Let's say that science proves that God exists

[The Grand Nudger]

Another minor nitpick, because I love PCB's and used to manufacture them from scratch, as it were. They do not fall within a narrow range to perform a specific function, in fact, the value and worth of a pcb design is in how general the design can be whilst being capable of performing a wide variety of functions without requiring a new board to be printed. Even in the case of boards that were "purpose-built" it can be surprising to discover how many unintended functions they are capable of performing, and a large amount of design time is spent (with marginal success) in attempting to ensure that they do not perform these unintended functions - which may interfere with the intended function, which nevertheless does not result in a board that qualifies as falling into a narrow range to perform a specific function. All logic gates (and thusly all pcb's) can be manufactured from few "universal gates" - in fact any gate or function can be manufactured and achieved from NOR gates alone (Peirces arrow) . Further, a majority of logic gates are equivalent to each other via very simple means (De Morgans theorem - all logic being possible by nand - and of course nand by nor, and all gates can be either intentionally or unintentional transformed into either - and often are-).

When you input any data into a modern PCB it performs a wide variety of intended and unintended functions, the only thing that's narrow or specific is the output you choose to view amongst all the disparate functions that are simultaneously occurring. Mind blowing, aint it?

There's really no traction on this example.

---

couldn't help myself....

---

[Drew_2013]

Yes and he also manipulated other constants to counter balance the effect.

Oh, so in other words you admit that this isn't the only set of constants which could produce the result. Your fine-tuning argument is getting better all the time.

No, using intelligence its concievable the constants could be altered to achieve a specified result. The claim of atheists is this occurred minus any plan, intelligence or intent.

Thats your line of bullshit. If you don't believe the universe was designed and engineered then you believe it came about by happenstance. The crap atheism is just no belief in god is just a debating tactic.

That is a strawman, as well as a misapplication of the law of the excluded middle (there are more than two options).

Don't you ever tire of this silly objections?

So, the uncommitted should decide whether you are right, but you get to decide the truth of what atheists believe. Hypocritical much. I think somebody needs a nap.

zzzzzzzzz

Now I definitely think somebody needs a nap. You miss the overarching point in order to scurry under your typical "I'm not affiliated with any known church" debating tactic.

I'm not affiliated with any church, I'm not promoting any religious belief. If you wish to argue religion, argue with someone who is promoting religious belief.

For any set of conditions that exist in our universe, there are a million and one events that would likely not have occurred if things had been different. To pick any single one of them and say, ah ha, this is the reason for this unlikely scenario and ignore all the others is simply a non sequitur.

Actually there are at least six such constants. It is a fact they are by the narrowest degree imaginable for planets, stars, galaxies and ultimately humans to exist. Just a reminder, I don't care what your opinion is of the arguments I'm making.

That you think that you are that goal, and that he only had this one way, is rather underselling god.

I think all of humanity was the goal including you.

All the fine-tuning argument says is that if things had been different, then things would have been different. The existence of life in this particular universe is no more special than any equally improbable scenario in a universe where life did not occur

What facts are you offering to back up this statement?

All you're showing by making a lot of noise about how improbable the existence of life is, is that you think you're special. You're not. At the end of the day, you're just a soup of chemicals, as unlikely as any of a billion other improbable things.

Thats the atheist worldview in a nutshell, that all of humanity is just a freak accident of nature that was never intended to exist and is just a soup of chemicals. I'm sure the likes of Stalin Pot Pol and Hitler agree with you.

Oh, and for what it's worth, as a theist who isn't committed to any specific creation scenario, by your own criteria, I'm well placed to assess the merit of your arguments. I love it when a plan comes together!

Not from what I have seen.

[The Grand Nudger]

"If you don't believe the universe was designed and engineered then you believe it came about by happenstance"

Doesn't follow buddy, the universe was wafted into existence by a waffle, waffles as we both know, are not gods. I could not tell you with certainty whether or not said waffle intended to do so, but regardless of whether or not it did or didn't it is in a position no different from that of your god, who , by fortunate happenstance (for us anyway), desired to create a universe for some ridiculous reason.

[Drew_2013]

You keep talking about narrow ranges, but that's not exactly right, now is it? I mean, we're working on a pretty limited scale here, aren't we? All you can say with any degree of intellectually honesty is that things fall within a narrow range for life as we understand it. But that doesn't mean that, if the circumstances were different, that life couldn't have arisen in some other way that we simply- through mistake or lack of knowledge- couldn't have imagined.

