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

[Fake Messiah]

What are you talking about? As in my example of billions of white balls and one black ball in a drawing and I not only see the black ball come down the shoot, but it does so 5 times in a row in 5 subsequent drawings, I think it very reasonable to infer that it was fixed.

But you forgot to tell us which god are you promoting with your theory? It certainly can't be the god from the Bible since Bible is specific that YHVH created universe in 6 days: it not only is written as days but it is also emphasized with careful statement "the evening and the morning". So what is that feeble god (compared to YHVH) that needed 14 billion years to create as that you're promoting?

[Amarok]

What are you talking about? As in my example of billions of white balls and one black ball in a drawing and I not only see the black ball come down the shoot, but it does so 5 times in a row in 5 subsequent drawings, I think it very reasonable to infer that it was fixed.

But you forgot to tell us which god are you promoting with your theory? It certainly can't be the god from the Bible since Bible is specific that YHVH created universe in 6 days: it not only is written as days but it is also emphasized with careful statement "the evening and the morning". So what is that feeble god (compared to YHVH) that needed 14 billion years to create as that you're promoting?

There general excuse will be "but we don't take it literally (sometimes)

Or" It doesn't matter what good "

[SteveII]

[Neo-Scholastic]

For theists, the existence of a Necessary Being is strongly suggested by the apparent contingent features on which the the universe seems to depend. The skeptical objection to our stance, appealing to chance, is quite odd and is really just a way for them to have their cake and eat it too. That approach allows the skeptic to acknowledge the contingency of the physical world while tacitly relying on "laws of chance" that must transcend the universe in order to constrain its possibilities. This is just another way to bring a Necessary Being in by the backdoor while expressly denying there is one. The other skeptical objection is to consider the features of the physical universe brute facts, a simple assertion that some facts about the world are not subject to the principle of sufficient reason.

[RoadRunner79]

[masterofpuppets]

[Neo-Scholastic]

[SteveII]

[Jackie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R97IHcuyWI0

Sean Carroll seems to disagree completely. However, for the sake of argument, let's grant that the universe is indeed finely tuned. Even if this is the case, we're not one step closer to demonstrating that any deity exists. All we've done is show that the universe was fine-tuned by something. That something could be a million different things. What makes you think a god is a more likely fine-tuner?

You mean there are other alternatives to consider? What? 

If you are going to say the Multiverse, then you have just pushed back the problem. If order for any multiverse to spawn billions upon billions of universes--each unique in its physical laws and constants, doesn't it too have to be fine-tuned to do so?

Cant have it both ways buddy, cant attack science when it doesn't point to your super hero then cherry pick it to prop up your super hero. You still fail to see that every religion in the world pulls this shit, not just you and not just Christians. Seen this shit from Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists too.

Your bible is not nor ever was a science texbook, neither is the Koran or Torah or Talmud or the Hindu Vedas or the claimed writings of Buddha. That was then and back then nobody had one fucking clue what we scientifically know now.

The only place your god exists is in your brain because of your desire to want it to be true, not because it is true. Someone simply sold you the idea and you fell for it.

[masterofpuppets]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R97IHcuyWI0

Sean Carroll seems to disagree completely. However, for the sake of argument, let's grant that the universe is indeed finely tuned. Even if this is the case, we're not one step closer to demonstrating that any deity exists. All we've done is show that the universe was fine-tuned by something. That something could be a million different things. What makes you think a god is a more likely fine-tuner?

You mean there are other alternatives to consider? What? 

If you are going to say the Multiverse, then you have just pushed back the problem. If order for any multiverse to spawn billions upon billions of universes--each unique in its physical laws and constants, doesn't it too have to be fine-tuned to do so?

According to your argument God would have to be finely tuned as well, and to reject this is committing the fallacy of special pleading. God is just another candidate hypothesis to the solution of the fine tuning problem (if it even exists), and this hypothesis doesn't magically get a free pass.