God and theists.

[Harry Nevis]

2. You didn't answer my question. There are reasons to believe that God did create the universe. Why is there anything rather than nothing? How did a universe (or a multiverse) come into being out of nothing? Why is our universe, against all probability, fine-tuned to support any kind of life? You say there is zero evidence for God, but you are equivocating. What you really mean is that there is no scientific evidence. The problem with this reasoning is that these are not questions that science can answer--these are metaphysical questions. 

No, there are no GOOD reasons to believe that.  There are emotionally satisfying reasons, There are no good reasons to believe that a god exists, let alone created anything.  Fine-tuning?  Please.  There is no metaphysical evidence either.  Because there is no evidence of anything metaphysical.

[SteveII]

2. You didn't answer my question. There are reasons to believe that God did create the universe. Why is there anything rather than nothing? How did a universe (or a multiverse) come into being out of nothing? Why is our universe, against all probability, fine-tuned to support any kind of life? You say there is zero evidence for God, but you are equivocating. What you really mean is that there is no scientific evidence. The problem with this reasoning is that these are not questions that science can answer--these are metaphysical questions. 

No, there are no GOOD reasons to believe that.  There are emotionally satisfying reasons, There are no good reasons to believe that a god exists, let alone created anything.  Fine-tuning?  Please.  There is no metaphysical evidence either.  Because there is no evidence of anything metaphysical.

Notice that you didn't answer ANY of the questions. You just simply asserted your simple-minded position--which you seem quite satisfied with. Honestly, this is way above your head. You should stick to what you know best (which is decidedly NOT being even a mediocre apologist for atheism).

[Mister Agenda]

Why WOULDN'T there be something instead of nothing?

No one knows for sure how the universe came into being, and it's profoundly stupid or mendacious to think that anyone could give any other answer honestly.

That the universe is fine-tuned to support human life is a claim based on a thought experiment. You don't know the probabilities and neither does anyone else. No one knows if the universal constants could have been any value at all, a narrowly prescribed range of values, or have to be the way they are by necessity. We don't know if this is the only universe or one out of trillions.

It's the nature of actual evidence that it stands up to scrutiny and leads to a particular conclusion. If the same evidence 'supports' mutually exclusive conclusions, it's not really evidence.

[SteveII]

Why WOULDN'T there be something instead of nothing? [1]

No one knows for sure how the universe came into being, and it's profoundly stupid or mendacious to think that anyone could give any other answer honestly. [2]

That the universe is fine-tuned to support human life is a claim based on a thought experiment. You don't know the probabilities and neither does anyone else. No one knows if the universal constants could have been any value at all, a narrowly prescribed range of values, or have to be the way they are by necessity. We don't know if this is the only universe or one out of trillions. [3]

It's the nature of actual evidence that it stands up to scrutiny and leads to a particular conclusion. If the same evidence 'supports' mutually exclusive conclusions, it's not really evidence. [4]

1. Because everything that exists has a explanation of it's existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause). So, what is the explanation that there is anything at all? 

2. I did not ask how the universe (or multiverse) came into being. I asked how it came into being out of 'nothing'. Two very different questions. The first being filled with technical explanations and the second simply asking for the metaphysical explanation how nothing produced an eventual universe.

3.  No, the universe is finely tuned to support life (a fact not in question). I have never seen anywhere a serious scientist say that it is the way it is by necessity (correct me if I am wrong) so the only available naturalistic explanation is to appeal to chance--with or without a multiverse. Because the probability is so low, most appeal to a multiverse. Ironically however, the multiverse itself must be finetuned (I posted this a while back)

The mechanism that generates universes must itself has laws that govern how universes are spawned. An inflationary-type multiverse must have the following mechanisms:
i. cause the expansion of a small region of space into a very large one.
ii. generate the very large amounts of mass-energy needed for that region to contain matter instead of merely empty space.
iii. convert the mass-energy of the inflated space to the sort of mass-energy we find in our universe
iv. cause sufficient variations among the constants of physics to explain their fine-tuning

Both (i) and (ii) are achieved by two factors: a) a postulated inflation field that gives empty space a positive energy density, and b) Einstein's equations from General Relativity. (iii) requires the old E=MC^2. So before we even get to creating matter/laws/constants, we have a very precise initial conditions necessary to to create a "random" universe. How is that not fine-tuned?

 (reference: Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology, p.263 ff)

Regardless, as part of a cumulative case for God, it piles on reasons for belief in God.

4. Do you have evidence that I have overlooked or misidentified? While science can, in some circumstances, certainly provide evidence of a fact that may intersect with the supernatural, most of what I am discussing are metaphysical questions and science is not helpful (and never will be). I think this point escapes many atheists--science will not be providing answers to these questions so to hide behind "we don't know yet" is just the same as "we don't know." I am not claiming this conclusively proves God, but it does make it reasonable to posit God and the best explanation.

[Foxaèr]

I am not claiming this conclusively proves God, but it does make it reasonable to posit God and the best explanation.

Incorrect. What we have at our disposal, which is zero evidence supporting the existence of any god, is the profoundly credible concept that god does not exist.

