God and theists.

[Cyberman]

Sautéed in an argument from personal incredulity.

[Zenith]

Hey, did you guys see AtlasS33 answer?

He started the topic, we all got here explaining and debating, yet I've seen no reply from him at all.

[SteveII]

And even if that were true, that it's 'God' doesn't follow.

---

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? 

That there is an explanation in no way entitles us to know what it is, though we seem to suffer more from a surfeit of possible natural explanations rather than a lack of them. If you claim that my acknowledging the simple fact that the explanation for the universe is unknown in any way supports your contention that the explanation is God, that is a classic argument from ignorance.

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.

There's no reason to suppose that the universe came from literal philosophical nothingness, but if it did, pray tell what property does philosophical nothingness possess that prevents a universe from coming from it?

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 universe is so hostile to life that out of the other side of their mouths, apologists claim it's a miracle that it exists on earth. You could equally argue that God designed the universe to be hostile to life because 99.99 (many more nines)% of its volume would kill most life as we know it in under five minutes. The anthropic principle is a fact: if the universe didn't allow for our existence, we wouldn't be here (except in a universe with an actual God who wanted us here, since it would have no requirement that the universe permit our existence to establish us) to wonder about it. Fine-tuning is an argument that the universe allowing us (or another form of life) to exist anywhere at all is so unlikely that it shouldn't exist at all. And as I said, it's based on a thought experiment. We don't know if the universal constants could have been different. We don't know how much they could have been different by if they could have been different. We don't know if they have relationships that relate their values such that if one has one value, another must have a specific related value. Our sample size is one. The thought experiment is based on a series of ifs and we can't conclude that we know what the odds of our universe holding life are, based on it.

We live in a universe that allows us to live, the only kind of universe that doesn't require a super-powerful being to explain our being able to live in it. Coincidence?

1. There are no natural explanations. That's the point, we are beyond that. I can, with logical arguments (which is the only option since we are on to metaphysics and not something that can be deduced from science), deduct what sort of properties an explanation of the physical world would have. The best you can say is the universe or the multiverse is a brute fact despite the logical problems that come with that. 

2. Why would you insert the word 'philosophical' in front of 'nothingness'? Are there different definitions of nothing? Nothing is quite easy--it is not anything. 

3. The anthropic principle in no way changes anything. We can all readily admit that we should not be surprised that we are not observing features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence. But it does not follow from that that we shouldn't be surprised to observe features of the universe compatible with our own existence. 

Fine tuning is a fact because it is true that the physical constants must be in a narrow range for a variety of things ranging from the universe holding together, not collapse on itself or burn out too quickly all the way to forming the necessary heavy elements needed for more complex things (like life). Even if I granted you that the universe had to have these values because of some prior condition, that simply pushes the fine tuning back one level: why is the thing that produces only finely tuned universes finely tuned to do so? 

All of these are thought experiments (which is just another way of describing attempts to answer metaphysical questions) and are the appropriate form in which to tackle these questions. Like I have been saying for quite some time, this in only one component in a list of reasons that become a cumulative case for God.

[The Grand Nudger]

If one condition needn't be finely tuned to exist as-is...then why should another, at a lower or deeper level (or however you choose to conceptualize this nonsense)?

If fine tuning is part of your case for god I suggest you shed a few cases for god, for the sake of the case for god.

[Succubus]

God cannot be described.

These characters speaking from the pulpit on Sunday mornings didn't get the memo then? They know all about god, they have a remarkably detailed history of god. Well, apart from a thousand plot holes in the story but that's of no concern to the rows of nodding donkeys in the pews. They tell us his wants, his needs and desires and the hoops we must jump through in order to fulfil his desires. Also the preacher will go to great lengths explaining the dire consequences of nonconformity. So, these guys appear to have a pretty good handle on things, with the possible exception of finances. Money, give us money.

[Harry Nevis]

Fine tuning is a fact because it is true that the physical constants must be in a narrow range for a variety of things ranging from the universe holding together, not collapse on itself or burn out too quickly all the way to forming the necessary heavy elements needed for more complex things (like life). Even if I granted you that the universe had to have these values because of some prior condition, that simply pushes the fine tuning back one level: why is the thing that produces only finely tuned universes finely tuned to do so?

No, it's not a fact.  But I'm sure you'll just keep repeating that it is.

[Cyberman]

Why would god make a universe that needed to be finetuned?

[WinterHold]

God cannot be described.

These characters speaking from the pulpit on Sunday mornings didn't get the memo then? They know all about god, they have a remarkably detailed history of god. Well, apart from a thousand plot holes in the story but that's of no concern to the rows of nodding donkeys in the pews. They tell us his wants, his needs and desires and the hoops we must jump through in order to fulfil his desires. Also the preacher will go to great lengths explaining the dire consequences of nonconformity. So, these guys appear to have a pretty good handle on things, with the possible exception of finances. Money, give us money.

If they know so much about him; being his "sons and love ones", then why does he tortures them for their sins?
They can speak about him for centuries, but the truth remains: they know very little.

A portrait of Jesus is needed to paint a sense of relating; a sense of "sacred knowledge". Also, urban legends about a Vatican library full of secret texts must be foretold; a Pope wearing white to appear like an angel. All of this -if you ask me- is to protect a lie: they know nothing about the creator.

Maybe a trait or two, but all this missionary work, all this Vatican library, all this singing, all this artistic painting of Jesus, all these religious wars, are to hide something: lack of knowledge.

Cyberman

Why would god make a universe that needed to be finetuned?

We are a part of the design.
If we didn't hold a fragment of creation; we'll never understand it. 

Still; the solar system is quite convenient to support life.

[Cyberman]

If they know so much about him; being his "sons and love ones", then why does he tortures them for their sins?

Holy non-sequitur, Batman!

We know quite a lot about things like radium and polonium. They'll still kill you.

[Cyberman]

Cyberman

Why would god make a universe that needed to be finetuned?

We are a part of the design.
If we didn't hold a fragment of creation; we'll never understand it. 

Still; the solar system is quite convenient to support life.

And a hole in the ground is quite convenient for the puddle that is part of its 'design'.

Pragmatic, but useless.

Oh, and do please learn to quote properly.