The Case for Theism

[Angrboda]

In order for us sentient beings to exist, the information required to produce that result had to be present when the universe began to exist, it couldn't be added later.

Hardly, interaction is a very useful way of "creating" novel patterns and information. We see it at play all the time. Take an A, add a B, You have AB, Same A, add the AB - AAB/or B add AB BAB - we can rearrange all of this and continue to cram them together producing a massive array of new and novel patterns that didn't exist before their interaction with nothing but an A and a B. We can do the same with just the A, or just the B.

Lets start with interaction first. When it comes to mindless lifeless forces we observe interacting we notice they only interact when acted upon, they don't initiate their own action because they don't have volitional will to decide to do something. Sentient beings like humans for instance can initiate actions that subsequently lead to reactions. Since lifeless mindless forces don't initiate action or reaction how did the series of actions and reactions we observe in the universe ever start to begin with?

Let me introduce you to my little friend....

Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system; however, the laws followed by the process and its initial conditions may have been chosen or caused by an agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations.

Self-organization occurs in a variety of physical, chemical, biological, social and cognitive systems. Common examples are crystallization, the emergence of convection patterns in a liquid heated from below, chemical oscillators, the invisible hand of the market, swarming in groups of animals, and the way neural networks learn to recognize complex patterns.

— Wikipedia:

And because there is an "entropy gap" caused by the differential between the inflation rate of the universe and the general entropy curve expected of a static universe, there is plenty of negative entropy to drive both regular order and emergent self-order.

Beyond that, there are (at least) two major hurdles which you not only have not yet faced, you don't even appear to be aware that they even exist.

The first is that the low probability of an event, in and of itself, is not sufficient to establish design. This has been discussed ad nauseam in the literature on intelligent design (and the same arguments apply, ceteris paribus, to your fine tuning argument). Hell, even Dembski acknowledges this, which is why there's all the fake math in his books. Even if I grant you that the universe's current configuration is highly improbable, that still is not enough to warrant an inference to design. Read Dembski. Read his critics. Then come back to us when you've absorbed the proper lessons.

And the second hurdle I'm not even going to tell you, as you strike me as a dishonest sophist, and teaching you new tricks would just result in strengthening the appeal of your fallacious arguments so that you can deceive more people more efficiently.

---

So in other words in the world of atheist logic, a universe that appears to have been intentionally designed to cause and support life is actually evidence that mindless forces without plan or intent caused such because if God caused it God would have done so in a on going miraculous manner that woudn't require the conditions needed to support life. That story will go over fine with your fellow atheists. Not sure how convincing it would be to impartial folks not committed to either view point.

I couldn't help but get a chuckle out of this. If they aren't "fellow atheists," then they must be theists. It's hardly surprising that theists would find an argument from design persuasive and one from non-design unsettling. They're theists, after all, you moronic ass choad. Once more, problems with the law of the excluded middle bite you in the ass. *rolls-eyes*