The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Pat Mustard]

I don't see how that follows.  I'm saying that the appearance of the Universe is not evidence for design.  That doesn't mean I can't be convinced that I'm wrong, or that I'm unwilling to consider other lines of evidence.

No pal, that's not what you're saying. Here :

the universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it were not designed.

And I am really curious on what basis are you relying to affirm such stuff.

I don't see how that follows.  I'm saying that the appearance of the Universe is not evidence for design.  That doesn't mean I can't be convinced that I'm wrong, or that I'm unwilling to consider other lines of evidence.

Again, you asserted that this universe is more probably undesigned than not. And you need to back this up. Besides, the appearance of the universe is all there is to it. If you reject the appearance of the universe, then you reject reality, plain and simple.

Consider again, the following weak rebuttal :

"the appearance of all people around me doing stuff similar to mine, behaving like myself, etc. isn't evidence of other minds. That doesn't mean I can't be convinced that I'm wrong"

It's not hard to see now how asinine this reasoning is. Now replace people with nature.

Abundant appearances of people are indicative of...... actual people.
Abundant appearances of design are indicative of...... you guessed it, actual design.

Be honest yourself.  You pulled that '120 decimal places' out of your bum, didn't you?  You can say - we're all friends here.

But which physical constants do you mean?  If it's all of them, then you'll need to demonstrate that an infinitesimally different value for, say, the decay rate of cobalt58 would preclude the existence of the universe. If you mean only some of them, then you'll need to explain why the changes that HAVE occurred haven't destroyed the universe.

You dare questioning my honesty ? The "120 decimal places" thing is real. It's actually more than that: the cosmological constant measured today is around 10^(-122). Here, check it yourself:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3105.pdf

If it were not that small, stars, and thus life, would not be able to form. Now you shamelessly think with your full cognitive power that this stuff isn't indicative of design, but actually more evidence that the universe looks exactly as if it weren't designed. Like, really.... ?

I'm not asserting anything or attempting to prove anything at all. I'm saying that your claim that simple observation of the universe must directly lead to the conclusion that God exists is just bloody silly.

You favored the probability that our universe isn't designed, which is again, an assertion. Overall, The beauty of the sunset and nature in general  leads to god for intellectually honest people. Asking for ((((evidence)))) when you have all this, around you, is just bloody silly.

---

If (and it's a big if) the universe was designed, then it was not designed with human life in mind.
Most of the universe would kill us in a second, too hot, too cold, vacuum, toxic, radiation etc.

The abundance of bad stuff doesn't explain away fine tuning. If one finds a microship inside a volcano, it surely warrants a whole semconductor chip manufacturing company with thousands of employees.

Despite that the atheist thinks fine-tuned constants warrant zero employee.

So you're resorting to lies kloro. I'd say I'm surprised except for the fact that's all you've ever done on these fora.

---

Beauty has NOTHING to do with design or fine tuning.  Beauty is a human response to certain sensory inputs and patterns.  It is in the eye of the beholder, and not something objective.

Is the existence of love, pleasure, pain evidence of design?  No, they are responses that humans have evolved to experience.

Evolution says that the world wasn't designed for us, but rather we evolved to be a part of the world.  

I believe that a firm grasp of science is the most instructive element to a religious understanding.  Read a book on evolution sometime.  I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth".

For the gazillionth time, evolution doesn't explain away fine-tuning. You can describe all the processes you want that led to what we see, that doesn't negate a designer who intended all along for the universe to devolve into its present form -through these processes.

Even if the universe were finely tuned (fact: it is not), that would have no bearing on evolution. Evolution and fine tuning have no relation to each other.

You would have as much validity if you were arguing that evolution had to explain the LBW rule.