I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

Nailed it.

Boru

Perhaps I must share some culpability, for asking 7 questions, lets try one at a time, see if that helps simplify things for him. 

@Drew_2013

What is your criteria for disbelief? What I mean is, why do you disbelieve something, rather than believe it?

[Mister Agenda]

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.)

What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? If it were so and we could observe other universes with the same properties, laws of physics, stars, planets solar systems it would only leave us to believe universes are caused to exist to produce life. It would be the same explanation why motherboards are identical, because they are intentionally caused to be identical.

Lastly, why would I have to prove Martin Ree's (and many other scientists) belief in multiverse theory? You don't seem to realize this is a naturalistic theory to explain how the universe we live in hit the right properties for life to exist.

Or that the physical constants of universes are constrained. Just sayin'.

[Mister Agenda]

The one they don't mention is the fallafetish fallacy. The obsession with finding so called fallacies. 

Maybe they don't mention it because you coined it? An obsession with finding fallacies would be an obsession, not a fallacy. It IS a fallacy (the 'fallacy fallacy') to conclude that something isn't true because the argument supporting it contains one or more fallacies. A claim supported by a fallacious argument could still be true, just not because of the fallacious argument used to support it.

[Angrboda]

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.

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.

I'm not invoking any specific explanation. I'm pointing out that we simply don't know one way or another whether the characteristics could be other than what they are. Since any argument that a creator had to tune such things requires that they needed to be tuned, no such argument can get off the ground without some evidence that they would have needed tuning. It is a key premise of the argument from fine tuning that they could be or had to be tuned. If there's no evidence for this, then it isn't a sound argument for God. Since it has a material impact on the argument and issues in question, it is not a red herring. Though I will welcome any explanation from you as to why you think it is.
 

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? 

We know and have evidence that the characteristics of motherboards can and do vary. If they didn't, we wouldn't be able to make motherboards. So motherboards aren't analogous. If we found another universe like ours we simply wouldn't know one way or another just as now. At present, we simply don't know whether the constants and characteristics do or do not have an explanation, only that if they indeed have any explanation, we are ignorant of it. But our ignorance of something doesn't imply much of anything.

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.

I have presented no such evidence. Why do you think the force or power which caused the universe to have the characteristics it did is external, or need be external?

---

Let me present you with an analogy. Let's say that I come home one day to find a horse in my apartment. I don't see how it could have come through the door. Can I conclude that it got there by magic? Why or why not?

[The Architect Of Fate]

So again he keeps comparing the universe to man made objects .....fail

[Mister Agenda]

Atheism isn't an explanation for the origin of the universe.   It is mute on that subject.   It neither endorses nor rejects the multiverse hypothesis.

Exactly why so few people are atheists. Then it shouldn't reject theism either.

About 7% of the world's population is more than some religions and many religious sects. The vast majority of people are taught by their parents and other adults they trust that theism (of whatever flavor their family practices) is true from a very young age. Did you not know this?

And you are creator-centered, but Buddhism and Jainism do not have a creator god. That's another 7-8% of the global population that doesn't buy into the 'there must be a creator that started the universe' claim. And based on a previous post of yours about atheism being about not accepting a creator, that would make them atheists too.

Atheism shouldn't reject theism is an absurd statement. Not being theism is what athism is. That the claim is based on an ad populum fallacy just makes it kind of funny.

[Drew_2013]

What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? If it were so and we could observe other universes with the same properties, laws of physics, stars, planets solar systems it would only leave us to believe universes are caused to exist to produce life. It would be the same explanation why motherboards are identical, because they are intentionally caused to be identical.

Lastly, why would I have to prove Martin Ree's (and many other scientists) belief in multiverse theory? You don't seem to realize this is a naturalistic theory to explain how the universe we live in hit the right properties for life to exist.

Or that the physical constants of universes are constrained. Just sayin'.

They wouldn't be called constants otherwise. The irony of this argument is its the preferred explanation for why we live in a universe that is fine-tuned for life is because they claim we live in an infinitude of universes with variable constants and we exist in the one that allowed our existence by happenstance. As if none of these scientists considered the possibility that it had to come out as it did. They reject that because it wouldn't look any different than being intentionally caused to be this way to produce life.

[Mister Agenda]

Drew,  people have seen laptops being made.  If you happen to have the Universe making channel on your cable provider, do share. FSM Weaps.

You don't need to see one being made to reason it was intentionally caused to exist...right?

Because of its similarity to other things we know were made by people like us, yes. Because things that are artificial tend to be very different from things that are natural.

If I had never seen a laptop and found one on a tree stump, I wouldn't conclude that it was formed naturally, like the tree stump. I would conclude it's artificial because it's so different from the natural stump it's sitting on in a way that I have learned to identify as human-made.

[The Valkyrie]

Even if, IF, the watchmaker fallacy was somehow proof thst a ddity existed, where's the proof that it was your particular god?

[Drew_2013]

Nailed it.

Boru

Perhaps I must share some culpability, for asking 7 questions, lets try one at a time, see if that helps simplify things for him. 

@Drew_2013

What is your criteria for disbelief? What I mean is, why do you disbelieve something, rather than believe it?

Is this an official interrogation? Should I put a bright spot light on myself while I answer? Can I take the 5th? 

What's your take on the question?

I can't make a blanket answer except on a case by case basis. I disbelieve UFO's are from another planet or galaxy because the distances are so far. A disbelief is no different than a belief...its an opinion. I could be wrong and aliens maybe so far advanced that they have technology that would make us blush. The available evidence is (my opinion) is too weak to justify the belief they come from other planets.

I hope I passed the audition!