I'm not responding to hypotheticals the real world is perplexing enough. Besides I was told the first day I posted on this site that atheists are only persuaded by facts, not speculative theories.

Seriously, stop telling us what we believe, it's obnoxious. Once again, for the sake of honesty, I can't speak for everyone else here, but my worldview doesn't preclude a god entirely, but it does demand that I not believe anything without evidence, and that you and yours haven't provided sufficient evidence for yours. Given this, I'm hardly making a claim, am I?

Good point. To fully consider a claim you have to look at the ramifications of either hypothesis. The most basic meaning of atheism is Not or without God. Not what without God? Not what theists chalk up to the existence of God such as the universe, life and ultimately human life. Atheists say these things came into existence without or not from God. You call yourself an atheist, you doubt or lack belief God caused the universe or you flat out believe such a claim is false. Can you call yourself and atheist yet believe the universe was designed and engineered to support life? Theism is a belief regarding the most basic philosophical questions that can be asked such as why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a universe, stars and planets and how did life and humans come about? If atheists said I haven't a clue how the universe got here or how humans came into existence but I say it wasn't God would you find that a compelling reason to believe God doesn't exist? To be convinced or to have a strong conviction God doesn't exist you must have some information how the state of affairs we observe ourselves came into existence apart from a Creator. If atheism is true (there is no God) then the universe came into existence by some unknown cause (or it always existed in some form and then suddenly turned into a universe such as we observe) then without plan, design or intent, the laws of physics happened to have the right characteristics to cause life and intelligence to occur. In other words, life came from non-life and intelligence arose from non-intelligence. Two characteristics emerged from something totally unlike what is alleged to have caused it.

The majority of atheists I have chatted with want to frame this discussion as one in which the theist is the only one making a claim, that the burden of evidence rests with the theist alone and if they fail to completely totally satisfy the atheists relentless demand for indisputable irrefutable evidence of Gods existence then atheism triumphs by default. Then we don't have to consider how natural mindless forces without plan or intent caused a life bearing universe to come into existence. Neither I nor any theist has indisputable irrefutable evidence God exists so the atheist is assured he or she will 'win' the argument.

Besides, who's saying that a possible designer needs to be a god? Or that there needs to be a designer or randomness? You can't say with any more certainty than I can, and yet you're advocating a position, whereas I am not. Nor is any atheist really, beyond that you haven't been able to prove your designer at all.

Whether you're willing to defend it or even admit it you are advocating a position. You are claiming that whatever caused our existence or the universe to exist, it wasn't God. Nature did it. Nature didn't plan it to happen, didn't want it to happen, didn't care if it happened but without trying to did it somehow. Mindless forces somehow miraculously stumbled upon the formula to cause a universe and create life minus any knowlegde on how to do such a thing. And it wasn't a case of like creating like, according to atheist orthodoxy mindless lifeless forces created something totally unlike it self, life and mind. No wonder atheists cry foul when someone points out they have a position to defend also.

Actually, there's also this: so what if it was all by chance? And who cares how small you think the chances would be? The chances could be .01 percent with a thousand zeroes before it and there'd still be a chance it would happen, so long as it isn't an utter zero. To be very simple, it has happened, too; on a long enough timescale, everything does, if it has a chance of happening. And in our case, the thing in question only needs to happen once.

Since we can only definately say one universe exists not only does it need to happen only once, it needs to happen the one time we know it occurred. But is this your basis for believing God doesn't exist? Because its possible God doesn't exist therefore I don't believe God doesn't exist.

What does the slim chance of a thing prove, beyond that the chances of the thing happening are slim? How does this point toward your designer at all?

Because thats how we deterimine if something is by chance or by design. Suppose we didn't know the pyramids were intentionally created by design, wouldn't the design features of the pyramids themselves strongly suggest they were intentionally created?

Are you being serious? How is that a plea to ignorance? We genuinely don't know if these constants could be different.

Then how can it be raised as an objection?

[Angrboda]

Oh, and for what it's worth, as a theist who isn't committed to any specific creation scenario, by your own criteria, I'm well placed to assess the merit of your arguments. I love it when a plan comes together!

Not from what I have seen.

