I will prove to you that God exists

[Drew_2013]

Angrboda

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? 

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 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?

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.

The key point is that they are tuned for life to occur. Even if the universe "had to be the way it is" for some unknown reason (such as being intentionally caused to exist) its still fine-tuned for life. You're offering an objection you admit is only a mere possibility which I seriously doubt you subscribe to.

Red Herring
a fact, idea, or subject that takes people's attention away from the central point being considered:

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If those are your standards, then your belief in a deliberately created universe doesn’t meet them.

Boru

It meets the preponderance of evidence meaning more in favor of the existence of a Creator than against.

Nah.

Boru

[Drew_2013]

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?

What is that supposed to be analogous to?

[Sheldon]

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?

I can't make a blanket answer except on a case by case basis. 

Thank you, so you don't treat all claims to the same standard then, clearly. Now I can tell you what my standard is, and it I apply it to all claims. As I know that bias for or against any idea, is the definition of a closed mind. Look up the definition of open minded if you don't believe me. 

A disbelief is no different than a belief...its an opinion. 

So my disbelief that the world is flat, is no different to the belief of others that it is, they're both just opinions? I think you know that is not true. One could also look up the definitions of those words, and see that your claim is simply wrong. 

The available evidence is (my opinion) is too weak to justify the belief

Well it's not just opinion is it, you know of no objective evidence that supports the notion. That, is precisely what my atheism is. If it was just an opinion, then you could justify believing it just as easily.

[Nay_Sayer]

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?

What is that supposed to be analogous to?

I understand your confusion let me help;

Let's say that I come back to my watch-making store one day to find a laptop in there, having a party that denies god.  I don't see how it could have come through the door because it was locked and I only gave a spare key to a non atheist scientist.

   Can I conclude that it got there by magic?  Why or why not?

[Sheldon]

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

They wouldn't be called constants otherwise. 

You misunderstand, the point was not whether those constants could vary in this universe, but whether another universe with different "constants" was possible? I asked you this right at the very start. You missed it's significance to your argument. You are still missing it. 

why we live in a universe that is fine-tuned for life 

We don't know that this universe is fine tuned for life, only that evolution has fine tuned life for one infinitesimally small speck of it.

[Sheldon]

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!

That wasn’t the question, though, was it? I think Sheldon was asking what, if anything, is your standard for disbelieve generally. If you don’t have such a standard, that’s fine, but it makes any argument regarding your beliefs inherently weak.

Boru

Exactly so, not having at least a conception of such a standard, surely can only infer subjective bias? Either we treat all claims to the same standard for credulity, or we are biased for or against them, unless I am missing something?

[Sheldon]

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

I don't have any particular God. I'm a philosophical theist. What we think of as God could be a scientist in another sphere of existence that caused this universe.

I think you mean what you think of as god, but that aside, how is this deity you imagine to be real, objectively different to a non-existent or imaginary deity?

[Sheldon]

That wasn’t the question, though, was it? I think Sheldon was asking what, if anything, is your standard for disbelieve generally. If you don’t have such a standard, that’s fine, but it makes any argument regarding your beliefs inherently weak.

Boru

What's yours?

About the highest level of certainty we can have is a scientifically established claims that pass the rigors of critique and repeatable experiments that confirm the hypothesis. Unfortunately not all theories can be so tested. 

The second level is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean all doubt is erased but reasonable doubt is.

The third level is a simple preponderance of evidence. In the mind of the beholder there is more evidence in favor of one claim than against it. Or there is more evidence that disfavors the claim than for it.

Evidence are facts that make a claim more or less probable.

That depends on the evidence, and lest we forget you have only present subjective claims, and arguments that are demonstrably irrational, and therefore weak. I don't say this to provoke your ire, I and others have highlighted the many fallacious arguments, and you have chosen to hand wave those objections away. 

I have heard apologists claim that the deity they imagine to be real, transcends logic. I think the irnoy of the claim, as well as the truth of it, is lost on them.

[Sheldon]

If those are your standards, then your belief in a deliberately created universe doesn’t meet them.

Boru

It meets the preponderance of evidence meaning more in favor of the existence of a Creator than against.

So all you need is a fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, that is not a "preponderance of evidence", it is something one could use to believe literally anything. The wizard of Oz did it, Elvis did it, unless you can prove otherwise...

This is why such fallacies are discarded by anyone who understands what they represent, weak and poor reasoning.