Let's say that science proves that God exists

[genkaus]

Your argument is that mindless forces had to produce a universe and one in which life has to occur as a necessary consequence? You first argued there is no evidence the universe had to be as its observed and whether it had to be as it is or could be different is unknown. But now you state (still minus any evidence or fact) that the option it had to be as we observe is the most likely option. Based on what? Finally your third option doesn't avoid the dichotomy. Even if it had to be some consequence of the existence of nature, it was still the luckiest stroke of coincidence that if mindless forces cause a universe to exist, it has to be in the configuration that supports life as we know it. Now be honest...you don't really believe that bullshit do you?

You are the one spouting bullshit. Take note, specifically, of the bolded phrases you use. Then tell me where did I say even once that the universe was caused or produced. Also, where did I argue that there is no evidence that the universe had to be as its observed. It's the other way around. Its your position that it could've been something else that lacks any evidence.

My argument is the other way around. It is those forces that led to life that are inherent to the universe. Given the evidence that they cannot be changed or altered, the reasonable conclusion is that it is because they are a part of nature of existence. It is you who is claiming that they could've been something other than what they are and were specifically chosen to be what they are without any evidence.

Lets take the fact the iron core in the earth produces a magnetic field that protects the earth from harmful effects of the sun.

Earth doesn't need protection from the harmful effects of sun. Neither does all life. Your argument that the earth's core was designed to protect life to which some aspects of sun's rays would necessarily be harmful fails before being born.

You don't honestly believe that some necessity of nature causes a spinning iron core to produce magnetic waves that fortuitously shields the earth do you?

Ofcourse I do. The material left over from sun's formation condensed in different areas to form proto-planets and the only ones stable enough to do so at close range would be heavy metals such as iron. That explains the iron core. The spinning is the result of laws of physics acting upon the body. Electrons flowing in circular motions lead to a magnetic field. The terrestrial earth had to be the way it is.

Also, I do not consider it fortuitous. In fact, I find it quite unfortunate. If the earth's magnetic field had not shielded us, life here would've evolved to be resistant to that radiation and thus it would've reduced potential problems for space travel.

To say that the existence of human life is the neccesary consequence of the nature existence is to promote the very concept of the anthropomorphic principal you reject as a fallacy.

No, its not. And if you think that, clearly, you don't understand the anthropic principle to begin with.

For the record this is another semantical argument the bogus notion that the burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim.

The fact that you consider burden of proof to be a semantical argument shows your ignorance of how logic works.

I can use semantics to turn a positive claim into an absence of belief. I can say I lack belief that mindless natural forces apart from plan or design could cause a universe to come into existence with just the right characteristics to produce life and sentience thus the burden of proof lies with those who claim that is how it happened. I can also just assert out of thin air that the default assumption is that we owe our existence to a Creator unless proven otherwise. Why not?

You can play all the semantic gymnastics you like and pull as many "default" positions out of your ass - that wouldn't shift the burden of proof. The premises agreed upon in this debate is that "forces of nature do exist and are responsible for formation of life". You are the one adding something extra (via argument from incredulity) that they would require a plan or design to do so. Cutting away all the semantics - you are the one making the positive claim. Similarly, the world we can perceive is taken as an accepted premise and therefore is the default position. The one adding a creator to it is making the positive claim.

In reality (apart from the bogus atheist debating tactic) the debate is a philosophical debate about the mystery of our existence. The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is:

Is our existence and the existence of the universe the consequence of mindless forces that unintentionally produced life and sentient beings who could ponder the question? Or are we the result of a Creator who intentionally caused and designed the universe and sentient life to exist?

WRONG. That is not the most basic philosophical question and it shows the depth of your ignorance of the subject that you would consider it so. Those questions assume too many concepts and principles as given to be basic. They assume the existence of universe, existence of life, our existence, possibility of intention and purpose and existence of causality. The questions regarding these concepts would - by definition - be more basic to the ones you pulled out of your ass.

Neither explanation is less or more extraordinary than the other. People who believe the latter explanation have become known as theists, while those who subscribe to the former belief have become known as atheists (meaning not or without God). There is no inherent advantage to either position neither is either position an established fact. It isn't a fact there was no designer creator who caused the universe to exist and its not a fact there was.

On the contrary, the former is a fact.

If I didn't specify I was referring to the gravitiation constant, obviously I misspoke.

You are misspeaking again. The number you refer to is not the gravitational constant. Seriously, do you even read your own arguments before you post them?

I didn't invent or make up the figure I mentioned to you. It was from a book (Just Six Numbers) written by a highly esteemed british cosmologist and astrophysicist (not to mention he's an atheist). The whole point of this book was to illustrate the degree to which these 6 numbers must fall within a very specific range to have a universe certainly in which human life could exist but arguably any life could exist.

The following is from the preface of the book.

The cosmos........

Being an atheist and a naturalist Rees concludes that this is one of an infinitude of universes with differening characteristics so that naturally we would only find ourselves in a universe that had the right characteristics for life. I'd argue that the evidence he presents isn't evidence of other universes, its evidence that this universe was designed to produce life. Secondly his argument lacks evidence there are other universes and if so that there characteristics are different.

Now I know that you do not read the arguments that you make.

Nowhere in the argument there is any evidence of this "narrow" range you keep blabbering about. All the proposed variations are of high magnitude. Further, even with these high magnitude variations (indicated by words like "much larger" where figures aren't given), life would still be possible - according to Rees.

I'm curious, did you actually read his book or just thought that the preface seemed to support your argument?