I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

Drew: What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? 

I keep explaining this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, yet you keep using it? 


It is irrational / fallacious, to claim something is or might be true, because we lack an alternative explanation or evidence.

Drew: The entire dialog is a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 

No it absolutely is not you clown, what a preposterously stupid claim, stop trying to bluff, and go and learn what the fallacy is, and why it applies to you constantly trying to shift your burden of proof here. You keep repeating the fallacy, because you obviously don't understand that you're using it, or what this means. 

It helps you appear to be a petulant little child who stomps his feet when he doesn't get his way. If that was your intent yes it helps.

I think anyone who understands the arguments here, will have a fair idea of the level of patience I have used, to indulge your asinine unevidenced superstitious and irrational guff, but if you want to pretend otherwise, it's no more compelling than the rest of your spiel. It's also easier for you to project than to actually learn why your argument is so poor. As if amply evidenced here of course, by you refusing to address your previous fallacy, and instead resorting to ad hominem fallacy. 

Isaac Newton wasn't wrong about alchemy.

Sigh, the comparison was to illustrate an appeal to authority fallacy, and yet again you have failed to understand why it is fallacious. I am disinclined to keep wasting my time explaining. 

Has science validated your claim we owe the existence to non-God explanations? Have they validated the claim is wasn't intentionally caused by a Creator?

I have made no such claims, those are both straw man fallacies, you have evaded my question yet again by resorting to irrational responses. Well done champ. 

Whilst theoretical scientific hypothesis are both essential to advance our knowledge, and no doubt fascinating and edifying in any number of ways, they are not established or accepted scientific theories, and this has also been explained already. Multiverse is an hypothesis, it is not a scientific theory. Do you understand this, and what it means?

Stop with the hubris I can understand what you say and disagree precisely for that reason.

I think we can add hubris to the word atheist, as you clearly understand neither. 

 I can show you the word theory and hypothesis are used interchangeably Both multiverse and cosmic inflation are listed as scientific theories even though they don't have the evidence to make them accepted scientific theories. Technically yes its a hypothesis.

A long winded way of accepting my point, without actually saying so, while entirely evading the question attached, or the inference for your assertion I was addressing, and with usual sprinkling of sententious petulance, again...well done. As I said, and you ignored, when you asked about the multiverse hypothesis, I don't care what anyone's reasons are for believing it, only what the methods of science can and has validated. It is you who keeps bringing this entirely natural phenomenon up, as if it is scientific evidence for your superstitious beliefs ffs. 

Sheldon: We once had no natural explanation for lightning, and so people insisted it had a supernatural cause. Their reasoning like yours here was fallacious / poor, and they were wrong. 

Drew: The fallacy is circular reasoning.

Is it fuck, circular reasoning fallacies assume their conclusion in their opening premises, it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy like the one you used. Go and learn what common logical fallacies are, and what they mean, and stop trying to bluff. 

 if the universe was intentionally created with the laws of physics would it still be accurate to say it was the result of natural causes if ultimately it goes back to a Creator that caused the laws of physics?

What does this latest hypothetical rabbit hole, have to do with your fallacious use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy? 

Sheldon: Not having a natural explanation, does not mean there is no natural explanation, that's the fallacy you keep using over and over. 

Drew: Doesn't mean there is. 

Sigh, ffs, I never claim it did, so you have now leaped to whataboutism, using another straw man fallacy, whilst yet again failing to understand why your original argument is based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 
Lets try big letters again then:
We don't know how the universe came to exist beyond the point of the big bang, we don't know how life emerged. You are insisting it required a deity creator, using supernatural powers. When asked if you can demonstrate any objective evidence for the deity, or those powers, or that either is possible, you keep sifting your burden of proof, using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, by asking me to offer an alternative explanation to your claim. Ipso facto, your argument for a creator deity is irrational, and poorly reasoned.