Let's say that science proves that God exists

[Angrboda]

I couldn't help but notice that Drew claims that only people who aren't already committed to a position can be objective about the merit of his arguments. By that measure, apparently he is not objective in his assessment of these arguments, so why we should listen to them, or even someone objective listen to them? Perhaps Drew can reveal the not so objective reasons he believes these arguments. (And he repeatedly makes mention of being unable to persuade a dyed-in-the-wool atheist. I'm not an atheist, yet he fails to persuade me. I guess the only people capable of being objective by his criteria, are those willing to agree with him on the matter. Sounds like a back-handed ad hominem if you ask me, as well as an example of poisoning the well. It also sounds a lot like that hypothetical chess game with a pigeon.)

For what it's worth, Victor Stenger has run simulations in which the parameters of the universe varied by up to two orders of magnitude, and half of those universes yielded long period universes with heavy elements capable for the support of life as we know it. So you're wrong on the philosophical arguments, you're also wrong on the facts. This in addition to being unable to describe what a right is, and by what mechanism those rights are communicated from a creator to its creation (aside from citing a document that has no legal standing anywhere in the world). When asked what you mean by "higher" you reply that you mean "philosophically" higher, which means absolutely nothing; it seems as if you've just substituted one undefined term for another undefined term (and yet you complain about others' "semantic" arguments).

And furthermore, you continue to imply that atheism implies a belief in metaphysical naturalism (as well as implying that atheists are obsessed over evidence). These both are straw men of your own making. The only thing that atheism implies is no belief in a god. Period. Any other crap that you add onto that, such as metaphysical naturalism, is your own bullshit misunderstanding and has nothing to do with atheism. (In your first reply to me, you admitted as much, and then in the same breath stated that "if" one accepted a specific point of view [on naturalism] then no objective meaning or rights flowed from that position. Even if I agreed with your assessment, that still isn't atheism and so is irrelevant to whether of not atheists can or cannot find meaning/rights/purpose/whatever in their existence. As I tried to draw out with my previous questions about "What is a right?" which you basically did not answer, neither have you provided any substantial reason why we should think [your] theism provides these things either. [Because your god is 'philosophically' higher than we are? What the fuck does that even mean?])

Moreover, additional problems present themselves. The traditional god of the Abrahamanic faiths made humans knowing full well that they would suffer and die (which is by all accounts an unpleasant thing, for both the dying and those left behind). If one concludes that this universe was designed to allow the existence of finite life that would suffer and die, it seems reasonable to infer by the same logic that our purpose is to provide some vicarious amusement to this god by creating the conditions of suffering and death. If by "fine tuned" you mean the universe was fine tuned in order to create a crucible in which gratuitous and unnecessary suffering could occur, perhaps you are onto something. Sounds about right from what I read of traditional accounts of this god.