The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[R00tKiT]

I don't have time to respond to the rest at this time, but since you've raised the point multiple times, I have to ask, in the interest of clarity, what ends you are suggesting the universe is clearly adapted toward achieving?  The universe isn't in any sense adapted toward the end of being itself, so its fine-tuning seems an unlikely meaning.  If you are claiming the universe appears adapted for the existence of life, then you are simply wrong.  Life is opportunistic, in as much as it is clearly defined -- which it isn't. 

The universe may have for an end making life possible. Whether life is opportunistic or not is irrelevant. We really are here, and we should account for that. Randomness and blind processes can't be the right answer, they're not even an answer. A random process still needs a starting point, an initial value.

I might be speaking in a vacuum here, but the idea should be clear : you can complain all day about how miserable the universe is and how countless stars explode aimlessly etc., but the point is, it's fine tuned enough for you to be able to complain. And if we are the ends the universe was adapted towards achieving -not stars , then stars exploding around us really shouldn't be a problem.

This is why I asked you twice, neither time of which you responded, what your beliefs in the relation between fine-tuning and evolution are.  If you truly believe they are related, demonstrate how.  Otherwise I'm justified in dismissing the whole ill-defined mess.

Evolution is a very very small subset of fine-tuned "processes", it only accounts for biological life forms, after all. 

If I accept that some all powerful being exists, then:
A.  There is no logic that dictates that a creator would not or could not leave its creation without guidance.
B.  There are plenty of other religious modalities that do offer guidance to the creations besides the Abrahamic 3.  You just may not understand how they work.
C.  What we (humans) would expect from an all powerful god is irrelevant.  By definition, it would be impossible for us to comprehend such a being.

A. There is actually. A just God, by definition of justness, cannot logically leave its creation without guidance. If the smallest particle is governed by strict physical laws, how come humanity can be left without any law whatsoever;

B. I think we disagree on the definition of religions. Not any set of idioms and ancient stories can be labeled religion. Besides, belief in a unique God does appear more sensible, more parsimonious, it should be the most tenable candidate for the "right belief".

C. Why would you try to compehend an all powerful being ? We either receive verbatim instructions to follow from such a being or we don't, that's it. All we're doing here is logical deductions from this being "properties", nothing more.

A hodgepodge of words is a hodgepodge of words regardless of who says it.  You can take any arbitrary position and defend it without having to actually prove it existentially.  Existentialism without staying within the parameters of laws of nature is like talking about building a soccer field with water. Sure, you can do it. With words alone.  Which is what people used to do some centuries ago when they didn't know shit.

You could split moon just by talk.  You could ride a flying mule just by talk.  All it ever took was talk –– it's just that flying horses or moon splitting are now kinda universally silly talk (well, except for Muslims) –– it has now been replaced by "design" and "fine tuning", but underneath it is just a modern spin of that same talk that completely ignores the nature and creates a rabbit hole of vague, obfuscating verbiage rehashed through misplaced ontology.

Why would splitting the moon and riding Buraqs be so far stretched if an all powerful God truly exists ? As I said, repeatedly, it's not up to you or to your personal preferences how God will reveal his message.

Whether there is some God ultimately at the starting point of the causal chain that eventually leads to these formations and variety of life on earth is a different subject of debate.

It is exactly the subject of debate. An atheist thinks that, because we figured out some of the processes that took place along this causal chain, we're free to dispense with its starting point. It's really, really, really stupid.

So we're dishonest and incoherent if we don't agree with an argument you didn't even make? Even if we were aware of Platinga's entire argument and it's actually correct; it's poisoning the well to snarl at us for being incoherent and dishonest if we don't fully understand an obtruse argument. If those are Platinga's words, he should know better...and if they're yours, you should know better too.

The argument I presented is complete, and so far valid, nobody raised a complaint about any premise. Plantinga's full argument describes the whole scheme of weak analogy to show why other minds exists, something nobody asked for here. Besides, most modern papers in the field of philosophy of religion are technical.

And no, nothing is "obstruse", you just have some homework to do - I won't do it for you.

Klorophill, do you know what kind of universe would be a lot more compelling as evidence for a god?

It would be a universe that looks exactly as if there is no way to could bring forth and sustain life, yet life would exist anyway. Your god is powerful enough to do that, right?

I mean, if he really wanted to, he could have us living on the surface of a star, and thriving, right? Or is this the only universe he could have created?

Yet instead, he chose to create a universe that looks as if it does not seem to need him at all. And to make things even worse, he needs theists like you, to come up with flawed arguments (personal incredulity seems to be your go to), to us nonbelievers.

Not a very impressive deity you got there...

No, the universe you described is simply unintelligible. Think about this scenario a bit : we live in the midst of absolute chaos and illogical occurences, gigantic stars collide with our planet daily and we just survive! Yes, we will feel more privileged. But, well.. the universe we have is better than this one, it's intelligible, it really follows laws. And you think this isn't enough....

You're just stuck in some kind of "the grass is always greener in the other side" cognitive trap, whatever universe one would give you, you'll prefer the other, unexistent one. You have the intelligible type, now you want the unintelligible.