Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?

[SteveII]

1. The arguments are not conclusive on their own. They are part of a cumulative argument for the existence of God. Separating them out and positing different entities is an unreasonable step (there is no reason). 

In a cumulative argument, one result is dependent upon the prior result, and so on.  These are all independent lines of evidence: none of them reinforce each other.  What you have is what is known as a 'rope argument' in which the independent strands are woven together to make one argument.  In a rope argument, the whole is only as strong as the strongest individual strand.  And in your case, none of the individual strands are particularly strong or convincing.  So what you actually have is a weak argument.

Perhaps I should have use the phrase "cumulative case".

Regarding the arguments as a group, they are inductive in nature and give a probabilistic conclusion.  I think very few people become a Christian because of the arguments--rather it is an assurance that a belief in God (at least a god) is not irrational and serves as a check against the barrage of atheists shallow challenges to faith being a reasonable thing to hold.

[Whateverist]

What you call "fine tuning" is what I call things arraying themselves as they must given their inherent properties and current trajectory.  

And just how did they get just those highly exact inherent properties that so conveniently arrange themselves and why must the various trajectories be preserved according to very precise principles? Mere coincidence? They just do for no reason at all?

That's like asking how the lottery winner knew to choose just those numbers. We're living in the 'winning ticket' and are part and parcel of it.

[SteveII]

And just how did they get just those highly exact inherent properties that so conveniently arrange themselves and why must the various trajectories be preserved according to very precise principles? Mere coincidence? They just do for no reason at all?

That's like asking how the lottery winner knew to choose just those numbers.  We're living in the 'winning ticket' and are part and parcel of it.

The lottery is not a good analogy for the fine-tuning argument. A better analogy is if there were billions and billions of white ping pong balls and one black ball. If the black ball rolls down the shoot, you can live. A white one, you will be shot. Each individual white ball is equally improbable, but the odds of you getting some white one is overwhelming. Now, to get closer to the actual odds, you would need to see that black ball roll down the shoot 5 times in 5 drawings in a row to live. If you witnessed that happening, you would be certain that the game was rigged. So we are not interested in why you got the particular ball you did (ever ball was equally improbable), but why you got 5 life-permitting balls in a row. 

That, in a nutshell, is the fine-tuning argument. We are not interested in why this universe exists, but why a life-permitting one exists. As in the drawing above, we have very good reasons to think the universe was rigged for life.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's like asking how the lottery winner knew to choose just those numbers.  We're living in the 'winning ticket' and are part and parcel of it.

Your scenario is similar to Borges's when he said that the in an infinite universe all possibilities would be exhausted. The key word here is possibilities. A lottery result will never be "FISH." Now it could be that unrestricted chance could produce an infinite number of cartoon worlds or world's made entirely from LEGO blocks. That stance is a very high price to pay. At any moment our world could become absurd too! Even if this particular world was created by chance, it would still be constrained by metaphysical laws that are the ultimate source of the fine-tuning needed allow one permutation with life in it.

[Mister Agenda]

Strong fine-tuning is a thought experiment in a universe where it's not even known that the constants involved could have been different, that they aren't interrelated, etc. We're not in the position of being able to declare the odds are long...we don't even know if there is more than one 'lottery ticket', or if there are lots with the same numbers on them. We can only speculate.

[Amarok]

In the context of Theism Fine Tuning is pointless .

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

That's like asking how the lottery winner knew to choose just those numbers.  We're living in the 'winning ticket' and are part and parcel of it.

That, in a nutshell, is the fine-tuning argument. We are not interested in why this universe exists, but why a life-permitting one exists. As in the drawing above, we have very good reasons to think the universe was rigged for life.

Could you please elaborate on what those very good reasons are.   In addition, supposing that the universe was rigged for life, how can you be sure that the Christian deity, and not some other deity (or some other life-form for that matter), is actually responsible?

[SteveII]

[Jackie]

[masterofpuppets]

That's like asking how the lottery winner knew to choose just those numbers.  We're living in the 'winning ticket' and are part and parcel of it.

The lottery is not a good analogy for the fine-tuning argument. A better analogy is if there were billions and billions of white ping pong balls and one black ball. If the black ball rolls down the shoot, you can live. A white one, you will be shot. Each individual white ball is equally improbable, but the odds of you getting some white one is overwhelming. Now, to get closer to the actual odds, you would need to see that black ball roll down the shoot 5 times in 5 drawings in a row to live. If you witnessed that happening, you would be certain that the game was rigged. So we are not interested in why you got the particular ball you did (ever ball was equally improbable), but why you got 5 life-permitting balls in a row. 

That, in a nutshell, is the fine-tuning argument. We are not interested in why this universe exists, but why a life-permitting one exists. As in the drawing above, we have very good reasons to think the universe was rigged for life.

If the physical constants were different, life as we know it might not exist. It doesn't follow that life couldn't exist.

Even the assertion that "our universe is life-permitting" is quite misleading. The fact that we haven't observed any life outside of Earth, even with an abundance of Earth-like planets out there, is good evidence that our Universe is barely life-permitting at all (that is to say, almost not life-permitting). Life just managed to precariously evolve on one tiny planet in the Milky Way.