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

[SteveII]

I did some reading on M-theory. First, there is not one bit of physical evidence for it. Second, it posits as many as 10^500 different possible membranes (parallel universes) that could be right next to us. With that many universes--each with a different possibility of constants, it does not address the fine-tuning issue of why ours is the way it is. Third, it is not clear that whatever created the 'cosmic landscape' (multiverse?) would not have to have been finely tuned to create universes with laws and structure (kicking the can upstairs). Fourth, since it is very much in question whether the theory can ever be tested, isn't it just philosophy and not science?

How could a multiverse create a universe without laws and structure? [1]

How would a near-infinite number of universes not address the issue of one having the values our has by chance? If you're literally asking why we're in the one that allows us to exist, you need to take a break. [2]

It's theoretical physics, which would more properly be named 'hypothetical physics'. It has to fit what we already know and the math has to work, but it ain't necessarily so. It uses the scientific toolbox, and (hypothetically) the hypotheses generated may be possible to test someday. [3]

1. It seems that you assume in your question that the multiverse is fine-tuned to spit out universes with laws and structure? On the other hand, since this isn't science anymore, why can't a universe be spawned that is just chaos and exists for a billionth of a second? 
2. So, Occam's Razor is out the window--on a grand scale. You are positing a near-infinite number of universes to explain this one. Not very parsimonious. Also, the multiverse is a metaphysical theory and will never be anything else--so any argument that has the multiverse as a component will always have that little asterisk next to it and never be, by itself, a defeater for a premise.
3. All true.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Thank you for your reply SteveII. In question three, I actually meant to say trillions of universes and not galaxies, so I apologize for my poorly communicated question. Thanks for your clarification.

[Brian37]

How could a multiverse create a universe without laws and structure? [1]

How would a near-infinite number of universes not address the issue of one having the values our has by chance? If you're literally asking why we're in the one that allows us to exist, you need to take a break. [2]

It's theoretical physics, which would more properly be named 'hypothetical physics'. It has to fit what we already know and the math has to work, but it ain't necessarily so. It uses the scientific toolbox, and (hypothetically) the hypotheses generated may be possible to test someday. [3]

1. It seems that you assume in your question that the multiverse is fine-tuned to spit out universes with laws and structure? On the other hand, since this isn't science anymore, why can't a universe be spawned that is just chaos and exists for a billionth of a second? 
2. So, Occam's Razor is out the window--on a grand scale. You are positing a near-infinite number of universes to explain this one. Not very parsimonious. Also, the multiverse is a metaphysical theory and will never be anything else--so any argument that has the multiverse as a component will always have that little asterisk next to it and never be, by itself, a defeater for a premise.
3. All true.

Waaa waaaa waaaa waaaa science.......waaa waaa waaa Allah. What, that doesn't work for you? 

Waaaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science........waaa waaaa waaa Yahweh. What, that doesn't work for you?

Waaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science........waaaa waaa waaa Buddha. What, that doesn't work for you?

Waaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science.....waaa waaa waaa waa Brahama. What, that doesn't work for you?

Listen Charlie Brown's "teacher", I know you really think you are onto something, but you are not. Wake up, grow up. It wont kill you to give up on old mythology.

[SteveII]

Regarding the probability, I understand your point that if we do not know the range, we cannot assign probability. However, why isn't the range of possible values unlimited? What factor(s) could constrain the constants of the universe before the universe? Or are you saying that one constant could be a restraint on another before the universe existed? Why?

Physicists posit a multiverse for the expressed reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?

I'm saying you're misrepresenting them. That isn't why a multiverse was posited, it had nothing to do with explaining fine tuning, it was a possible explanation of observations, and there's more than one multiverse hypothesis, including one to explain quantum physics.

'We don't know' are the words you should be paying attention to. We don't know why the values are the way they are, what the ranges could be, if they could only have the values they have, or if they are completely random. [1] You can't base a claim that the values aren't chance or necessity on 'We don't know'. It means 'we don't know'. 'We don't know, therefore we can eliminate chance and necessity' isn't even wrong, just nonsensical.

