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

[Neo-Scholastic]

In these arguments... no I am not advancing a specific book or tradition. Mostly because it doesn't follow from the argument.

Getting back to the fine-tuning argument, RR79...I'd like to know your thoughts about another way of looking at it. Now the typical approach is to think how very lucky we are that every thing is just so. But what if this universe is actually rather unfortunate for life. Clearly the vast enormity of the universe is 99.999999999999999999% inhospitable to life as we know it. And as far as we know, we are alone or at the very least life is so spread apart that we might as well be alone. What if this universe lacks some wonderful "Felicity constant" or "Law of Winsomeness" that would have made, not widely-spaced stars and planets; but rather, some ubiquitous ether teaming with plasma creatures of living light? Why do we assume that alternative universes would be worse? Might they not also be better?

[RoadRunner79]

In these arguments... no I am not advancing a specific book or tradition. Mostly because it doesn't follow from the argument.

Getting back to the fine-tuning argument, RR79...I'd like to know your thoughts about another way of looking at it. Now the typical approach is to think how very lucky we are that every thing is just so. But what if this universe is actually rather unfortunate for life. Clearly the vast enormity of the universe is 99.999999999999999999% inhospitable to life as we know it.  And as far as we know, we are alone or at the very least life is so spread apart that we might as well be alone. What if this universe lacks some wonderful "Felicity constant" or "Law of Winsomeness" that would have made, not widely-spaced stars and planets; but rather, some ubiquitous ether teaming with plasma creatures of living light? Why do we assume that alternative universes would be worse? Might they not also be better?

Personally, that sounds  a lot like the boltzman brain conversation (if I'm understanding you correctly).   I've never delved into that too much; I feel it gets a little too far away from it's foundation, for me (building on assumptions without backing as you go up the line).  But I do think that the fine tuning argument is working off the math from what we know about this universe and it's physics.

I may need to think about your question a little more.

[Pat Mustard]

.No one is saying that this shows evidence for a specific god,

In that case why are you lot so insistent in this thread that fine tuning proves yhwh?

Leaving aside the fact that you lot haven't come even remotely close to demonstrating that the universe is fine tuned; you can't have it both ways and claim two contradictory things about it rr.

[RoadRunner79]

.No one is saying that this shows evidence for a specific god,

In that case why are you lot so insistent in this thread that fine tuning proves yhwh?

Leaving aside the fact that you lot haven't come even remotely close to demonstrating that the universe is fine tuned; you can't have it both ways and claim two contradictory things about it rr.

I think you misunderstand; and perhaps the statement is a little unclear, as I look at it (hard to tell, without going back and looking at the context).

But, what I mean, is that the evidence gives us certain information about the cause (causal sufficiency).  God as understood from the Christian tradition fit's this evidence, so it is evidence towards the argument that the Christian understanding of God is the cause.  However, this evidence doesn't exclusively single out the Christian view of God as the cause.  The description could also fit other suspects or could be one that is unknown.  Normally, for myself, I am even careful to say intelligent agent or something similar,  because that is what this reasoning calls for.  Something capable of choice and with the ability to enact the results.  With this topic, I don't think that it is unreasonable, to call the inferred cause a god, but I don't think it is as precise, concerning the argument.

As an analogy, I'm thinking of a TV show or movie.   The evidence shows, that a biological weapon was genetically engineered for a particular purpose.  Another person comes in, and states that there is less than a couple dozen people in the world, with the expertise and equipment to produce such a weapon.  Now various other reasons are given, which narrow the field down further, or even to a single suspect as the cause.  Even though the nature of the weapon, and evidence towards a sufficient cause do not point directly towards this suspect exclusively, it is still evidence along with the other reasons towards the conclusion.  It doesn't point to specifically to the individual, but points towards them, as part of a circumstantial case, and an overall conclusion.  It may also eliminate Bob down the street as a suspect, even though there could be other reasons to think it was him. 

I hope this clears things up, and alleviates any concern of being contradictory.

[Brian37]

In that case why are you lot so insistent in this thread that fine tuning proves yhwh?

Leaving aside the fact that you lot haven't come even remotely close to demonstrating that the universe is fine tuned; you can't have it both ways and claim two contradictory things about it rr.

I think you misunderstand; and perhaps the statement is a little unclear, as I look at it (hard to tell, without going back and looking at the context).

