Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Esquilax]

nice try with the luck thing; but too many events that were spot on happened. when all added together, luck is not considered.

Your inability to let go of the argument from ignorance, and the argument from personal incredulity have been noted. Please do let us know when you're ready to form a real, cogent argument.

[BoS]

Assuming 'god' is responsible for the currently unknown or invalidated is ludicrous.

[Coffee Jesus]

Or conversely, none of this time or resources were expended for the benefit on the human species. We're just a lucky roll of the dice on the way to whatever the actual end result turns out to be.

---

Based on current knowledge the end result for Earth is that it'll be turned into a molten ball in four or five million (billion?) years and then perhaps absorbed into whatever the Sun happens to become before it finally dies. The universe, oblivious to such minor goings on, will march along on its own way to eventual heat-death in five trillion years.

I suppose that's much more depressing than knowing that you'll spend eternity telling god what a swell guy he is, while trying not to think of the tens of billions of people shrieking in agony as the eternal torment machine just grinds away, and hoping that you don't do anything to get god's attention when he's in "one of those moods."

---

nice try with the luck thing; but too many events that were spot on happened. when all added together, luck is not considered.

Snowtracks, I have a problem with this design hypothesis.
To say that a god caused it is analogous to saying that the dice were loaded. Suppose I roll two dice, and I roll an 8 as the sum of the two dice numbers. This event isn't technically random. A physicist could do a complicated analysis of their motion to explain how they landed 8. On the other hand, I could accuse John of loading the dice on 8 such that they probably would have rolled 8 regardless of the precise mechanics of their motion. Either explanation would be sufficient. After all, the right explanation doesn't have to be the simplest one.
Okay, but the physicist's explanation would be so complicated that it would still appear "random" to you. You're looking for a simple explanation, an explanation that you can appeal to in the absence of such complicated information. So how do you support the hypothesis that the dice were loaded? Here are the variables we have to consider.

P(L) = the probability that the dice were loaded
P(E) = the (unconditional) probability that the dice were loaded to roll an 8
P(E|L) = the probability that the dice were loaded to roll an 8 under the condition that they were loaded

You want to argue that P(L) is high, that is, that the dice were probably loaded.
The fact that you rolled an 8 increases P(E|L). That is, having rolled an 8, you can say that they were more likely to be loaded on 8 under the condition that they were loaded.
While increasing P(E|L) does increase P(E), it does not increase P(L). That is, with an increased probability that they were loaded on 8 under the condition that they were loaded, there is also an increase in the unconditional probability that they were loaded on 8. But this tells us nothing about the probability that the dice were loaded. To support the claim that the dice were loaded, you need to give a separate argument for why you think loaded dice would have been more likely to be loaded on 8. Maybe John wanted me to roll 8 so that my Monopoly piece would land on his hotel. That argument would work. I'm not convinced that there is a similar argument for a god loading the dice on the Big Bang.
It's no wonder that people think a god loaded the dice on 8. After all, if the god hadn't loaded them on 8, it wouldn't have rolled an 8. Hence us 8-like beings fashioned our gods after us. But that seems to be the only reason for why we have fashioned our gods as we did. If there is a god, it must be like us--If the dice were loaded, they must have been loaded on 8. So what?

[Chas]

nice try with the luck thing; but too many events that were spot on happened. when all added together, luck is not considered.

You obviously don't see the assumption buried in your statement.

We, and all other organisms, are the result of ongoing evolution. Evolution is a blind algorithm - there is no direction, no goal, no purpose. The concept that there is something other than luck hides the assumption that we (or any other organism) is supposed to be here. We're not.

There is no 'supposed to be' involved.

[archangle]

It all makes sense if you think about it. An omnipotent God, with limitless powers, creates a universe with billions upon billions of planet and stars just so that a tiny planet on the very outer reaches of said universe, can home lil ol' us.

So we can become technologically advanced.

