I will prove to you that God exists

[Nay_Sayer]

I believe that you've hit the nail on the point with this one. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you seek out atheist websites and wander about objecting that we don't believe as you do. If you're looking for dogmatic validation of your beliefs, then you've come to the wrong place.

No, I just have fun at atheists expense.

1. Bricks are red
2. Apples are red.
3. Apples are sweet and delicious.

Those are objective facts. I've concluded that bricks are sweet and delicious.

This post exemplifies why atheists can't convince anyone (except themselves) we owe our existence to happenstance. So they resort to stupidity like this.

Listen to Drew about this he has a masters in being stupid

[Sheldon]

No, I just have fun at atheists expense.

Big yikes my guy. You've been getting steamrolled.

Thoughts and prayers. You also might wanna reconsider being so open about trolling.

Well with that level of self awareness, he might not be able to of course, but I suspect he may be trying to coax a mercy banning, rather than suffer further ignominy, and have to flounce out on his own, dragging his empty bag of superstition with him.

[Nay_Sayer]

If the universe had to be as it is, why would it happen to be in a extremely narrow configuration to allow life to exist?

Now that is comedy gold.   Deliberate?

Big yikes my guy. You've been getting steamrolled.

Thoughts and prayers. You also might wanna reconsider being so open about trolling.

Well with that level of self awareness, he might not be able to of course, but I suspect he may be trying to coax a mercy banning, rather than suffer further ignominy, and have to flounce out on his own, dragging his empty bag of superstition with him.

At the very least, some honesty finally was gleamed from Drew.

It's unfortunate but not surprising that he threw in the towel.  I suspect now this will mostly be just silly memes now that the mask is off.

[Drew_2013]

The answer of whether the universe and life was intentionally caused or was unintentionally caused by mindless natural forces is up for debate and at this point all anyone has is there opinion. I could be wrong...you could be wrong. Stop pretending its cut and dry and one opinion is obvious and the other preposterous.

Emergent behaviors that lead from a simple set of basic rules to complex behaviors are favoured by thermodynamics because they're a more efficient mechanism for achieving stable low-energy, high-entropy states more rapidly. These emergent behaviors favour the emergence of life and sentience. The result is that the entire "fine-tuning" argument is a retrospective view that mistakenly underestimates how likely it is that sentience might arise in any possible universe.

3. Second Law of Thermodynamics:

The total entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. This means that heat spontaneously flows from a hot object to a cold object, not the other way around.
The rules of thermodynamics leads to more disorder, not more complexity.

Where or when did the simple set of basic rules come into play? Is E=MC^2 a simple rule or the dozens of formulas and equations we extracted from mindless natural forces? The micro world is dominated by quantum physics one of the most difficult things to understand is it simple? Is the double slit experiment where matter behaves differently if its being observed than not being observed? Any simple explanations for that?  Is the singularity from which its alleged the universe came from simple? Is whatever existed prior to the big bang is simple? Scientists describe it as where the known laws of physics break down. Even in biology it was thought at one time that single cells are simple but as they dug into it, it became vastly more complex than originally thought. Mindless natural forces without plan, intent or a degree in biology somehow figured out how to transform non-biological matter into living matter. A feat that still eludes scientists...shouldn't that have been simplicity in itself? 

The result is that the entire "fine-tuning" argument is a retrospective view that mistakenly underestimates how likely it is that sentience might arise in any possible universe.

Have you written a thesis on this to straighten out actual scientists who make a living doing science? 

Max Tegmark:

A prominent advocate for the mathematical multiverse, which suggests that all possible mathematical structures exist in a separate universe.

Brian Greene:

A string theorist who explores the implications of the multiverse, including the possibility of other universes with different laws of physic

Lee Smolin:

A theoretical physicist who argues that the multiverse may be necessary to explain why our universe has the laws it does.

Alan Guth:

A physicist who developed the theory of inflation, which suggests that the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang, potentially leading to a multiverse

Michio Kaku:

A popular science writer and theoretical physicist who has written extensively about the multiverse and its implications.

Sean Carroll:

A theoretical physicist who has argued for the multiverse based on his work in cosmology and quantum mechanics

Leonard Susskind:

A theoretical physicist who has explored the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and its connection to the multiverse

Andrei Linde:

A physicist who has developed the theory of eternal inflation, which suggests that the multiverse is constantly being created

David Deutsch:

A theoretical physicist who has explored the implications of the multiverse for our understanding of quantum mechanics and consciousness

Alexander Vilenkin:
A physicist who has worked on the theory of cosmic inflation and its connection to the multiverse. 

