Let's say that science proves that God exists

[genkaus]

It is true that certain conditions had to obtain for life as we know it. According to Sir Martin Rees at least 6 characteristcis in a mindboggling narrow degree have to obtain for their to be life. Some of those characteristics are necessary just for planets and stars to form.

For your position to hold any water you have to prove two things:
1. Those constants could've been something other that what they are, i.e. they are tunable.
2. Any other type of life-form cannot possibly exist if those conditions are not met.

Thats right so there's no reason to consider that. I was told when I first came to this discussion board that atheists only consider established facts.

And since it's a fact that we don't have any knowledge of possibility of life in other places of this universe or another, there is no basis to assume that there is anything special regarding the so called conditions of life.

I'm glad you do arbritrarily feel that way. But your feelings don't have any basis in fact if humans are just the unintended by product of the laws of physics....your feelings not withstanding.

What's so arbitrary about it? These feeling do have a basis in fact - the very fact of human nature.

That's an argument from ignorance (or a naturalism in the gaps argument). My opinion about theism is based on what we do know, not on what might be. And I have been told atheists base thier opinion on established facts only also.

That's hilarious. Do you come up with this crap on your own or is someone feeding it to you?

Here are some facts for you. Life, as we know it, is impossible to sustain in all but a tiny portion of the universe. Of that tiny portion, it is known to exist in an even tinier portion. Assuming Earth to consist of everything from its core to upper atmosphere, we know that life is possible only in a thin shell around its surface and even there in specific areas. Given the astronomically low occurrence of life in universe, the reasonable conclusion is that its existence was not the product of purposeful design.

In face of this evidence, you continue to insist that even this extremely miniscule success could not have been achieved without intent. So, this time, the burden of proof is on you. You bear the responsibility to show that this extremely low occurrence of life was still the intent and purpose behind the universe. I've even given you a way to prove it.

Let's quit the semantics...you don't believe mind was involved in the creation or cause of the universe do you?

Let's not play underhanded word-games either. I don't believe that any mind was involved in formation of life. As for the universe, I don't believe it to be created or caused - so the question of mind is moot.

According to atheists its a fluke of nature that humans exist at all and humans are doomed to perish collectively or individually at any time. We can agree and pretend humans have special rights, but we can't infer such from the philosophy of naturalism.

Complete and utter nonsense. First of all, I don't know of any atheists who see human existence as a fluke of nature any more than they see the earth revolving around the sun as a fluke of nature. Both are necessary and inevitable consequences of mechanistic processes at work (that's my belief, other atheists may believe differently). Secondly, I also don't believe that humans are doomed to perish. Thirdly, it is incorrect to assume that all atheists automatically follow the philosophy of naturalism or that their entire worldview is inferred solely from it. Finally, even if we can't infer special rights from the philosophy of naturalism that does not mean they can't be inferred from other aspects of an atheist's worldview (not, as you are wont to assume, as atheistic worldview).

And lastly, did you really think I would not notice that you fail to address the actual argument that you are apparently replying to? I can only assume from this lame attempt at diversion that you have no counter-argument to the fact that theistic societies lead to segregated class based rights and privileges.

No I don't.

I don't see how I can make your failure to apply logic any more transparent? I gave you the name of your logical fallacy, an example and detailed description of how you apply it.

Explain to me where inalienable rights can be derived from beings that had no right to existence to begin with.

From the fact of their existence itself.

Do you think humans have a right to live? By what reckoning do humans have to live when they were created by accident in the first place.

From the reckoning of their existence as conscious, self-aware and self-directing beings.

Does the universe have the right to exist?

No. The concept of rights can only apply to conscious entities.

Where would the notion you have the right to live come from?

Answered already.

It might be conferred upon you by other humans because they arbitrarily want you to live but they might just as well want you to die.

Exactly my point. Any right conferred by any other being would hold no value - even of that being is your god.

If we were intended to exist and the universe was created for our inhabitance, we have a philosophical reason to infer a right to live.

That's precisely what you have failed to provide. What is that "philosophical reason to infer right to live"? You haven't drawn the connection between the two, you simply keep repeating it.

Certainly more of a reason then if we are just the accidental by product of mindless forces.

In absence of any given reason - no, you don't.

We can also infer the belief that all people are created equal since we all derived from the same source.

Nonsense. We happen to know for a fact that everyone is not "created" equal, given the existence of disparity in their physical, mental and social stature.

It is the basis on which rights are inferred in the declaration of independence.

Declaration of whose independence?

You undermine your own argument, you cite the fact you were intentionally brought into the world by sentient beings as a reason to philosophize you have a right to live. I'm employing the same reasoning to all humans. If instead of being the by product of parents that intended your existence you were just the unintended by product of mindless forces you wouldn't have any rights.

Are you truly this dense or are you intentionally acting this way? This is your argument. You are the one arguing (without providing the necessary justification) that some other being's intention for me to live is sufficient to provide right to life. I'm simply pointing out how your argument fails, since if that was sufficient, then my parents' intentions for me would confer special rights upon me.

As for me, I do not recognize the idea that any other being's intentions or purposes have any bearing on my rights.

Good point some (such as Peta) argue they do.

Peta is irrelevant. Do you follow the logical consequences of your own premises to acknowledge special or greater rights of all beetles or not? If not, why not?