I will prove to you that God exists

[Drew_2013]

When folks say we owe the existence of the universe to natural causes they can't mean the natural forces we're familiar with in space-time. Those natural forces are what came into existence.

I tell you this, black holes could very well be (other) baby universes if not whole universes by themselves with different natural forces in them and they were created by natural forces (as was subsequently our universe).

Good for you.

[Deesse23]

Lets start from this premise, I don't give a shit what anyone thinks, especially you. I offered the opinion (which I'm not backing down from) that many atheists come to despise religion, religious people and then as a result come to disbelieve in the existence of God. I offer my opinions on anything I feel like. Do you want people to challenge atheism on this discussion board or you just want an echo chamber for you to bellyache in?

Yee, wasnt so hard to be honest for a change. If we only hate religion and religious people, what business do you have here, arguing with intellectually dishonest atheists like us?

[Angrboda]

Virtual universes weren't timelessly caused.  As for the rest, it's not even germane as you're not responding to the central point in any meaningful sense.

I'll let our unbiased readers decide if I responded. Or if you made any salient point.

Sure. Why not. Kicking the can down the road means you never actually have to deal with it.

[arewethereyet]

[Nay_Sayer]

It's interesting how this slowly eased from 100% proof to likely a designer to designer with a plan. I wonder if it will come full circle back to 100% again.

[The Grand Nudger]

Spoiler alert, it's the christian god, not a designer with a plan.

[arewethereyet]

Whatever it is, it drew Drew out of a decade-long silence.

[Alan V]

I offered the opinion (which I'm not backing down from) that many atheists come to despise religion, religious people and then as a result come to disbelieve in the existence of God.

I've been talking with atheists on internet sites for over 18 years. I think your characterization of atheists is an exaggeration, since I have only come across a few such people. Most atheists have good reasons for not believing.

I would guess that, more commonly, people who later become atheists give theistic ideas the benefit of the doubt for long years because they personally like theists, who are family members, neighbors, and friends.

Even though I have had discussions with a lot of theists who give us atheists every reason to hate them, I still think most theists are normal people, at least when they aren't at church. They are mostly just going along with the crowd for social reasons.

[GrandizerII]

Occams razor isn't about simplicity, its about unnecessarily multiplying entities.

Occam's razor is tied to simplicity, though. It's basically the principle of parsimony, which is simplicity. And people have debates about what sort of "simplicity" is relevant here. The more important point, however, is that a multiverse may be necessary because of something tied to the principle of sufficient reason ... or the principle of plenitude or something else. As such, not a butchering of Occam's razor.

Also, people subscribe to a multiverse view for various rational reasons, and not because they need it to explain something like the assumed "fine-tuning" of this local universe. Even some theists have argued for a multiverse view in favour of God because of things like the principle of sufficient reason.

There are other reasons such as the double slit experiment which gives rise to the idea every decision leads to a new universe. There are reasons to think cosmic inflation occurred and some theorize that process goes on to create other universes. Or that our universe includes pocket universes in which there are different laws of physics. No matter how you slice it along with it comes the explanation for fine-tuning of the universe. Its is part and parcel with the theory of multiverse. They almost act like fine-tuning is evidence of other universes...its not. The fine-tuning of this universe didn't cause other universes to exist. The best evidence of other universes is the existence of this one and we observe things in multiples all the time such as other galaxies.

Neither the double slit experiment or cosmic inflation support the idea of a multiverse directly, so your first two sentences here are iffy. Pocket universes aren't reasons but features that are posited or concluded. That said, some scientists do argue for some multiverse or another by appealing to observations made in quantum physics and cosmology, but atheists are allowed to resort to pure reason to argue for what's more likely (just as much as theists like to do). You gave one fair argument for a multiverse in your last sentence here. It seems like if we have multiple planets, multiple solar systems, multiple galaxies, maybe we also have multiple local universes. If you then add other reasons to accept a multiverse, you might come up with something compelling.

As for "fine-tuning", this is just an assumption, not an observed fact. A multiverse theory need not accept such an assumption, and it certainly doesn't need to explain it.

AI says...
The multiverse theory, which posits the existence of many universes with varying physical laws and constants, is often proposed as a naturalistic explanation for the apparent "fine-tuning" of our universe, suggesting that life-supporting conditions are merely a result of us inhabiting a universe that happens to be conducive to life. However, some argue that the multiverse itself requires fine-tuning, thus potentially undermining its explanatory power. 

Not concerned with what some random people argue regarding what the multiverse requires. There are different positions on the multiverse (just like there are different positions on God), and certainly not all of them require fine-tuning. For example, under a "modal realism" kind of multiverse, there is no fine-tuning. All worlds, including this world, simply are.

There is no direct evidence of God either, so we're even.

That's right. So it goes back to what we do know a universe came into existence that was able to cause intelligent life to exist. Scientists know a host of improbable events, properties and circumstances obtained for a life happy planet like earth to exist.

Scientists also know a host of probable accounts that are preferred over improbable ones, and they adequately account for the many observations we have made on our planet and in this local universe. The theory of evolution being one such account. Another is relativity.

When folks say we owe the existence of the universe to natural causes they can't mean the natural forces we're familiar with in space-time. Those natural forces are what came into existence. I assume they just mean other forces that unintentionally came into existence and unintentionally caused a universe to exist and had no intention of causing intelligent life to exist.

Or the universe has always been. And intention is something only us limited beings require.

That's a very tall drink of water and that's why even non-religious people think our existence was intentionally caused. Including a lot of scientists.

Name one.

The multiverse is just as much about "chance" as God is. Is God "chance"? Nope? Then good luck arguing the multiverse (without God) is any different in this case.

Its not about chances which are incalculable, its about what explanation explains best. Most atheists I run into deny there is a need for multiverse.

Most atheists (that you have encountered) prefer to be minimalistic in their approach to the big ontological questions regarding existence and the universe and such. For them, a multiverse is not needed, but neither is God.

But then again, your response is to me, not them. And I'm a multiverse guy.

[Nay_Sayer]

Honestly, I should just share the PM "proof" since that's what this thread was supposed to be about.

(ETA: I should have added I won't)