What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Cyberman]

First off, saying that some people say there is no evidence in nature for your or any god is merely preamble to set up a strawman.

1. There's no need to jump to chance in the absence of so-called intelligent design. Arguments from incredulity and/or probability cannot work on their own, they require support. The burden of proof is yours - go for it.

2. The human genome is not a word. It's not even the longest genome; I think that honour goes to some species of amoeba. Again, random chance is not the determining factor.

[robvalue]

No, I don't assume science will eventually explain everything. I'd very much think that would not be the case in fact.

As for fine tuning, there's no evidence the universe could have been any other way to the way it is; no reason to think universal constants could have been any different. If they were different things would have been different. If life was to develop, it would develop under those conditions instead. Or maybe it wouldn't. The universe didn't grow for us to live in, we grew in the universe because the conditions happened to be right in a particular place.

I don't know what you mean about the long word, I assume you're talking about our genome or something? If you're trying to discredit evolution, then it is not a random process you are talking about.

[The Grand Nudger]

1.  The extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order for the possibility of human life in relation to the astronomically calculated odds of this happening by chance.

We should not be surprised to find that the universe supports the existence of the creature asking a question about the universe.  If it didn't, the creature wouldn't exist to ask questions in the first place.  This isn't mystical, it isn't informative, it isn't representative of some god or celestial design...it's a giant "no shit" statement that still manages to get it woefully wrong regardless.  Anthropic principle.

2.  Why if you see your name written in the sand on the beach you can not fathom that the waves, rocks, sticks somehow worked in random fashion to scrawl your name but you automatically assume a person wrote it (intelligent being), but when you look at the longest word ever discovered, the human genome (3.5 billion letters in precise order) you assume random chance?

I -can- imagine that,  but I don;t have to....because it happens with greater regularity and more complexity than you seem to realize.  People see images of jesus on toast...that's a bit higher level than some scratches on the sand.  It's in our nature to look for patterns - particularly familiar ones, and it's well within the realm of possibility that I can see a pile of sticks spell out my name.  I -have- seen it before.  And clouds.  The shapes of states......... the list goes on and on.   I only think a person wrote my name when it's clear that it isn't just a pile of sticks. I also understand that people can unintentionally write my name (just as before, I might see my name in a Georgia O'Keefe painting). I see that others have already explained the dna bit is equivocation.

This is all so damned silly it doesn't seem to do much justice to the -idea- of a god.....but this was your evidence....for an -actual- god?

[Kingpin]

I'm not sure what you mean by it's not fine tuned for anything. The scientific community in large part recognizes the extreme balance of particles and constants and how if they varied slightly, carbon based life would be impossible. There are scores of scientific articles written about it and agnostic and atheist scientists have acknowledged these "conincideces", such as Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg:

In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.
Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on:
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

Also you may smack your head if you wish, but I was hoping for some sort of response to the question I posed

[MJ the Skeptical]

I always thought good evidence would be something like what the Vogons did in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, a universal message to all of mankind so I knew I wasn't crazy.

It's not bulletproof, but it's the best thing I can think of.

[FreeTony]

1. The extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order for the possibility of human life in relation to the astronomically calculated odds of this happening by chance.

2. Why if you see your name written in the sand on the beach you can not fathom that the waves, rocks, sticks somehow worked in random fashion to scrawl your name but you automatically assume a person wrote it (intelligent being), but when you look at the longest word ever discovered, the human genome (3.5 billion letters in precise order) you assume random chance?

Thank you and look forward to the discussion.

1. You cannot calculate these odds. I'd suggest a refresher of Bayes Theorem. If you think you can generate a probability of humans existing then either you do not understand probability or physics, and most likely don't have a clue about either.

2. The human DNA isn't a word, it's a bunch of chemicals. With your logic I could measure all the heights of a hill along a line, assign different letters to different heights, then claim the hill must have been designed because you spelt out a word.

[Tonus]

1.  The extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order for the possibility of human life in relation to the astronomically calculated odds of this happening by chance.

The fine-tuning argument must either assume that the possible 'settings' for life are limited and immutable --implying that god is similarly limited, which puts the idea that he created everything in doubt-- or that god can create any sort of universe and make it support life... in which case fine-tuning is bunk because any settings could support life if god wished it so.  So it's really a non-argument.

The fine-tuning argument has had its flaws exposed, time and time and time again.

[Kingpin]

1. The extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order for the possibility of human life in relation to the astronomically calculated odds of this happening by chance.

2. Why if you see your name written in the sand on the beach you can not fathom that the waves, rocks, sticks somehow worked in random fashion to scrawl your name but you automatically assume a person wrote it (intelligent being), but when you look at the longest word ever discovered, the human genome (3.5 billion letters in precise order) you assume random chance?

Thank you and look forward to the discussion.

1. You cannot calculate these odds. I'd suggest a refresher of Bayes Theorem. If you think you can generate a probability of humans existing then either you do not understand probability or physics, and most likely don't have a clue about either.

2. The human DNA isn't a word, it's a bunch of chemicals. With your logic I could measure all the heights of a hill along a line, assign different letters to different heights, then claim the hill must have been designed because you spelt out a word.

---

1.  The extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order for the possibility of human life in relation to the astronomically calculated odds of this happening by chance.

The fine-tuning argument must either assume that the possible 'settings' for life are limited and immutable --implying that god is similarly limited, which puts the idea that he created everything in doubt-- or that god can create any sort of universe and make it support life... in which case fine-tuning is bunk because any settings could support life if god wished it so.  So it's really a non-argument.

The fine-tuning argument has had its flaws exposed, time and time and time again.

Posting blogs about debunking fine tuning and talks of multiverses is not an argument.  I can post just as many from the other perspective.  I did not bring God in to the discussion, you did.  I in no way claim that there are not flaws in my argument just as the ones you espouse (multiverses) also have their flaws.  I'm just saying I find it very interesting to see the more we know about science in this modern time, the more scientists are "shocked" about the improbability of our universes existence.  Even the greatest mind of our time and vehement atheist Prof. Stephen Hawking mentioned it in his book, "A Brief History of Time".  Other leading scientists such as Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

These are leading scientists who know far beyond you are I and they do not take the argument lightly.  

[FreeTony]

Posting blogs about debunking fine tuning and talks of multiverses is not an argument.  I can post just as many from the other perspective.  I did not bring God in to the discussion, you did.  I in no way claim that there are not flaws in my argument just as the ones you espouse (multiverses) also have their flaws.  I'm just saying I find it very interesting to see the more we know about science in this modern time, the more scientists are "shocked" about the improbability of our universes existence.  Even the greatest mind of our time and vehement atheist Prof. Stephen Hawking mentioned it in his book, "A Brief History of Time".  Other leading scientists such as Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

These are leading scientists who know far beyond you are I and they do not take the argument lightly.  

You are now being purposefully deceitful. Fred Hoyle rejected the big bang. I would say that I have a better understanding of modern physics than he did.

According to Hawking, God is not needed to explain the origin of the fine-tuned universe.

If you're going to play at science, you mut realise it doesn't just involve quoting various scientist to prove your point, especially when they are in opposition to scientific concensus.

[Kingpin]

Yes Fred Hoyle rejected the Big bang, what's the point. He was still a well respected astrophysicist and is one of many scientists that mark the fine tuning as astronomically significant.

yes Hawking did proclaim God is not needed to explain the origin, but I have made no such claim. Hawking's quote on p.125 was "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." That was all I was saying.