I will prove to you that God exists

[arewethereyet]

This troll is getting a lot more attention than they deserve.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I love how he keeps needing to rely on argument ad populum's. The number of people who hold a position has nothing to do  with whether that position is justified or not

[The Valkyrie]

Even if, IF, the watchmaker fallacy was somehow proof that a deity 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.

So, you'll accept Cyril the Space Wombat as your lord and saviour without question?

It's a start.

[Angrboda]

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.

The word tune means that they are adjusted to a specific value.  If the characteristics could not be other than what they are, then not only were they not adjusted, they indeed could not be adjusted.  You are simply using the word 'tuned' incorrectly.   If the universe's characteristics cannot be tuned, then they very well can't be fine tuned.

You're missing the point of the objection which is that in order to argue that the values are a product of design then it is necessary that they could have been other than what they are.  If you have no evidence to indicate that they could have been tuned or needed to be tuned, then there's no reason to suspect design and the constants being what they are is not evidence for God.  You either need to provide some evidence that the characteristics could have been adjusted or accept that they are not evidence for the existence of God.  Just like a murder trial, if I raise reasonable doubt that my client committed the murder, by showing that you lack a critical piece of evidence, I have invalidated your case against my client.  I don't need to prove that someone else did it, only that you didn't prove my client did it.  Thus I need not show an alternative to God fine-tuning the universe if you cannot demonstrate through evidence that it even required a God or other force to adjust the values.  This idea that I need to subscribe to an opposite theory to demonstrate that your theory doesn't work is simply an irrational idea of yours.  It truly is a red herring.

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

Quoting the definition of a red herring does not explain or demonstrate that I am guilty of a red herring.  Are you really this stupid?

[Angrboda]

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.

By not providing evidence for key premises? That's a rather strange way to thinking of meeting some bar.

What is this supposed evidence? As I've shown, fine-tuning isn't evidence for a creator, so what else do you have?

[Drew_2013]

@Sheldon Now Drew, do behave, all anyone need do is read this thread to know your arguments have been relentlessly irrational, do you really still imagine you can bluff your way past this? You have used more logical fallacies in this very post...

Bullshit. Because you say so?

1. The fact the universe exists

2. The fact life exists
3. The fact intelligent life exists.
4. The fact the universe has laws of physics, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5. The fact that in order for intelligent humans to exist requires a myriad of exacting conditions including causing the ingredients for life to exist from scratch.

Those are objective facts.

The first 4 are, and not one of them represents objective evidence for any deity. 

Its objective inferential evidence the universe was intentionally caused to exist. 

Yes it is. Theists claim the universe was intentionally caused to exist. A universe exists, if it didn't exist the the claim it was intentionally caused would be falsified. Naturalists claim the universe was the result of natural forces. The existence of the universe makes their claim more probable than if it didn't exist.

Theists claim the universe was created to cause life to exist. Life didn't have to exist but life exists thus making the claim more probable than if it didn't exist.
Theists claim intelligent life was caused to exist and it does. It didn't have to exist and if it didn't the claim would be falsified.
Number 4 is true and is indicative of a universe that was intentionally caused to exist. Scientists have extracted numerous formulas and equations from the universe you claim was caused by non-god forces. Scientists have been successful in reverse engineering the universe.

5. The fact that in order for intelligent humans to exist requires a myriad of exacting conditions including causing the ingredients for life to exist from scratch.

You deny a myriad of conditions had to occur for there to be a congenial planet like earth to exist? Did nature have to have gravity? Did it have to be in a range that allows the universe to expand, for stars to exist, for planets to exist. Did there have to be laws of physics that turn helium and hydrogen to turn into the ingredients necessary for life to exist? Did dark matter have to exist? Notice how these conditions and properties are absolutely necessary for our existence but natural forces that didn't intend or want our existence have no requirements for any of these conditions to exist. Natural forces don't care if oxygen exists, don't care if planets exist, don't care if water exists. They don't care if life exists.

The last one is a subjective belief you hold, and as has been explained, we don't know that any other kind of universe is possible, or if very different types of intelligent life might be possible if it were. 

If this universe had to come out as it did that suggests it was designed to come out as it did. But you don't believe that bullshit that it had to come out as it did so that's a BS objection. 

Again you seem to think ignoring rational objections, and endless repetition achieves something, what or why that is, is not clear.

I respond to as many posts as I can. Right now I have 32 waiting...I only ignore the stupid ones to save time.

[Angrboda]

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?

Does it matter? Answer the question and I'll tell you what it is analogous to.

[Drew_2013]

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

By not providing evidence for key premises?  That's a rather strange way to thinking of meeting some bar.

What is this supposed evidence?  As I've shown, fine-tuning isn't evidence for a creator, so what else do you have?

You objected by offering the notion (out of whole cloth) the universe might have been forced to come out as it did with all the conditions and properties for life to exist. How does that look any different than being intentionally caused to exist to have all the properties for life to exist? It doesn't and that's why you don't believe your own nonsense and no one else should.

[Drew_2013]

What is that supposed to be analogous to?

Does it matter?  Answer the question and I'll tell you what it is analogous to.

Yes it does...now buzz off.

[Nay_Sayer]

Does it matter?  Answer the question and I'll tell you what it is analogous to.

Yes it does...now buzz off.

lmao. Please keep that energy.