you know what a false dichotomy fallacy is?
3. Do you understand that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive?
4. Do you know what agnosticism means? (I only ask, as you misrepresented atheism several times)
5. If you don't know whether something is true, is it reasonable to believe it to be so?
6. If you don't know, and so don't believe, that any deity exists, what word(s) best describes you?
7. If some god claims can be disproved, but others not, but you still don't know the latter are true, what word(s) best describe you?

1) The universe was intentionally caused to exist or it was unintentionally caused to exist. If you claim that's a false dichotomy you need to explain why its a false dichotomy. The burden is on the person who makes a claim right?  

Those aren't the two choices in my question...and I never mentioned a false dichotomy in Q1, or made any claim, so a straw man straight out of the gate, and you haven't tried to answer. Strike 1...

3. Do you understand that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive?

That's not a question its a statement. 

So we're skipping number 2 then, that's strike 2. It most certainly is a question, but you have again not even tried to answer, so strike 3 then, and it's reasonable to infer the answer is no, else why the dishonest evasion.  

5. If you don't know whether something is true, is it reasonable to believe it to be so?

If you don't know whether something is true is it reasonable to believe it isn't true? I didn't know for certain the sun would rise this morning but I believed it would. I believed the chair I'm sitting on would support me...I could be wrong, it may have worn down to a point it was on the verge of collapsing. I believe OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman but can I be absolutely sure? No.

Ah we're skipping 4 as well, so strike 4. And you've not answered 5 either, just presented a string of false equivalences, that we actually do know. Strike 5. 

7. If some god claims can be disproved, but others not, but you still don't know the latter are true, what word(s) best describe you?

Specify what claims you're referring to.

So we're skipping 6 as well, that's strike 6. And you've not answered 7, not even understood by that response. The question was what word(s) best describe someone under those circumstances. So 0 questions answered out of 7 then, I shan't even feign surprise. 

I counted two logical fallacies repeated, a straw man, and a false equivalence. though to be fair the fact you used two more fallacies, does suggest an answer to number 2, albeit accidentally. You could have Googled 4 ffs. Ah well, no real surprises here.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Once again laptops are a man made object with a known designer and builder that function on natural forces. The universe is not man made and has no demonstrated designer though it does function on natural forces. This analogy doesn't work no matter how much more or less complex the universe is vs a laptop these two things will never be in the same category of objects  so using one to argue for the other is a waste of time the universe should obviously designed without a need to cheat and try compare it to known designed object like a laptop.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nailed it.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

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.

When someone does that, it's cherry-picking, not circular reasoning. Right now, I'm nitpicking, but so it goes.

[Drew_2013]

Angrboda

They would still be in just as narrow a range as ever only now you're saying for some reason, they had to be in that narrow range. I believe it was designed to be in that narrow range and if other universes are the same that just more evidence it was intentionally caused. I'm pointing out this is a bad argument.

Well now I think you're just arguing semantics.  Yes, in some sense they would still exist in a narrow range but their having the value that they do would no longer be something that required an explanation such as design by a god. If you don't know that they can vary, then you have no fact needing explanation, by gods or otherwise, it would just be a brute fact.  Your argument for design requires that they can be something other than what they are, otherwise your entire argument from design is unsupported

Because you're invoking some other unknown law of physics that causes any universe that comes into existence to be the same as this one. You've offered no explanation or evidence a law causes all universes to be like this one. If our universe had to come out as it did, that is antithetical to the very notion the universe wasn't planned or intended to come out as it did...it just happen to serendipitously turned out as it did. 

Do you actually believe there was some transcendent force external to the universe that caused this universe to be in an extremely narrow configuration to allow life? A cookie cutter mold right? I suspect not, this whole objection is a red herring.
 
A mother board is intentionally made to perform in a very narrow tolerance in order to work as intended. A resistor out of tolerance, a break in a solder point will cause it to malfunction. A motherboard in a computer is fine-tuned to perform computations and to display them. Once its determined the board works as expected, its put into mass production to pop out identical boards. Does that make them any less fine-tuned to perform calculations? No. Do they intentionally create motherboards to be fine tuned? Yes. If some how we found another universe and discovered it was identical to this one wouldn't that make the claim it was intentionally caused to exist stronger? 

I have reviewed this thread and find no place where you clearly provided such evidence.  I can only find three potential sources for a claim that you had done so in this thread which are your remarks concerning Victor Stenger's book, your noting that the cosmological constant was predicted to be much greater than it is, and your claim that eminent scientists believe in the multiverse hypothesis due to a lack of persuasiveness of other natural explanations combined with the assumption of fine tuning.  In the latter case, the evidence would be what it was that convinced the scientists that the universe is fine tuned, including evidence that the characteristics could be other than what they are; in that they serve as proxy for the evidence itself and if those scientists do not have support for the possibility of variation, then their speculations are unsupported, regardless of what did or did not persuade them.  I haven't seen you present any actual citations of scientists giving their reasons for subscribing to the multiverse hypothesis, so that isn't well supported either;  so far we have only your say so in the matter.

I haven't seen you present evidence of a force or power external to the universe that caused it to be fine-tuned for life. If you have such evidence of a force external to the universe that forced it to be as it is, you added more evidence of  the existence of a Creator.