And you have seen into my heart? I think not. Regardless of whether you choose to believe it or not, it is a fact. Moreover, it is a fact that is well known to many on this forum, including some of those "uncommitted" whom you hope to reach. Your skepticism is not particularly informative, but what is informative is that when you are faced with an inconvenient fact, rather than adjust your theories to compensate, you simply stick your fingers in your ears and try to ignore it. I'm sure that's as persuasive to the uncommitted as is slinging around accusations that your adversary is liken to Hitler or Pol Pot. Your intellectual dishonesty and obvious hatred are a compelling advertisement for your worldview, whatever it may happen to be. I for my part no longer particularly care. I have completed my analysis of the question, and I thank you for focusing my thinking on the matter. I remain, as noted, uncommitted to any specific creation scenario. However, my interest in this particular argument in favor of a generic theistic one has been exhausted, as I am persuaded such musings lead nowhere in particular. Genkaus and Rhythm are quite able and I'm sure you will find plenty to discuss with them.

[Esquilax]

I'm not responding to hypotheticals the real world is perplexing enough. Besides I was told the first day I posted on this site that atheists are only persuaded by facts, not speculative theories.

If you're not responding to hypotheticals then isn't the conversation sort of over? I mean, you claim that the universe is set up in a narrow band of life supporting circumstances, but now you're saying you're not accepting any suggestion that things might be different because things aren't different. But that's a huge presupposition on it's own, because you can't say with any certainty that there is a narrow band to begin with. Like it or not, this conversation exists in hypotheticals; if you're just not accepting them then all you're really doing is shaking your head at the entire opposing viewpoint for no reason other than your own assumptions that things couldn't possibly be any different.

Good point. To fully consider a claim you have to look at the ramifications of either hypothesis. The most basic meaning of atheism is Not or without God. Not what without God? Not what theists chalk up to the existence of God such as the universe, life and ultimately human life. Atheists say these things came into existence without or not from God.

No, sorry. You're wrong. Let me see if I can put this another way: I'm not saying there's no god. I'm saying I don't believe in your god, because you haven't proved it. You're an atheist too, you know; when it comes to Zeus and Athena and all those other defunct gods you hold exactly the same position that I do. Does it then follow that you're saying those gods could never have existed? Do you have a burden of proof to show us that they are nonexistent?

The question of whether or not there's a designer isn't core to the atheist belief system; belief following from evidence is. There could be a designer: I just said that. It's out there. I just don't know whether there is or isn't. The question now becomes; how do we prove that, really? And how do we prove that such a designer is your god?

You call yourself an atheist, you doubt or lack belief God caused the universe or you flat out believe such a claim is false.

I think the problem is that you're conflating lack of belief in religious deities with a certain set of beliefs about the beginning of the universe. I believe that your god didn't create the universe solely because you haven't demonstrated that he has, yet I'm open to the possibility that he might have. My position follows the facts; it's not "there is no designer," it's "I don't know whether or not there is a designer, nor the extent to which such a being conforms to the persona detailed in earthly religious texts."

Can you call yourself and atheist yet believe the universe was designed and engineered to support life?

Raelians do it pretty well, without believing in a god. The lack of a designer is not a central tenet of atheism. You're making a crucial assumption, and that is that the designer must be your god.

Theism is a belief regarding the most basic philosophical questions that can be asked such as why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a universe, stars and planets and how did life and humans come about? If atheists said I haven't a clue how the universe got here or how humans came into existence but I say it wasn't God would you find that a compelling reason to believe God doesn't exist?

No, I wouldn't find it compelling but then again I don't know of any atheist that's making that claim. Why not just stop at the "I haven't a clue" part and then add "but let's keep looking."

Whether you're willing to defend it or even admit it you are advocating a position. You are claiming that whatever caused our existence or the universe to exist, it wasn't God. Nature did it. Nature didn't plan it to happen, didn't want it to happen, didn't care if it happened but without trying to did it somehow. Mindless forces somehow miraculously stumbled upon the formula to cause a universe and create life minus any knowlegde on how to do such a thing. And it wasn't a case of like creating like, according to atheist orthodoxy mindless lifeless forces created something totally unlike it self, life and mind. No wonder atheists cry foul when someone points out they have a position to defend also.

Nope.

Look above, I already admitted that there might be a designer. That doesn't threaten my atheism, either. But my admitting that possibility doesn't mean I believe it unreservedly, nor does it mean that you've escaped the burden of proof regarding not only the existence of such a designer, but the identity of it too. What if that designer was Cthulhu?

