I will prove to you that God exists

[The Valkyrie]

God exists in a mind that's had too much access to Structured Water.

[Gwaithmir]

Hello,
I sincerely want to help people who are questioning the existence of God. I will not promote any religion. I will prove the existence of God to you in a way you have probably never heard before, clearly, as clear as 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Actually I am not sure whether I should do this, because I dont think many people truly deserve it.
Instead of explaining it to you directly, I want to ask questions that will lead you to discover it yourself, that way, it will be more meaningful.
I believe it would be best to do this through private messages, so please message me directly.

Moderator Notice
Please refrain from posting copy and pasted text you have posted elsewhere.  You can reword it if need be.

I engaged Order in a several private messages in which he "proved" the existence of God with a few arguments which did not stand up to rational scrutiny. I gave him a detailed statement on why I do not believe is God(s), which he has, thus far, not addressed. He seems to lack the willingness, intellectual honesty and courage to engage in a meaningful discussion.

[Alan V]

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

No, have you? I note that you don't list all of the scientists that don't support your peculiar little worldview.

Your list did not include Stephen Hawking, who was so unhappy with the multiverse idea that he spent much of the last 20 years of his life developing an alternative.

That alternative was explored at length in On the Origin of Time: Stephen Hawking's Final Theory by his assistant, physicist Thomas Hertog.  Drew keeps ignoring this, and I am getting tired of repeating it.  Just as you said, this should be highly relevant to his discussion: scientists do not need to resort to the idea of a multiverse.  

There is no need for people like us to "write a thesis" correcting certain scientists, not when other important scientists have been doing it themselves.

As far as I am concerned, Drew's own thesis collapsed early in this discussion.  He just won't admit it.

[Paleophyte]

Your list did not include Stephen Hawking

I blame Google.  

As far as I am concerned, Drew's own thesis collapsed early in this discussion.  He just won't admit it.

It's pretty fatally flawed. He keeps chanting about "incredibly low probability" and "narrow range". That'd be true if he was trying to get humans by chucking darts at a board at random. We don't know what range of values is possible, if any, we don't know how likely our values are, we don't know if they're random or independent, and we don't know what happens when our numbers don't come up. Lacking that you can't do a useful evaluation of the probability space and his entire argument boils down to one of incredulity and ignorance.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think the chief flaw is that his argument has logical leaps: intelligence exists, therefore it was deliberate, therefore it was designed. One might as easily claim, to paraphrase JBS Haldane, that the Universe exists because the Creator has a beetle fetish.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hello,
I sincerely want to help people who are questioning the existence of God. I will not promote any religion. I will prove the existence of God to you in a way you have probably never heard before, clearly, as clear as 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Actually I am not sure whether I should do this, because I dont think many people truly deserve it.
Instead of explaining it to you directly, I want to ask questions that will lead you to discover it yourself, that way, it will be more meaningful.
I believe it would be best to do this through private messages, so please message me directly.

Moderator Notice
Please refrain from posting copy and pasted text you have posted elsewhere.  You can reword it if need be.

I engaged Order in a several private messages in which he "proved" the existence of God with a few arguments which did not stand up to rational scrutiny. I gave him a detailed statement on why I do not believe is God(s), which he has, thus far, not addressed. He seems to lack the willingness, intellectual honesty and courage to engage in a meaningful discussion.

I did the same, and came away with the impression that Order couldn't find his own arse with both hands and a flashlight.

Boru

[Alan V]

As far as I am concerned, Drew's own thesis collapsed early in this discussion.  He just won't admit it.

It's pretty fatally flawed. He keeps chanting about "incredibly low probability" and "narrow range". That'd be true if he was trying to get humans by chucking darts at a board at random. We don't know what range of values is possible, if any, we don't know how likely our values are, we don't know if they're random or independent, and we don't know what happens when our numbers don't come up. Lacking that you can't do a useful evaluation of the probability space and his entire argument boils down to one of incredulity and ignorance.

It is certainly an argument from ignorance if Drew is uninformed about the possible alternatives.

His argument seems to me to be that anthropic multiverse cosmology is a reductio ad absurdum of materialist thinking, that a logical extrapolation from inflation and string theories leads to nonsense. But that argument can't be true if there are other logical alternatives, even if you grant that the multiverse doesn't make sense to begin with -- a big "if."

As Boru said, Drew keeps jumping to unwarranted conclusions. He can't seem to hold the unknown in his mental grasp. I suppose that is true of a fair number of theists. They want to know. They think it is important to know. So they jump at some "answer" or other. Perhaps the alternatives involve too much work, and they are just intellectually lazy. It's hard to say.

[Sheldon]

It's pretty fatally flawed. He keeps chanting about "incredibly low probability" and "narrow range". That'd be true if he was trying to get humans by chucking darts at a board at random. We don't know what range of values is possible, if any, we don't know how likely our values are, we don't know if they're random or independent, and we don't know what happens when our numbers don't come up. Lacking that you can't do a useful evaluation of the probability space and his entire argument boils down to one of incredulity and ignorance.

It is certainly an argument from ignorance if Drew is uninformed about the possible alternatives.

His argument seems to me to be that anthropic multiverse cosmology is a reductio ad absurdum of materialist thinking, that a logical extrapolation from inflation and string theories leads to nonsense.  But that argument can't be true if there are other logical alternatives, even if you grant that the multiverse doesn't make sense to begin with -- a big "if."

As Boru said, Drew keeps jumping to unwarranted conclusions.  He can't seem to hold the unknown in his mental grasp.  I suppose that is true of a fair number of theists.  They want to know.  They think it is important to know.  So they jump at some "answer" or other.  Perhaps the alternatives involve too much work, and they are just intellectually lazy.  It's hard to say.

"He can't seem to hold the unknown in his mental grasp."

Exactly, why do theists like Drew, think an absence of knowledge is a sound basis for belief, rather than the opposite. What's worse when we and he admit we don't know, he shakes his head, rolls his eyes and says then it must a deity, and when we refuse to share his belief, he insists we must be making a contrary claim, and insist his claim has merit if we can't offer an alternative, which is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. When his arguments are exposed as fallacious, he first ignores it, then denies it but just with handwaving, then repeats his fallacious arguments, and lies, denying that you explained why it was fallacious, then finally goes with the "you must all be idiots" argument and flounces out. 

Agnosticism is not a reasonable basis for theistic or deistic belief, rather it is a sound reason to withhold belief. As it would be in any other circumstances, facing any other claim, god claims are no different. Drew's bias was evident throughout, but never more so than when he admitted he does not submit all claims to the same standard before becoming credulous. Just why the phrase "I don't know" causes religious apologists to panic, and shriek as if they've won the Templeton prize, is anyone's guess.

[Paleophyte]

He can't seem to hold the unknown in his mental grasp.

I suspect that it's more that some godbotherer told him this was TRUE once upon a time and he's only now being presented with anybody who thinks differently. The notion that anybody might have answers other than the standard church scripts to these ridiculous apologetics is probably new territory for him. It explains why he's stuck in endless repetition of balderdash that doesn't connect well in the first place.

[Deesse23]

I think the chief flaw is that his argument has logical leaps: intelligence exists, therefore it was deliberate, therefore it was designed. One might as easily claim, to paraphrase JBS Haldane, that the Universe exists because the Creator has a beetle fetish.

Boru

God: Seems to rather have an empty space fetish.
Drew: continues to state, like a mantra, that life, specifically human life, that intelligence, specifically human intelligence, was the goal for creating the universe, but never ever gave a single good reason why this would be the case.

The universe just could be different, without human life and human intelligence. End of story.