But, what I mean, is that the evidence gives us certain information about the cause (causal sufficiency).  God as understood from the Christian tradition fit's this evidence, so it is evidence towards the argument that the Christian understanding of God is the cause.  However, this evidence doesn't exclusively single out the Christian view of God as the cause.  The description could also fit other suspects or could be one that is unknown.  Normally, for myself, I am even careful to say intelligent agent or something similar,  because that is what this reasoning calls for.  Something capable of choice and with the ability to enact the results.  With this topic, I don't think that it is unreasonable, to call the inferred cause a god, but I don't think it is as precise, concerning the argument.

As an analogy, I'm thinking of a TV show or movie.   The evidence shows, that a biological weapon was genetically engineered for a particular purpose.  Another person comes in, and states that there is less than a couple dozen people in the world, with the expertise and equipment to produce such a weapon.  Now various other reasons are given, which narrow the field down further, or even to a single suspect as the cause.  Even though the nature of the weapon, and evidence towards a sufficient cause do not point directly towards this suspect exclusively, it is still evidence along with the other reasons towards the conclusion.  It doesn't point to specifically to the individual, but points towards them, as part of a circumstantial case, and an overall conclusion.  It may also eliminate Bob down the street as a suspect, even though there could be other reasons to think it was him. 

I hope this clears things up, and alleviates any concern of being contradictory.

I hope Allah clears things up and alleviates any concern of being contradictory.
I hope Yahweh clears things up and alleviates any concern of being contradictory.
I hope Yoda clears things up and alleviates any concern of being contradictory.

Nope, sorry, I find the concept of an invisible super hero with the absolute power to be perfect extremely and 100% contradictory.

Humans can choke on their food and die. But God is a perfect product maker.
Daddy wants all of us to love each other, but waits billions of years to make humans, and even then waits till only 10,000 years ago to say "Hey take notes for me guys". And says "get along by using those conflicting notes" And still today humans murder each other over those conflicting notes. 

Unless you are willing to scrap the claimed attributes of "all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, and all loving" I can only logically call your claimed character contradictory. And if that is fine with you, no thanks, I like my logic consistent. 

Nope my concerns with your bad use of logic still concern me.

[RoadRunner79]

---

I think you misunderstand; and perhaps the statement is a little unclear, as I look at it (hard to tell, without going back and looking at the context).

But, what I mean, is that the evidence gives us certain information about the cause (causal sufficiency).  God as understood from the Christian tradition fit's this evidence, so it is evidence towards the argument that the Christian understanding of God is the cause.  However, this evidence doesn't exclusively single out the Christian view of God as the cause.  The description could also fit other suspects or could be one that is unknown.  Normally, for myself, I am even careful to say intelligent agent or something similar,  because that is what this reasoning calls for.  Something capable of choice and with the ability to enact the results.  With this topic, I don't think that it is unreasonable, to call the inferred cause a god, but I don't think it is as precise, concerning the argument.

As an analogy, I'm thinking of a TV show or movie.   The evidence shows, that a biological weapon was genetically engineered for a particular purpose.  Another person comes in, and states that there is less than a couple dozen people in the world, with the expertise and equipment to produce such a weapon.  Now various other reasons are given, which narrow the field down further, or even to a single suspect as the cause.  Even though the nature of the weapon, and evidence towards a sufficient cause do not point directly towards this suspect exclusively, it is still evidence along with the other reasons towards the conclusion.  It doesn't point to specifically to the individual, but points towards them, as part of a circumstantial case, and an overall conclusion.  It may also eliminate Bob down the street as a suspect, even though there could be other reasons to think it was him. 

I hope this clears things up, and alleviates any concern of being contradictory.

I hope Allah clears things up and alleviates any concern of being contradictory.
I hope Yahweh clears things up and alleviates any concern of being contradictory.
I hope Yoda clears things up and alleviates any concern of being contradictory.

Nope, sorry, I find the concept of an invisible super hero with the absolute power to be perfect extremely and 100% contradictory.

Humans can choke on their food and die. But God is a perfect product maker.
Daddy wants all of us to love each other, but waits billions of years to make humans, and even then waits till only 10,000 years ago to say "Hey take notes for me guys". And says "get along by using those conflicting notes" And still today humans murder each other over those conflicting notes. 

Unless you are willing to scrap the claimed attributes of "all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, and all loving" I can only logically call your claimed character contradictory. And if that is fine with you, no thanks, I like my logic consistent. 

Nope my concerns with your bad use of logic still concern me.

---

Please try to follow along Brian, and post relevant to the current context of the discussion. 
Or if you have something to add, either create a new thread or if relevant introduce it to the current thread.  I might join in, if so inclined

What you said.... has nothing to do with what you quoted.   I'm not concerned with what you think is bad logic, when you don't even show basic understanding of what is being discussed.