Since we can only definately say one universe exists not only does it need to happen only once, it needs to happen the one time we know it occurred. But is this your basis for believing God doesn't exist? Because its possible God doesn't exist therefore I don't believe God doesn't exist.

What I'm saying is, this question of random chance and low probabilities is moot, because if we are all here by chance, our existences aren't in question. No matter how low the chance might have been, if there was a random element at all, it definitely happened.

Because thats how we deterimine if something is by chance or by design. Suppose we didn't know the pyramids were intentionally created by design, wouldn't the design features of the pyramids themselves strongly suggest they were intentionally created?

No. We recognize design by contrasting it with other examples of design. We know the pyramids are designed because we can look at other monuments or buildings. We can find evidence that they were designed.

This argument falls apart when you consider all the magnificently low probability things that exist in nature; think of the Tessellating Pavement in my home state of Tasmania. It's a perfectly geometric patch of ground, and yet it wasn't designed, it just looks like it. It is, in fact, perfectly natural. Hell, just look at all the celestial bodies out there that look like other things to us when we see them through a telescope; all those are random too, while looking designed.

Then how can it be raised as an objection?

Because you're claiming to know with certainty, without any evidence for that.

[Jackalope]

What if that designer was Cthulhu?

Hey, I'm just here for the all-you-can-eat buffet.

[Esquilax]

What if that designer was Cthulhu?

Hey, I'm just here for the all-you-can-eat buffet.

Or lying in wait for the stars to be right. I've got my eye on you, Elder Thing.

[genkaus]

Can you call yourself and atheist yet believe the universe was designed and engineered to support life?

As I've already shown you - yes.

Theism is a belief regarding the most basic philosophical questions that can be asked such as why is there something rather than nothing?

That is not the most basic philosophical question.

To be convinced or to have a strong conviction God doesn't exist you must have some information how the state of affairs we observe ourselves came into existence apart from a Creator.

Unnecessary. You just have to see that the concept of god is contradictory to the existence of god.

If atheism is true (there is no God) then the universe came into existence by some unknown cause (or it always existed in some form and then suddenly turned into a universe such as we observe) then without plan, design or intent, the laws of physics happened to have the right characteristics to cause life and intelligence to occur.

Nope. Once again, this is a misrepresentation of atheist position upon which you have been corrected multiple times already

In other words, life came from non-life and intelligence arose from non-intelligence. Two characteristics emerged from something totally unlike what is alleged to have caused it.

Why is that a problem?

The majority of atheists I have chatted with want to frame this discussion as one in which the theist is the only one making a claim, that the burden of evidence rests with the theist alone and if they fail to completely totally satisfy the atheists relentless demand for indisputable irrefutable evidence of Gods existence then atheism triumphs by default. Then we don't have to consider how natural mindless forces without plan or intent caused a life bearing universe to come into existence. Neither I nor any theist has indisputable irrefutable evidence God exists so the atheist is assured he or she will 'win' the argument.

Good. So we can agree that atheists have won this argument.

[Drew_2013]

That's correct, I am arguing facts and you're arguing semantics.

Prove it.

I will.

If something isn't designed, planned or engineered to be in a specific configuration yet such a specific configuration occurs we can either believe it was by the luckiest stroke of coincidence imaginable or it was in fact planned and designed.

False dichotomy. The third and most likely option is that its the necessary consequence of the nature existence.

Your argument is that mindless forces had to produce a universe and one in which life has to occur as a necessary consequence? You first argued there is no evidence the universe had to be as its observed and whether it had to be as it is or could be different is unknown. But now you state (still minus any evidence or fact) that the option it had to be as we observe is the most likely option. Based on what? Finally your third option doesn't avoid the dichotomy. Even if it had to be some consequence of the existence of nature, it was still the luckiest stroke of coincidence that if mindless forces cause a universe to exist, it has to be in the configuration that supports life as we know it. Now be honest...you don't really believe that bullshit do you? Lets take the fact the iron core in the earth produces a magnetic field that protects the earth from harmful effects of the sun. You don't honestly believe that some necessity of nature causes a spinning iron core to produce magnetic waves that fortuitously shields the earth do you? To say that the existence of human life is the neccesary consequence of the nature existence is to promote the very concept of the anthropomorphic principal you reject as a fallacy.

