Let's say that science proves that God exists

[genkaus]

I agree it doesn't appear the laws of physics can be altered after the big bang. My position is its not an established fact either way. It is an established fact that at least half a dozen constants have to be within an astounding degree of tolerance for a universe with stars, planets, galaxies and ultimately humans to exist. Its no less peculiar if for some unknown reason the laws of physics had to be in a configuration that supports life. You don't believe nature cared if humans came about, if stars came about or if planets came about or if the the laws of physics were such that stars created new elements by fusion that ultimately became the stuff planets are made of. You don't believe there was plan or design involved so even if the laws of nature had to be as they are (for some unknown reason) its still by happenstance that they had to be as we observe them. If it wasn't by happenstance then it was by design or plan.

Actually, it is not an established fact that they have to be within an astounding degree of tolerance - something that has been refuted over and over again and yet you keep bringing it up. Pretty much the same way you keep bringing up the false dichotomy between happenstance and design. Let me be clear - I do not believe it was by plan and I do not believe it was by happenstance.

Earth doesn't need protection from the sun but our atmosphere does. This is one of the reasons Mars no longer has an atmosphere because it has a very weak magnetic field.

That still doesn't prove that life wouldn't be possible.

But you don't believe it was by plan or design that the laws of physics as observed happen to be in a configuration that allows human life to exist. If it wasn't by plan or design that the laws of nature for some unknown reason had to be as they are then its still fortuitous that the conditions that allowed life and sentience to exist obtained. You don't really have any other choice in the matter, if it wasn't by plan or design then it was happenstance.

I have answered this enough times already for it to be clear even to someone like you. It wasn't happenstance - it was necessity. I do not buy into your false dichotomy.

There is now way to know that's what would have happened or that life would have begun to exist under such circumstances.

As long as you admit to your lack of knowledge, you should realize that then words like 'fortuitous', 'astounding' and 'happenstance' are not applicable.

I'll let the readers decide for themselves what it means.

Another way of saying that you have no argument.

I have no more burden of proof in this debate than atheists do. This notion of a postive vs a negative is atheist clap trap that you buy into hook line and sinker. As I demonstated above I have no problem framing the debate as a lack 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. Do you dare to think beyond the atheist sound bites you've been indoctrinated with? If atheists don't believe something happened, they refer to it as being skeptical and freethinking. If theists are skeptical of something you call it an argument from incredulity.

Since you are simply repeating your own argument and apparently haven't even read my rebuttal, I'll simply repeat it:

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.

If you really want to cut the semantics here is what the debate is about. You believe the existence of the universe and humans was caused by natural mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend our existence to occur. I believe our existence and that of the universe was caused, planned and designed by a personal transcendent agent commonly referred to as God.

I've corrected you how many times already? I do not believe that the existence of universe was caused.

Here's what we do agree on - the universe exists, 'mindless' natural forces operate within it and they eventually led to the existence of life. I'm not the one adding anything new to this set - you are. You are positing a) a cause of the universe, b) that the cause had a plan and design and c) that it is personal and transcendent. All those are positive claims which require to meet the burden of proof.

This is a pathetic response. Rather than address the issue raised you want to argue whether these are the most basic philosophical questions that can be asked. Pathetic but not unexpected.

Only if pathetic is defined as pointing out where and why you are wrong. It is precisely this ignorance of philosophy that has led to your woeful state. If you don't start from the properly basic questions, how do you expect to arrive at the right answers?

The whole point of the book was to give a reason why he believes this is one of an infinitude of universes with different characteristics which is the only naturalist explanation he can think of as to why we find ourselves in a universe with nearly precisely the characteristics needed not only for life, but for planets, stars and galaxies to exist. He responds to the rebuttal some propose that the constants are the way they are because of some unknown law of physics. He counters it by saying its still inexplicable that if a universe comes into existence it has to have the characteristics to support life as we know it. How can one say on the one hand nature doesn't care and didn't intend for humans to exist or care if planets and stars exist but at the same time claim there is an unknown law of nature that demands these things exist. Not to mention it invokes the anthropic principal you deny.

Your point being? Are you arguing with him or me?

Even if that was the only naturalist explanation he could think of doesn't make it the only naturalist explanation. Also, you still haven't provided the "narrow range" you keep harping about. What is this narrow range?

I have read it and have a copy but I don't think the managment of this board would approve if I copied the entire contents to this forum.

So, you have read the book, have a copy and still haven't understood the preface? I think that's a new low.