Mythologies, fictions born of creative minds, heck even Santa Clause and assorted other fairy tales, all teach us that is is most logical to assume something does not exist until veritable evidence of its existence can be provided.

It is not reasonable, after all, to run around spreading apologetic nonsense regarding something that has zero evidence to support its existence.

[SteveII]

I am not claiming this conclusively proves God, but it does make it reasonable to posit God and the best explanation.

Incorrect.  What we have at our disposal, which is zero evidence supporting the existence of any god, is the profoundly credible concept that god does not exist.

Mythologies, fictions born of creative minds, heck even Santa Clause and assorted other fairy tales, all teach us that is is most logical to assume something does not exist until veritable evidence of its existence can be provided.

It is not reasonable, after all, to run around spreading apologetic nonsense regarding something that has zero evidence to support its existence.

Evidence and reasons to believe in God:

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

[Foxaèr]

Incorrect.  What we have at our disposal, which is zero evidence supporting the existence of any god, is the profoundly credible concept that god does not exist.

Mythologies, fictions born of creative minds, heck even Santa Clause and assorted other fairy tales, all teach us that is is most logical to assume something does not exist until veritable evidence of its existence can be provided.

It is not reasonable, after all, to run around spreading apologetic nonsense regarding something that has zero evidence to support its existence.

Evidence and reasons to believe in God:

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

'Lo and behold, I'm still an atheist.

Get back to us when you have actual, verifiable evidence of god's existence.

[Harry Nevis]

No, there are no GOOD reasons to believe that.  There are emotionally satisfying reasons, There are no good reasons to believe that a god exists, let alone created anything.  Fine-tuning?  Please.  There is no metaphysical evidence either.  Because there is no evidence of anything metaphysical.

Notice that you didn't answer ANY of the questions. You just simply asserted your simple-minded position--which you seem quite satisfied with. Honestly, this is way above your head. You should stick to what you know best (which is decidedly NOT being even a mediocre apologist for atheism).

Because they're bullshit questions. And you know it, but just can't seem to understand how you're "god did it" answers don't convert the world. Fine tuning is all in your head.  Why is there something instead of nothing?  Your god is not an answer. 

No one has to be an "apologist" for atheism. I'm not trying to convert anyone, least of all you. It doesn't need defending to the thinking, rational, emotionally healthy segment of the population.  We just have to point out the desperate rationalizations and contradictions of your belief.

---

Incorrect.  What we have at our disposal, which is zero evidence supporting the existence of any god, is the profoundly credible concept that god does not exist.

Mythologies, fictions born of creative minds, heck even Santa Clause and assorted other fairy tales, all teach us that is is most logical to assume something does not exist until veritable evidence of its existence can be provided.

It is not reasonable, after all, to run around spreading apologetic nonsense regarding something that has zero evidence to support its existence.

Evidence and reasons to believe in God:

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

More bullshit answers to a simple question.  Substitute any deity and it makes as much sense.  You said in an earlier post how it bothers you when definitions are twisted to suit.  But you use the term "best" as if there is an accepted definition that fits your context.  There is no evidence of fine tuning or objective moral values, so there is no need for an "explanation" of them.

[SteveII]

Notice that you didn't answer ANY of the questions. You just simply asserted your simple-minded position--which you seem quite satisfied with. Honestly, this is way above your head. You should stick to what you know best (which is decidedly NOT being even a mediocre apologist for atheism).

Because they're bullshit questions. And you know it, but just can't seem to understand how you're "god did it" answers don't convert the world.  Fine tuning is all in your head.  Why is there something instead of nothing?  Your god is not an answer.  [1]

No one has to be an "apologist" for atheism. I'm not trying to convert anyone, least of all you. It doesn't need defending to the thinking, rational, emotionally healthy segment of the population.  We just have to point out the desperate rationalizations and contradictions of your belief. [2]

---

Evidence and reasons to believe in God:

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

More bullshit answers to a simple question.  Substitute any deity and it makes as much sense.  You said in an earlier post how it bothers you when definitions are twisted to suit.  But you use the term "best" as if there is an accepted definition that fits your context.  There is no evidence of fine tuning or objective moral values, so there is no need for an "explanation" of them. [3]

1. You are just proving my point.

2. More definitions for you...

a·pol·o·get·ics
noun
from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense"
reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.
example: "free market apologetics"

However, it would make sense why your posts are so simplistic--your intention is not to defend your view of the world. 

3. No, you cannot substitute any deity into my list. 

Mohammad is not compelling. 
No other religions has ANYWHERE near the equivalent of the NT. 
Haven't heard many followers of Zeus claiming changed lives lately
And the five natural theology arguments could apply to any monotheistic God--oh wait, don't they all believe its the same God? Kind of lets all the air out of your point. 

Fine tuning is a fact not in dispute (if you think so, you do not understand the issue at all). The argument is whether chance can account for it. 
It certainly seems like there are objective moral values. The only reason to say there is not is because of a presupposition of naturalism--which is question begging.

[Cyberman]

What is the explanation of "God"?