If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

In short theory 2 states we owe our existence to happenstance.

So does hypothesis 1. If the Creator has free will and the power to create anything, the things it could have created are infinite. The odds that we and the universe we are in would be exactly what it wanted to create are one in infinity, effectively zero, if one is consistent about working backwards they way you do for a natural explanation of the universe.

This is the advantage of arguing on a primarily atheist board, you can say something truly absurd and no one calls you out on it.

I see you are just reduced to claiming absurdity without a clue as how to demonstrate it.

---

Are you trying to suggest something intentionally purposely designed to operate in a certain way is ultimately the same level of happenstance as things that  without plan intent or design just haphazardly turn out in some fashion?

Free will means you have choices. Having choices means having the option to choose something else. Being omniscient and omnipotent means having infinite choices. Out of an infinity of choices, there will be an infinity of intentional designs to choose from. No  haphazardness required for the odds of our particular universe to be one in infinity if made by a 'capital c' Creator.

---

Chance or inevitability, to name one other possible alternative off the top of my head. And neither of those amounts to an argument that they aren't actually the case, just a repetition that you personally find it hard to believe, so it must not be true. 

I'll get to the 'possibly' the universe had to be as it is red herring later.

Of course you will. And it will be as much drivel as everything else you post. I'm sure it will be as on target as your posts usually are.

---

Its not just me who finds any alternative explanation hard to believe you yourself appear to find any specific non-god model or theory hard to believe.

I don't find them hard to believe. I find many of them plausible. I merely possess sufficient humility to know that believing any particular one is not yet justified by the facts. I know the limits of my knowledge and understanding of this subject. I've made this very clear multiple times, yet here we are again.

---

Do you believe we owe our existence and the universe to something called quantum foam? To save time I'll short circuit the process and assume you believe the theory has merit, but not enough evidence to warrant actual belief. The reason it has merit is because it falls under your general world view of a naturalistic explanation which automatically gives it merit. But you lack belief in the actual theory just as you lack belief in theism.

It would save more time if you didn't post the conversations you have with me in your head. I don't know why you think you had to assume that when I've stated it plainly. Of course you added the part where the reason that I think it has merit is because it automatically gets merit if it's a naturalistic explanation. No explanation gets merit automatically. But putting words in other people's mouths is a weasel's speciality, isn't it?

---

True. But why are there any laws of physics never mind specific ones that allowed for the existence of planets and life?
Why wouldn't there be?

You answer my question first...

In the face of the laws of physics existing and the absence of any reasoning why they shouldn't, the question of why they should is  moot. Maybe it's not properly a 'why?' question.

---

No, its not sheer speculation, its an controvertible fact that several constants are in a delicate balance with one another to allow a star, galaxy, planet and a life permitting universe to exist regardless if they 'had' to be that way for some unknown reason or whether they just happened to be as they are by sheer chance.

Without knowing whether they could be different, speaking of odds is just an interesting 'what if?' exercise.

---

Even if for some reason they 'had' to be that way minus plan design or intent it was still happenstance that they had to be that way. Moreover the notion they had to be as they are smacks of design.

If our universe's origin was a runaway quantum vacuum fluctuation, an event like that can only produce a universe with a net energy of almost exactly zero...like ours. That imposes huge constraints on what the physical laws could possibly be. It's not happenstance, it's math: anything you derive from zero has to add up to zero.

---

Why do printed circuit boards come out just so? Because they are designed to specification.

No kidding. Why do snowflakes come out just so? Entropy.

---

I'm not assigning odds. However it is scientists who are postulating this is one of an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics to account how a life permitting universe could exist by chance.

Accounting for the slightly life-tolerant properties of this universe had nothing to do with any of the multiple universe hypotheses. Quantum alternates explain certain problems in quantum physics. Any origin hypothesis that isn't constrained to originating one universe will probably go on initiating others. What justification do you have for believing that your proposed Creator only made one universe?

---

If it had to be as it is...that's too close to design for scientists...

Well, that came straight from you ass, no detours.

---

Omnipotent is a theological attribute some religious folks attribute to God. I'm not advancing any theological notions. However even if God is omnipotent God could choose to create the universe as we observe.

Or any other. But for some reason, he picked one that is, if anything, too easy to come up with natural explanations for.

---

If this is the only kind of universe in which we can live naturally, we are in the only kind of universe in which supernatural intervention is NOT required to explain our presence.

Assuming a Creator isn't necessary and that in fact natural forces without plan or intent could cause themselves to exist you would be right. In other words...if you're right then your right. If I'm right, then I'm right right?

Why are you even here if you're going to post drivel like that? We are in a universe in which we can live naturally. It is your position that it is so enormously unlikely that a universe could exist that is not 100% inimical to life, that Someone must have planned it. But if we found ourselves in any of the supposed infinity of possible hostile universes that don't allow for life to exist, our presence would be proof positive of supernatural intervention. But we live in the ONLY one (according to you) where we can exist without any laws of nature being bent for us. Something that is not only irrelevant to an omnipotent God, but irrelevant to a simulated universe programmer.