Are you sure?

the reason for the global high-tech society is not an end in itself but provides the necessary resources to fulfill the 'great commission' which is the message that salvation is a free gift. once that task has been completed, Christ the Creator will return to earth to wrap-up the conquest and removal of evil. the time-line is: this period, 7 years of tribulation, 75-day interval for preparation for the kingdom, 1000-reign of Christ on the earth, the great white judgment (books are open to show who had receive their free gift), destruction of the universe by fire, and then the new creation. so that's why i posted we're in the last 1% of the universe's history, actually way under 1% in astronomical time.
and no i didn't make it up. God reveal himself thru the 66 books of the bible which is His written revelation (100% accuracy in science, history, prophecies, and genealogy; and not contradictory).

---

And worship that god.
And come to be with it after death.... or else...

I wonder... did this god also put humanoids on other planets so it could enhance its worship-base and get even more minions?

Why can't the guy just come by and tell us all of that in a clear cut way?... most of us will be happy to comply.

if an entity stood right in front of someone and said he was God, that wouldn't constitute proof.

---

gee, didn't think that everyone would be upset of learning that universe has a purpose; thought they would be happy.

why couldn't life (your god) have started with this universe and follow the natural progression of the universe.

just like a blood cell in you? If a protein was complex enough it could/may "sense you" just like you may sense something bigger.

[Ksa]

nice try with the luck thing; but too many events that were spot on happened. when all added together, luck is not considered.

Really? Our brother snowtracks is being a little disingenuous when he says that, because too many low probability events happened in a row for it to be a coincidence.

What our brother hasn't yet stated, is the ONE event that occurred, without which none of us would exist, that has a probability of occurence so low that no human mind can grasp it. Do you know what I'm talking about? No? I'll tell:

The cosmological constant lambda, better known as the density of empty space. It is 10^-122. That is a zero with zero, zero, zero, zero, after the decimals 122 times! And finally, a ONE. 1. That's why we're here. If it was anything else but that, we would not be here. If the big bang explosion was slightly offset, we would not be here.

Can you imagine how many universes exploded until we got the right one for us to exist in? You have any idea? You think just because Jesus came and fulfilled this and that, and that had a low probability, that he is God? What about the cosmological constant? Even if a child is born with a birth defect where he has holes in his hands, and when he grows up he fulfills your prophecy, the probability for that to happen is infinitely small compared to the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is your God, if at all, should you consider low probability events to be God.

I'm telling you, it is not a coincidence. When more than 10^130 big bangs occur, for one universe to have a 10^-122 cc is not a coincidence: It is a mathematical inevitability. It's bound to happen and nothing can stop it. You should listen to Brian Greene talk.

[RobbyPants]

nice try with the luck thing; but too many events that were spot on happened. when all added together, luck is not considered.

Really? Our brother snowtracks is being a little disingenuous when he says that, because too many low probability events happened in a row for it to be a coincidence.

Snowtracks believes that no one ever wins the lottery unless God grants it. Getting one number right is pretty rare, let along getting six back to back.

That, or he doesn't understand iterative probability.

[snowtracks]

nice try with the luck thing; but too many events that were spot on happened. when all added together, luck is not considered.

Snowtracks, I have a problem with this design hypothesis.
To say that a god caused it is analogous to saying that the dice were loaded. Suppose I roll two dice, and I roll an 8 as the sum of the two dice numbers. This event isn't technically random. A physicist could do a complicated analysis of their motion to explain how they landed 8. On the other hand, I could accuse John of loading the dice on 8 such that they probably would have rolled 8 regardless of the precise mechanics of their motion. Either explanation would be sufficient. After all, the right explanation doesn't have to be the simplest one.
Okay, but the physicist's explanation would be so complicated that it would still appear "random" to you. You're looking for a simple explanation, an explanation that you can appeal to in the absence of such complicated information. So how do you support the hypothesis that the dice were loaded? Here are the variables we have to consider.