Laura Mersini-Houghton:

A physicist who studies the multiverse and its implications for cosmology

These scientists are all well respected and they're not closet theists with a degree in zoology. Most if not all are atheists. These are your people...not mine. The irony here is because they believe in naturalism and naturalist explanations, that they are committed to multiverse theory. Why do they think its necessary for there to be an infinitude of universes? Are they so stupid they don't know about thermodynamics? Are they so dumb they don't know that 'maybe' the universe for some unknown reason had to come out as it did? No, they reject that asinine suggestion because what could cause a universe emerging from a singularity to have the same characteristics as if it was made from a cookie cutter? That looks more like plan and intent. When you drill down all these scientists claim multiverse at least in part because of the observed fine-tuning of the universe. I know its a kick in the pants, its clearly a bodacious theory and the theory itself states we can't detect these other universes. Its indisputably a time and chance naturalism in the gaps argument that for the time being is unfalsifiable. These folks are well aware of the critics of multiverse theory. I'm sure they're aware of you and others pathetic objections.

My hypothesis our universe was intentionally caused to produce life is based (in part) on the same knowledge and observations these people of science base multiverse on. They're allowed to have their hypothesis and I'm allowed to have mine. Some day you folks might attempt cough up some better explanation so far you're not succeeding which is why people don't believe you. 

By all means be sure you submit your thesis for publication...I'm sure they need a good belly laugh.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Drew_2013

The total entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. 

This is only germane to the topic if you can convincingly demonstrate that the universe is an isolated system.

Boru

[Angrboda]

My hypothesis our universe was intentionally caused to produce life is based (in part) on the same knowledge and observations these people of science base multiverse on. They're allowed to have their hypothesis and I'm allowed to have mine. Some day you folks might attempt cough up some better explanation so far you're not succeeding which is why people don't believe you. 

By all means be sure you submit your thesis for publication...I'm sure they need a good belly laugh.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, you want these scientists to be so smart that they've honed in on multiverse theory, yet at the same time they're too dumb to see the obvious superiority of the design hypothesis. Well, which is it, Drew, are they super smart or super stupid? If it were so obvious that the universe was designed, surely they would simply accept that as the explanation and choose to work on something else. What is your explanation for why they don't?

Science follows the evidence, which is why I pointed out that you had no evidence that the universe was fine-tuned. Fine-tuning is an analogy to musical instruments and electronics where the characteristics can vary and be adjusted. If the characteristics cannot vary, then they cannot be adjusted, and the analogy of fine-tuning is a false analogy because the two things are not alike in a relevant way. In order to show that it is a valid analogy requires evidence that the characteristics could be other than what they are. In the absence of such evidence, claiming that fine-tuning is a valid analogy is nothing more than a bare assertion that can be rejected for any cause. That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

[Sheldon]

Emergent behaviors that lead from a simple set of basic rules to complex behaviors are favoured by thermodynamics because they're a more efficient mechanism for achieving stable low-energy, high-entropy states more rapidly. These emergent behaviors favour the emergence of life and sentience. The result is that the entire "fine-tuning" argument is a retrospective view that mistakenly underestimates how likely it is that sentience might arise in any possible universe.

Drew: "Most if not all are atheists."

"they believe in naturalism and naturalist explanations,"

"they're not closet theists"

Rather destroying your argument their research in any way represents evidence, for your sky wizard, using inexplicable magic, ay, chuckles?

Drew:  That looks more like plan and intent. 

Not to them, as you have just stated. Oh dear, Drew, you just pulled your own pants down, and spanked yourself, again. 

Drew: My hypothesis our universe was intentionally caused to produce life is based (in part) on the same knowledge and observations these people of science base multiverse on. 


Drew: "Most if not all are atheists."

Oh dear, stepped on your own dick again. Now who does everyone think best understands the implications of their work, them, or you? It's not a hard question, is it chuckles?

Newsflash for chuckles, there is no scientific evidence for any deity, or anything supernatural. That's why the scientists you keep hilariously claiming support your superstitious beliefs, don't share them, as of course you just explained. 

What was it you said earlier - for everyone else to read. 

[Deesse23]

This post exemplifies why atheists can't convince anyone (except themselves) we owe our existence to happenstance. So they resort to stupidity like this.

Who came to which kind of forum with which thread title and tried to convince others of his unevidenced ideas, paraded around his ignorance and dishonesty, got his ass handed multiple times and now struts around like a peacock?

[Sheldon]

Drew: The total entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. 

Yes, chuckles, but while the universe's total entropy is always increasing, it doesn't mean every part of it experiences a constant increase in disorder. Local entropy can actually decrease, as seen in the formation of ordered structures like stars, galaxies, or even living organisms.

Newsflash for chuckles - the earth is not an isolated system. 

[Sheldon]

This post exemplifies why atheists can't convince anyone (except themselves) we owe our existence to happenstance. So they resort to stupidity like this.

Who came to which kind of forum with which thread title and tried to convince others of his unevidenced ideas, paraded around his ignorance and dishonesty, got his ass handed multiple times and now struts around like a peacock?

Oh oh oh, me me me, I know this one, pick me!!!