I will prove to you that God exists

[Angrboda]

I'm interested in what your answers to the questions you asked Sheldon are:

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?

[Nay_Sayer]

PC had a hiccup. Everything should be in order.

Drewski is getting feisty

[Angrboda]

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.

No I did not. That is simply false. I asked for your evidence that the characteristics could vary. I offered no claims, notions, or scenarios, within or without the perimeter of your imagination. You are simply lying now. One reason you get a lot of pushback is because you misrepresent other peoples' positions. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that.

Nor have I said one way or another what I believe. That is another bit of nonsense you've made up.

[Paleophyte]

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?

No, that's my attempt at an honest reply to you. If all you can do is be dismissive then I've failed due to the person that I'm talking with being a close-minded imbecile. If you're done with that you can sit down and have a think about why adding an extra step that goes absolutely nowhere benefits anything.

Why do laptops exist?

Kindly read up on the Watchmaker Fallacy.

Your other complaint is your mistaken belief that if a Creator caused the universe to exist that ends all scientific theory and inquiry.

All inquiry period. You have arrived at The Great Unknown. Proceed No Further. Once you end the chain of questioning with "God" you are stuck. It isn't an answer, it's an excuse to stop thinking.

Theism is an explanation...

No, it isn't. You're going to tell me as much with your next breath.

...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.

There you are. No answer. Your chain of reasoning ends at "Go talk to a priest." That has zero explanatory power. Can I understand why the universe was Created? How it was Created? If another one might be Created soon? No, go talk to a priest. Goddunnit explains nothing.

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.

Because Goddunnit isn't as good. It fails to explain anything, it prevents any further inquiry, and it relies on an infinitely complex assumption for which we know that there is zero evidence.

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

I left it out because it wasn't important to the discussion. First, multiverses aren't all infinite. Some are just very large. Second, an infinite multiverse is still preferable to god because the former relies solely on natural forces. It doesn't have to make up magical powers and give them an ego. If you pit infinite god against infinite multiverse Occam's razor cuts god's throat.

[Angrboda]

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

Yes it does...now buzz off.

So you would change your answers depending upon what it is being used as an analogy for? What kind of nonsense is that? Are you afraid of the questions?

[The Architect Of Fate]

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?

The assumption that any of these things are needed inherently for life is an assumption it's also an assumption that any of these forces are the only possible forces this  is unjustified 

The assumption there were no forces or that our current forces didn't behave in a different manner at some point this  is unjustified 

The assumption nature requires any of these forces at all is an assumption and is unjustified 

Assumptions atop assumptions atop assumptions on what you can't possibly know

[Drew_2013]

@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. 

Which makes it a moot point and the hill you choose to die on. Nor do we need to know if they could be different to ascertain the universe is fine-tuned for life.
 

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. 

In science, "fine-tuning" refers to the idea that certain fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe are incredibly precisely set for life to exist. These parameters, such as the laws of physics and the values of constants like the gravitational constant, must fall within a very narrow range to allow for the formation of stars, planets, and the complex molecules necessary for life.

Do you think scientists who stake their reputation on the claim we live in a multiverse never considered your brilliant objection that for some unknown reason the universe had to come out as it did and that way was to allow life? No they avoid that argument because its not much different than saying the universe had to come out with the properties for life because it was intentionally caused for that purpose. Secondly as I wrote to you motherboards are fine-tuned to perform calculations and designed to come out exactly the same already fine-tuned. 

 It is a key premise of the argument from fine tuning that they could be or had to be tuned. 

No, the key argument is that they are tuned for life to exist. It makes not a slightest difference if they had to be that way. 

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.

If there's no evidence the universe had to come out as it did then it's not a sound argument. In legal parlance you're offering facts not in evidence. But for the sake of argument if it did 'have' to come out as it did how does it look any different than a circuit board deliberately designed to fine tolerances?

A red herring is a diversionary tactic, either in writing or conversation, that distracts from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant topic or clue. It's used to mislead or confuse, often to avoid answering a direct question or shifting the focus of a discussion

The main issue is scientists tell us the universe is fine-tuned for life. In part for this reason they invoke multiverse theory. I don't care if my response satisfies you.

[Paleophyte]

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

They wouldn't be called constants otherwise.

Perhaps because somebody mistakenly thought that they were constants. Alpha, the fine-structure "constant" varies with energy scale, from an asymptotic value of 1/137.036 at zero energy to as little as 1/127 at ~90 GeV (Fritzsch, 2002).

It's also noteworthy that the "narrow" range for this inconstant constant is between 1/180 and 1/85.

[The Grand Nudger]

Either assumption is deleterious to the IDiot god. If they couldn't be otherwise and still yield what god wants then god's wishes and desires are beholden to an entirely natural reality. If they could be whatever and god would still get what god wanted then the fact that they're this way or some other is meaningless and completely uninformative as to god's creation.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Multiverses do not violate Occam's razor  as has been pointed out by advocates for hypothesis have pointed out. Also Occam's razor is a principle and a guideline not a gospel

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"