P(L) = the probability that the dice were loaded
P(E) = the (unconditional) probability that the dice were loaded to roll an 8
P(E|L) = the probability that the dice were loaded to roll an 8 under the condition that they were loaded

You want to argue that P(L) is high, that is, that the dice were probably loaded.
The fact that you rolled an 8 increases P(E|L). That is, having rolled an 8, you can say that they were more likely to be loaded on 8 under the condition that they were loaded.
While increasing P(E|L) does increase P(E), it does not increase P(L). That is, with an increased probability that they were loaded on 8 under the condition that they were loaded, there is also an increase in the unconditional probability that they were loaded on 8. But this tells us nothing about the probability that the dice were loaded. To support the claim that the dice were loaded, you need to give a separate argument for why you think loaded dice would have been more likely to be loaded on 8. Maybe John wanted me to roll 8 so that my Monopoly piece would land on his hotel. That argument would work. I'm not convinced that there is a similar argument for a god loading the dice on the Big Bang.
It's no wonder that people think a god loaded the dice on 8. After all, if the god hadn't loaded them on 8, it wouldn't have rolled an 8. Hence us 8-like beings fashioned our gods after us. But that seems to be the only reason for why we have fashioned our gods as we did. If there is a god, it must be like us--If the dice were loaded, they must have been loaded on 8. So what?

the universe has a measurable sample size of one. appeal to some form of multiverse is metaphysics speculation and doesn't uphold the scientific method. the only reason to wonder over to a non-measurable speculation is an priori position that a Supreme Being can't be supra dimensional to time, space, energy, and matter; and as such is not subject to the principle of cause and effect that would require that Being to have a beginning.

[Silver]

the only reason to wonder over to a non-measurable speculation is an priori position that a Supreme Being can't be supra dimensional to time, space, energy, and matter; and as such is not subject to the principle of cause and effect that would require that Being to have a beginning.

An unverifiable claim, if ever there was one.

The problem is that you do not rely upon facts. All you have is an imagination that wishes what it perceived could be more real than reality.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Snowtracks, I have a problem with this design hypothesis.
To say that a god caused it is analogous to saying that the dice were loaded. Suppose I roll two dice, and I roll an 8 as the sum of the two dice numbers. This event isn't technically random. A physicist could do a complicated analysis of their motion to explain how they landed 8. On the other hand, I could accuse John of loading the dice on 8 such that they probably would have rolled 8 regardless of the precise mechanics of their motion. Either explanation would be sufficient. After all, the right explanation doesn't have to be the simplest one.
Okay, but the physicist's explanation would be so complicated that it would still appear "random" to you. You're looking for a simple explanation, an explanation that you can appeal to in the absence of such complicated information. So how do you support the hypothesis that the dice were loaded? Here are the variables we have to consider.

P(L) = the probability that the dice were loaded
P(E) = the (unconditional) probability that the dice were loaded to roll an 8
P(E|L) = the probability that the dice were loaded to roll an 8 under the condition that they were loaded

You want to argue that P(L) is high, that is, that the dice were probably loaded.
The fact that you rolled an 8 increases P(E|L). That is, having rolled an 8, you can say that they were more likely to be loaded on 8 under the condition that they were loaded.
While increasing P(E|L) does increase P(E), it does not increase P(L). That is, with an increased probability that they were loaded on 8 under the condition that they were loaded, there is also an increase in the unconditional probability that they were loaded on 8. But this tells us nothing about the probability that the dice were loaded. To support the claim that the dice were loaded, you need to give a separate argument for why you think loaded dice would have been more likely to be loaded on 8. Maybe John wanted me to roll 8 so that my Monopoly piece would land on his hotel. That argument would work. I'm not convinced that there is a similar argument for a god loading the dice on the Big Bang.
It's no wonder that people think a god loaded the dice on 8. After all, if the god hadn't loaded them on 8, it wouldn't have rolled an 8. Hence us 8-like beings fashioned our gods after us. But that seems to be the only reason for why we have fashioned our gods as we did. If there is a god, it must be like us--If the dice were loaded, they must have been loaded on 8. So what?

the universe has a measurable sample size of one. appeal to some form of multiverse is metaphysics speculation and doesn't uphold the scientific method. the only reason to wonder over to a non-measurable speculation is an priori position that a Supreme Being can't be supra dimensional to time, space, energy, and matter; and as such is not subject to the principle of cause and effect that would require that Being to have a beginning.