I was wrong about the multiverse. I said as much a few posts back.

1. It seems like you are just throwing up an objection and hoping that it somehow supports necessity or that it somehow limits chance. Far from "we don't know", Dawkins in The God Delusion, agrees with Martin Rees that the constants to not appear to be necessarily so (I can find the exact page when I get home later). Apparently, the laws of physics can handle a wide ranges of values. Dawkins hangs his hat on chance. He says that the multiverse can generate enough tries to get the outcome we see. Since I can't argue with your "we don't know", I have chosen to argue against the current mainstream beliefs about how things are.

[Mister Agenda]

How could a multiverse create a universe without laws and structure? [1]

How would a near-infinite number of universes not address the issue of one having the values our has by chance? If you're literally asking why we're in the one that allows us to exist, you need to take a break. [2]

It's theoretical physics, which would more properly be named 'hypothetical physics'. It has to fit what we already know and the math has to work, but it ain't necessarily so. It uses the scientific toolbox, and (hypothetically) the hypotheses generated may be possible to test someday. [3]

1. It seems that you assume in your question that the multiverse is fine-tuned to spit out universes with laws and structure? On the other hand, since this isn't science anymore, why can't a universe be spawned that is just chaos and exists for a billionth of a second? 
2. So, Occam's Razor is out the window--on a grand scale. You are positing a near-infinite number of universes to explain this one. Not very parsimonious. Also, the multiverse is a metaphysical theory and will never be anything else--so any argument that has the multiverse as a component will always have that little asterisk next to it and never be, by itself, a defeater for a premise.
3. All true.

1. No assumption. It's impossible for a universe not to have law and structure unless it was designed that way. A completely lawless (a universe with no regular features at all) universe would require intelligent design, the only way to completely eliminate regular features from chaos...because complete lack of regularity is itself a regularity. Your 'billionth of a second' universe has characteristics, and that's what physical laws are.

2. I didn't bring up multiple universes, but again, you lack the intellectual integrity to stop pretending you don't know that the multiverse wasn't posited to explain the universe but is a consequence of the physics involved in explaining what we can observe of the origin of the universe. No one made up multiple universes as an ass-pull to prop up a refutation of the FTA. And someone who posits their favorite deity as an explanation for a scientific mystery and smarms about Occam's Razor ought to burst from the hypocrisy.

[Brian37]

I'm saying you're misrepresenting them. That isn't why a multiverse was posited, it had nothing to do with explaining fine tuning, it was a possible explanation of observations, and there's more than one multiverse hypothesis, including one to explain quantum physics.

'We don't know' are the words you should be paying attention to. We don't know why the values are the way they are, what the ranges could be, if they could only have the values they have, or if they are completely random. [1] You can't base a claim that the values aren't chance or necessity on 'We don't know'. It means 'we don't know'. 'We don't know, therefore we can eliminate chance and necessity' isn't even wrong, just nonsensical.

I was wrong about the multiverse. I said as much a few posts back.

1. It seems like you are just throwing up an objection and hoping that it somehow supports necessity or that it somehow limits chance. Far from "we don't know", Dawkins in The God Delusion, agrees with Martin Rees that the constants to not appear to be necessarily so (I can find the exact page when I get home later). Apparently, the laws of physics can handle a wide ranges of values. Dawkins hangs his hat on chance. He says that the multiverse can generate enough tries to get the outcome we see. Since I can't argue with your "we don't know", I have chosen to argue against the current mainstream beliefs about how things are.

Dakwins hangs his hat on chance= Allah....... Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance= Yahweh..... Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance=Buddha ......Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance= Brahama....Why would that not work on you?

You have chosen a pet deity, you still have not proven that science points to your own pet flavor of deity.

Keep it up Charlie Brown's "teacher". This is just you swallowing convoluted pseudo science with the "fine tuning" argument trying to either debunk science, then when you cant do that try to claim science proves your pet deity.