For the record, the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. It is the presence of intelligence behind the laws of nature that would be the positive claim - not the absence of it. The premise that is agreed upon is that the universe works in a particular way - with regards to laws of physics or logic. You are the one adding something extra - an intelligence with an intention - thus the burden of proof lies upon you.

For the record this is another semantical argument the bogus notion that the burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim. I can use semantics to turn a positive claim into an absence 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. I can also just assert out of thin air that the default assumption is that we owe our existence to a Creator unless proven otherwise. Why not?

In reality (apart from the bogus atheist debating tactic) the debate is a philosophical debate about the mystery of our existence. The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is:

Is our existence and the existence of the universe the consequence of mindless forces that unintentionally produced life and sentient beings who could ponder the question? Or are we the result of a Creator who intentionally caused and designed the universe and sentient life to exist? Neither explanation is less or more extraordinary than the other. People who believe the latter explanation have become known as theists, while those who subscribe to the former belief have become known as atheists (meaning not or without God). There is no inherent advantage to either position neither is either position an established fact. It isn't a fact there was no designer creator who caused the universe to exist and its not a fact there was.

No wonder you keep repeating the same old refuted arguments - you can't even remember the ones you made. And, apparently, lack the capacity to scroll up half an inch to read it again. And fail to read what you are obviously copying and pasting. You did not talk about the gravitational constant, you talked about the force of gravity. Also, the figure of 10^36 is nowhere to be found in the data you pasted. And finally, the difference between 10^36 and 10^30 is infinitesimal? The variation of 99.9999% is insignificant? Pray tell, then, what percentage do you call significant?

If I didn't specify I was referring to the gravitiation constant, obviously I misspoke. I didn't invent or make up the figure I mentioned to you. It was from a book (Just Six Numbers) written by a highly esteemed british cosmologist and astrophysicist (not to mention he's an atheist). The whole point of this book was to illustrate the degree to which these 6 numbers must fall within a very specific range to have a universe certainly in which human life could exist but arguably any life could exist.

The following is from the preface of the book.

The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially important huge number N in nature, equal to 1,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. This number measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than insects.

Another number, e, whose value is 0.007, defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and how all the atoms on Earth were made. Its value controls the power from the Sun and, more sensitively, how stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table. Carbon and oxygen are common, whereas gold and uranium are rare, because of what happens in the stars. If e were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.

The cosmic number W (omega) measures the amount of material in our universe - galaxies, diffuse gas, and `dark matter'. W tells us the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. If this ratio were too high relative to a particular `critical' value, the universe would have collapsed long ago; had it been too low, no galaxies or stars would have formed. The initial expansion speed seems to have been finely tuned.

Measuring the fourth number, l (lambda), was the biggest scientific news of 1998. An unsuspected new force - a cosmic `antigravity' - controls the expansion of our universe, even though it has no discernible effect on scales less than a billion light-years. It is destined to become ever more dominant over gravity and other forces as our universe becomes ever darker and emptier. Fortunately for us (and very surprisingly to theorists), A is very small. Otherwise its effect would have stopped galaxies and stars from forming, and cosmic evolution would have been stifled before it could even begin.

The seeds for all cosmic structures - stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies - were all imprinted in the Big Bang. The fabric of our universe depends on one number, ,Q, which represents the ratio of two fundamental energies and is about 1/100,000 in value. If Q were even smaller, the universe would be inert and structureless; if Q were much larger, it would be a violent place, in which no stars or solar systems could survive, dominated by vast black holes.

The sixth crucial number has been known for centuries, although it's now viewed in a new perspective. It is the number of spatial dimensions in our world, D, and equals three. Life couldn't exist if D were two or four. Time is a fourth dimension, but distinctively different from the others in that it has a built-in arrow: we `move' only towards the future. Near black holes, space is so warped that light moves in circles, and time can stand still. Furthermore, close to the time of the Big Bang, and also on microscopic scales, space may reveal its deepest underlying structure of all: the vibrations and harmonies of objects called `superstrings', in a ten-dimensional arena.

Being an atheist and a naturalist Rees concludes that this is one of an infinitude of universes with differening characteristics so that naturally we would only find ourselves in a universe that had the right characteristics for life. I'd argue that the evidence he presents isn't evidence of other universes, its evidence that this universe was designed to produce life. Secondly his argument lacks evidence there are other universes and if so that there characteristics are different.