Let's say that science proves that God exists

[genkaus]

No, it doesn't make any difference whether there tunable or not. Even if for some unknown reason they had to be as they are its still just as astonishing that if a universe comes into existence it has to be in the narrow range to support life. I'm only concerned about the life forms we do know of not fantasy ones.

You are contradicting yourself. You say that it is astonishing that the conditions of the universe are in a narrow range - which implies that there is in fact a range they could lie in or out of, thus making them tunable. Whether of not they are tunable, thus becomes important to the very premise of your argument. Secondly, if those constants had to be what they are due to their very nature, then that goes against your assumption of intelligence behind them. And thirdly, you haven't established yet that the universe came into existence at any point.

Secondly It doesn't matter to me whether you think the arguments I make hold water. I assume none of them will.

If you assume that none of your arguments hold water then you should realize that your position is untenable and abandon it. Repeating arguments that you know to be incorrect is intellectually dishonest.

We don't have to consider knowledge we don't have. At this point we know of life on earth alone and for the only life we know of to exist the universe has to fallen in an incredibly narrow range of characteristics. We don't have to consider facts not in evidence.

Then consider only facts and don't speak of nonsense like "an incredibly narrow range" since we don't know of any such range.

So if life was teeming everywhere you'd say it must be by design?

No, I'd say that it makes the idea that the purpose of universe was to support life a more credible. But it isn't so.

The only burden on me is to make a reasonable case for what I believe. Its not my burden to pretend I can persuade a dyed in the wool atheist.

And since you have completely failed to make even a single argument that stands to scrutiny, I'd say you're falling miserably short.

But you don't believe those laws of nature were by design correct? There was according to atheists no engineer who designed the laws of physics to produce a specific result, true? You don't believe the universe was intentionally engineered to support galaxies, stars or planets do you? You don't think the universe or mechanistic processses cared whether humans existed right? All the conditions and characteristics necessary for humans to exist didn't according to atheists come about by plan.

Yes.

If a extremely specific result occurs minus any design or planning then the end result is by happenstance.

No. Not if it is the necessary result of the causal chain.

Even if you counter propose just as a hypothetical that for some reason if a universe exists it has to take on the characteristics that support life as we know it how it is any less bizarre it has to take on characteristics in a mindboggling narrow range of parameters that support life when supposedly the mindless forces that caused the universe never intended human life and don't care if human life results?

Because, as indicated earlier, we don't know of any such range.

No I just had no comment about it.

So we can conclude that theistic societies are worse off than secular ones.

I'd like to hear in your own words how you describe it and think it applies to our discussion.

I have described, in my own words, your use of logical fallacy and its application to our discussion. Go read it once more.

An existence according to atheists that was never intended to occur. Again the point which you conceded is that we can't infer any rights from the basis of naturalism.

I've never said that naturalism was the basis of human rights. Neither is the mythical "intention".

Btw what makes you think at some point humans aren't doomed to perish either individually or collectively at some point?

Because we are very good at figuring out a way to survive.

On this point we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, I don't do that.

If human existence is the result of a transcendent Creator who designed the universe for the purpose of humans existing,

That's a big if, and as has been consistently shown in this argument, not the case.

then we have an external reason beyond our own opinion from a higher source as a reason to believe we have certain inalienable rights.

The supposedly "higher" source being god's opinion. As shown before, if that opinion were sufficient to grant rights, then your parents' or the government's or society's opinion would've been sufficient to grant even greater rights - which is not the case. Further, as also shown earlier, these rights would be anything but inalienable, being dependent upon some entity's opinion and therefore subject to change with them. And finally, as also proven earlier, you don't accept the logical consequences of your own premises by not guaranteeing the same "inalienable" rights to animals.

The only evidence you can be referring is life on earth a planet with a myriad of conditions that allow life in the first place. From the small sample of planets around us with no life it would appear life can only occur under certain circumstances.

And if the universe were finely tuned for life, that would not be the case.

---

Only in a philosophical sense. If the universe was intentionally created for our existence then we are more important than the rest of the universe that was created for our existence.

Only in the opinion of your god - which would be irrelevant to us.

If on the other hand we are the accidental unintended by product of mindless forces we can hardly say we have any rights on that basis.

Not on that basis - yes.

It's not binding on anyone anymore than the notion we should treat others as we would be treated is binding in any sense.

No, its simply the rational choice.

The USA for example is a secular government tied to a theistic philosophy as noted in this phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Except, your government doesn't really follow these principles, since it has no problem jailing or handing out death penalties. That means the rights are anything but inalienable.

The reason its important in this instance is because these basic rights are not granted by the government or the state, we are endowed with these rights by the Creator. The role of governments is to secure those rights. If the rights were granted by the government then they could be taken away by the government.

Well, what do you know? Your rights can be taken away by the government. Then, by your own reasoning, that is enough to prove that they were granted by the government.