Let's say that science proves that God exists

[Esquilax]

The only hypotheitical or postulate is whether the universe and our existence is the result of a transcendent personal agent who designed and caused the universe to exist or whether our existence and the universe is the result of mindless forces that didn't plan, engineer or intend our existence. The way you argue a case is to present facts that support your hypothesis. The problem with most theist-atheist debates is they inject other hypotheiticals into the mix so what you wind up with is offering speculative theories in favor of a speculative theory. I'm attempting to avoid that mess by limiting lines of evidence to well established facts, then argue from those facts why I think its evidence in favor of my hypothesis. The other side can offer rebuttals to any evidence offered and why they think it doesn't favor the hypothesis. They can also offer well established facts in favor of their position.

Except that you've provided a single piece of evidence- that life exists within a narrow band that is the only conditions that can support it- and you're wrong about that. Now, when we provide a counter argument to show you that you're balancing on an assumption that doesn't really hold up, you don't even consider it, you just shake your head and refuse hypothetical answers.

But here's the critical issue: your narrow band argument is itself a hypothetical, because you can't for a moment prove that life couldn't have developed under a set of very different conditions. You've certainly asserted it, and backed it with some stuff, but you cannot prove it to the certainty you're claiming it is. Essentially what you're doing is favoring your own theory just because it's yours, and disregarding any others out of hand for no reason. This is not good science, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you don't actually want to have a debate at all, given how all you do is restate your original premise over and over without justifying it.

It isn't an established fact the constants had to be what they are due to some unknown law or if the constants arbritrarily took on the values we observe. What we do know and what is a fact that the constants do have to be within an extremely small degree of what they are for life as we know it to exist.

Yep, and if you want to prove that a designer exists by way of this "it's such a small chance of happening!" argument, then you need to justify swapping out that 'as we know it' for an 'at all.' Because if life can evolve another way then it's a safe bet to say that it can evolve in many other ways, and by that point the chances of life arising, possibly in more hardy forms than are currently on earth, could actually be fairly large.

This is not a hypothetical, it's a fact supported by knowledge that if they weren't what we observe them to be in some cases to a mindnumbing degree of exacting tolerance human life wouldn't exist and in some cases it could be argued no life would exist. I argue from that fact it is evidence of design and plan.

Then you need to actually argue that. Because all you've done is point to something that you claim is a small probability event, without providing sufficient evidence to believe even that claim, and gone "see? see?" as if that should prove your position. Your entire argument is an argument from personal incredulity: you can't believe that life could have arisen from a small chance event like this- never mind whether it is or isn't- therefore god.

Of course those who hold with atheism will argue anyway you can that this is meaningless, doesn't indicate design and so forth. But the merit of our respective arguments is properly decided by those who are impartial and undecided about this issue, not those arguing in favor of a certain position. That would be like going to court, arguing a case yet you can only win if your opponent agree's with you...fat chance of that happening.

I think the idea is that a reasonable person can be swayed by a cogent argument. As an atheist, I'm invested only in the facts, so I would be. You'd just have to present a piece of evidence that is actually compelling first.

Your atheism is to my theism. Notice how atheists only get the 'a' in front of it meaning not or without. For example the word asexual means reproduction without or not with sex. Atheists believe in the existence of the universe without or not with God.

Yeah, I'm not actually obligated to follow a strict dictionary definition of things. And look, you are starting to become really rude, harping on this point. I'm going to be blunt now, in hopes of getting through to you: you do not get to tell me what I believe. I will tell you what I believe. What you think I believe does not count as a valid argument for anything, because YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL ME WHAT I BELIEVE.

Am I understood? Do you get it now? You've made this one strawman argument over and over, apparently immune to anyone's objections, so there it is, plain as day. If you keep arguing this point, I'll have to consider you fundamentally unreasonable about it.

Yet another in an endless series of semantical arguments put forth by confused atheists. The God of theism isn't a specific God of any religion. It is belief in the existence of God, Supreme Being, Creator and ruler of the universe.

Excuse me? How is this semantic? Just a few posts ago you were demanding that we all had a burden of proof to show that god doesn't exist, so all I did was show you a reason why that position is ridiculous.

Tell me, do you have a single string of argumentation that doesn't boil down to "nuh uh!"

Perhaps not according to you because you seem quite confused about what you think.

No, I'm very clear about what I think. It just doesn't fit into your neat little boxes, and therefore confuses you.

If I were to ask atheists if they believe the universe was designed and engineered by a transcendent agent of great power...

Then you would get a different, distinct answer from each atheist. Because despite your repeated, baseless demands to the contrary, the position of atheism isn't an insistence on no creator being, just that one had better be able to come correct and prove such a being, and that nobody has, yet.

Raelians believe in a creator of life, without believing that it's god. They're technically atheists yet hold to a belief in creation. How do they fit into your narrow minded preconceptions about my peeps?

Thats closer to an agnostic position.

That's right, I'm an agnostic atheist, with anti-theist leanings. So what?

It would be very refreshing if atheists did confess to ignorance on the subject and claimed to not have a clue as to whether God exists or not. But that's not what the majority of atheists do.

It would be nice if you could do the same, and at least consider our opposing arguments, then.

I can show you site after site where atheists equate the existence of God on the same par as the existence of Santa Clause, Tooth Faires, Green Goblins and Invisible Pink elephants.

Actually, my admission of ignorance is consistent with this statement. To me, your god is in the same category with santa, at the moment. You'd need to prove it, if you wanted to make me believe in the reality of such a being. I refuse to believe without evidence that passes muster.

I can show you another site that declares the non-existence of God is as scientifically proven as the non-existence of life on the moon. Of course if you take them to task they'll launch yet another semantical argument about how you can't prove a negative.

And do you not see how meaningless it is to make blanket statements about an entire group of people based on the behaviors of specific members? Sure, some people are gnostic atheists and claim to know that god doesn't exist; I'm not one of them, nor is every atheist. Yet you claim that we are. I bet if I made some blanket claim about what theists believe you'd be insulted, so why don't we get the same treatment from you?

You're not just a weak atheist...you're a tepid atheist. From what you say, woudn't it be more accurate to put Religious Views ?????? rather than atheist?

No, because I don't believe in a god, let alone yours. I just will if you can prove it. Notably, that doesn't mean I'll worship it, but I'll believe that it's there.

Fine, and people can decide for themselves whether our existence is due to the most fortioutious stroke of luck and act of serendipity imaginable or whether it happened because it was designed and engineered to happen.

Well, just so long as you aren't presenting a strawman. /sarcasm.

Do you still not get that we find your narrow band argument to be unconvincing, because you haven't proved the existence of a narrow band? Have you even read a single counterargument we've made?

And what is it about buildings or momunments that tells us they were created by design and engineering?

Because we can see the elements of design in them, based on our prior understanding of the concept. Because, if we wanted to, we could find the builder, see the plans, reverse the process and imagine how the construction happened.

All things we are unable to do with god.

I remember a shadow on Mars looked like Pee Wee Herman but even if so, I doubt that was any sign of intelligence. http://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

So why claim design at all? You do understand that you just made my argument there, don't you?