I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon

Among creationists maybe, but certainly not among scientists. The term remains a metaphor used to describe the astonishingly narrow parameters of certain characteristics of the universe, and that if they altered even a vanishingly small amount, then the carbon life we know of, could not have emerged. So what? The universe is almost entirely hostile to life, you don't seem to be reading anything into that, could your bias be more obvious.

My 'bias' 

Is why your arguments are unreasonable. 

The best evidence the universe wasn't intentionally caused would be our non-existence.

A spectacularly stupid piece of circular reasoning. 

Would you expect mindless natural forces to cause a universe chalk full of mathematical equations that describe the universe?

Oh dear it's chock full, not chalk (sic) full ffs. Mathematics is a human creation, so I have no idea what you're asking here? The word mindless is also redundant, since you have shown you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence that natural phenomena have intent behind them. You simply keep repeating your same error in reasoning. You are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and asking others to disprove, or offer alternatives to your unevidenced claims. 

Is E=MC^2 a metaphor for the relationship between energy and matter? 

Did anyone say it was? You surely can see how desperate your straw man rhetoric is becoming now? Rather than address the facts I presented you offer yet another moronic straw man. 

Do you accept that the scientific term fine tuning describes entirely natural phenomena? 

Yes or no? 

If not then please link the peer reviewed research you think evidences the supernatural? Then explain why this news has escaped not just the entire scientific world, and every global news network. but the entire theological world as well? Nothing on the Catholic Herald, take a look if you don't believe me, no news that the Templeton foundation have celebrated the claim of their $1m prize for scientific evidence of the supernatural? 

Wouldn't it surprise you in the least bit if the laws of physics written into the fabric of spacetime dictate that stars going supernova create the very matter necessary for planets and humans to exist? 

Can't say it would no, but then as I've explained, I would believe this, as with all claims, only if sufficient objective evidence demonstrated it to be true. 

 Would you think to yourself (all alone in your thoughts) if mindless lifeless forces came into existence somehow it wouldn't surprise me if they stumbled upon the formula to accidentally cause something unlike itself to exist...life and mind.

Pure gibberish there, fair play? What one imagines, and what is objectively true are not necessarily the same. try and understand once and for all, that possibility must be demonstrated, and though imagining something "might be possible" is a starting point for all discovery, it is utterly meaningless until what you imagine has been properly reliably, and objectively evidenced. 

You have cited only one person, and even your example does not believe a deity exists, so that's a bit of comedy gold right there. And as I evidenced earlier, atheism rises sharply among scientists, and is almost universal among elite scientists, like The National Academy of Science, where 93% are atheists and agnostics. Are you saying they are not best placed to know if the scientific evidence indicates the universe was fine tuned by a creator deity? Seriously you ought to have the integrity to admit at least to yourself, when your arguments are so absurd they are comedic.

They don't dispute the universe is fine-tuned for life

Oh dear, fine tuned is a scientific term used as a metaphorical description of entirely natural physical characteristic of the universe, only creationists misrepresent it as scientific evidence of anything supernatural, and no amount of repeating this creationist lie, will change this fact. Do you imagine I am guessing this, and haven't done the due diligence, or that I will change my mind if you keep repeating your lie? 

Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include... Neil deGrasse Tyson...That would leave intent and design as the cause. 

Comedy fucking gold...he's an atheist. You are taking the opinions of some scientists, and adding your own biased, unevidenced,  and superstitious conclusion, and lying to pretend they endorse it. I, unlike you, fact check claims, you can't bluff your way passed me, so do please stop lying. 

I took Hawkings name off because it causes some people to have intense heart burn.

Who the fuck is Hawkings (sic)? Do mean Stephen Hawking by any chance? Given he was a lifelong outspoken atheist, and did not believe in the supernatural, I can only imagine the heartburn was from laughing as hard as I just did. Can you really believe you can bluff us with such idiotic mendacity? 

No it doesn't, that's a lie. 
Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Its the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a Creator of the universe. 

It's, not its (sic). Thank you for admitting you lied at least. 

What does that leave to cause a universe to exist?

Sigh, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Go and learn what it is, and what using it means. No one needs an alternative to your snake oil, in order to disbelieve your claims about it. 

So called weak atheists who lack belief in the existence of God, don't deny or dispute God exists, they simply lack that belief. If people who call themselves atheists don't deny God exists why should theists? 

Sigh, straw man fallacy, I never claimed theists should do this. You can believe the moon is made of cream cheese if it makes you happy. However, when you try to peddle your superstitious snake oil here, anyone is free to withhold belief. Nice tap dance away from your previous mendacity though. 

Its certainly fortuitous to humans that mother nature provided all the things necessary for life. 

It's not its, and you are marvelling at way the design of the hole fits the puddle again. I tire of explaining evolution to you, and that you're putting your clapped out pony behind your cart. The claim it is fortuitous is of course a subjective one. 

Natural forces we know of can't plan to intend anything to happen. 

Who said they could? 

Suppose tomorrow some startling new evidence comes forth and the majority of scientists conclude the universe was intentionally caused to exist. They don't say who or what, just that it was intentionally caused. Would that be a horrible day for you?

Why would it? Unlike you I don't start with a belief I prefer, and bend facts to suit it, I start with the facts and bend belief to suit those facts. 

Can you deny its possible our existence was intentionally caused 

I don't need to deny anything, I merely subject the claim to the same critical standard I subject all claims, can it be supported by sufficient objective evidence? It's your claim, the burden of proof is yours. I will believe it is possible if and when it can be objectively demonstrated. Why do you keep making the same error over and over again? Atheism is not a belief, it is not a claim. 

knowing in a few dozen years we maybe able to cause virtual people to exist in a virtual universe. 

I don't know this, this is just another sweeping unevidenced claim you have offered, and "may be able to" is semantically identical to may not be able to. 

No doubt some of the virtual people will believe there existence was intentionally caused. Would they be wrong?

Their existence, not there (sic) existence, and you are asking a hypothetical question, that your hypothetical scenario has already answered. Though tellingly you should be asking how would they know either way, it speaks volumes your first instinct is not to look for sufficient epistemological justification for belief, even in this bizarre hypothetical. 


What is the best reason you think you have that any deity exists, and why? I can't really give you much more latitude than that, to be fair....off you go, enthral us