Pull your head out of you ass, debate some Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists, maybe then you will see you are not doing anything new.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm saying you're misrepresenting them. That isn't why a multiverse was posited, it had nothing to do with explaining fine tuning, it was a possible explanation of observations, and there's more than one multiverse hypothesis, including one to explain quantum physics.

'We don't know' are the words you should be paying attention to. We don't know why the values are the way they are, what the ranges could be, if they could only have the values they have, or if they are completely random. [1] You can't base a claim that the values aren't chance or necessity on 'We don't know'. It means 'we don't know'. 'We don't know, therefore we can eliminate chance and necessity' isn't even wrong, just nonsensical.

I was wrong about the multiverse. I said as much a few posts back.

1. It seems like you are just throwing up an objection and hoping that it somehow supports necessity or that it somehow limits chance. Far from "we don't know", Dawkins in The God Delusion, agrees with Martin Rees that the constants to not appear to be necessarily so (I can find the exact page when I get home later). Apparently, the laws of physics can handle a wide ranges of values. Dawkins hangs his hat on chance. He says that the multiverse can generate enough tries to get the outcome we see. Since I can't argue with your "we don't know", I have chosen to argue against the current mainstream beliefs about how things are.

Yet you just made a post complaining about the multiverse as a violation of Occam's Razor because it's postulates unnecessary entities to explain our universe arising by chance.

I'm not Dawkins. I don't hang my hat on either. Because I don't know what the case actually is. I have a preference: A multiverse of a nearly infinite number of universes that by necessity are much like our own, because that would be awesome. But what I would prefer has no bearing on what the case may actually be.

[SteveII]

Thank you for your reply SteveII.  In question three, I actually meant to say trillions of universes and not galaxies, so I apologize for my poorly communicated question. Thanks for your clarification.

Amending your sentence to: " Also, if fine-tuning is uncertain on a universal scale, then would it be premature and somewhat short-sighted to apply this way of thinking to trillions of universes? [3]

Fine-tuning is not uncertain. It is the case that our universe has a very precise set of values that if they were different, the universe would not exist (in any functional sense). Not only that, the ratios between the constants have to be precise. 

All but a few of the trillions of universes would not be a place with any potential for complex structure, let alone life. Unless of course you engage in metaphysical speculation that the multiverse somehow it tuned to turn out pre-tuned universes--which just begs the question why is the multiverse fine-tuned.

[Brian37]

QM nor string theory or m theory are claiming a "loony tunes" world. The problem with all religions when they shit their pants because science is constantly filling in the gaps with natural answers, do not understand that scientific language is not the same definition that the theist wants it to be.

Loony is thinking an old unscientific book of myth is a science textbook, that is loony. 

Same bullshit mistake theists make with the word "theory" . It is not a mere guess as theists want it to be. In scientific terms it is a definition of repeated experimentation that has repeated confirmed observations over time. QM does not claim anything goes like a theist wants it to be. It certainly points to things that laypeople think of as "freaky"  but it is not there to justify Allah or Thor or Yoda.

QM paints things we are not used to thinking about as laypeople, but it is not magic, it is math, not hocus pocus. It is not there to prop up the bible or koran or Torah or Vedas or Buddha.

(Sigh)...the non sequiturs never end... Please, Brian, the adults are trying to have a real conversation here.

Non- sequitur=therefore Allah........ 
Non-sequitur=therefore Yahweh......
Non- sequitur=therefore Buddha.......
Non-sequitur=therefore Brahama......

I am an adult, I am not the one clinging to an old book of mythology written by humans who didn't know where the sun went at night.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ready, fire, aim...You might be surprised to know that your repeated and repeated and repeated comparisons between Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, and Brahama are pointless. They refer to special revelations claimed by each religion. The fine-tuning argument (among others) refers to the god of classical theism in which ALL agree based on general revelation. But if you want to keep acting like a child, copying and pasting your ignorant rant, then by all means go ahead. No one is stopping you from making a fool of yourself.