Responses to a few common arguments

[QuantumT]

If one, or two, or more stories in the bible are manifestedly not true, doesn't this call into question the literalism and authority of the bible? If you justify the untruth as "poetic license", what authority do other accounts - for example, of Jesus's miracles - have? If the reports of Jesus's miracles are not true, then what do you have to base your faith on?

Okay, this is not the way non-literal interpretations work. I'll make a new topic on it when I get a chance, as it's too much to go into here.

It doesn't matter what interpretation you use. Once you decide to claim that something is infallible, one single strike against it ruins the entire thing. You aren't allowed to pick and choose.

Absolutely not. Atheists do not need to prove anything, because they do not make the positive claims about the world that theists do.

Atheism must be able to show that it is possible to have a logically consistent view of the world without invoking either God, god(s) or any untestable claims. Any possitive claims made while doing so must have at least some support. Otherwise an athiest possition is no more logical than a theist one.

An atheist position doesn't make any positive claims. It would be more accurately defined as 'lack of belief', not belief that there is no god. This difference is key.

For starters, if you look at things objectively, you have literally no evidence which solely supports the idea of the existence of God - none whatsoever

Frequently cited, and invariably followed by something to the effect of "well, that doesn't count because . . ."

You say that like it's not allowed to disprove something. Maybe this example will clear things up.

Person A: Well leprechauns exist because I feel they do.
Person B: Well, that doesn't count because your feelings have no relevance to the question of whether or not leprechauns exist.

Fine-tuned universe
Odds of 0% are not the same as odds of one in a million, or one in a billion or even one in 6.02*10^26.

Odds of 0% means it will never happen. Yes, I used a shorthand notation in "dividing by infinity" but the point remains that it is impossible to have a viable life-bearing universe by random chance. Therefore, unless you're assuming infinite universes (whereupon it becomes the limit of n/n as n -> (infinity) = 1) the anthropic principle cannot explain a balanced universe.

The universe exists, so it is clearly possible, but it is also clear that it is not possible by the mechanism you propose.

I respond with this:

[Even though] life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.
-Victor Stenger

Basically, saying the god did it would just be trying to cover up something we don't yet understand.

I know I often come across rather harsh on atheism in general, but I honestly think that it is perfectly possible to have an entirely logically defensible atheistic position. I simply do not think that hiding behind Russel's teapot is one of those positions.

Russell's teapot is perfectly valid and I'm fairly certain you believe it as much as I do.

If I were to claim that leprechauns exist but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that they don't exist.
If I were to claim that unicorns exist but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that they don't exist.
If I were to claim that the loch ness monster exists but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that it doesn't exist.

I could continue but I think you get the point. The reason you don't believe in them is that non belief is the default position, and that's what Russell's Teapot tries to demonstrate.

I tend to use the term "atheist" to refer to specific branches of thought within atheism which I am currently arguing against. I often use the term "atheist" because to my knowledge there are no more specific terms for the differing branches of thought within atheism.

There are a variety of different modes of thought within atheism, such as nihilism and Humanism, but generally any atheist groups you might find are less rigidly defined than religious branches.

[ratcharmer]

Clearly there is no infinite range of possible values, since universe would disperse is gravity was too weak and collapse if it was too strong.
 And is there any quarantee that universe will not collapse or disperse as it is?

[Even though] life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.
-Victor Stenger

There are many possible explanations as to why our universe ended up the way it did, the problem is that  none of them, including the ones you mention, are testable, or falsifiable.

Then why is it okay to disqualify God due to being unfalsifiable but not the others?

The point here isn't that this once and for all proves the hand of God at work in our world, merely that the "untestable hypothesis" often cited in theological arguments becomes unavoidable, even for atheists.

*edit*
The universe we live in will disperse- eventually. If the force of gravity were outside of that slim range the universe would disperse/collapse many, many orders of magnitude faster than it is. As gravity went to either infinity or negative infinity the time it took the universe to die would go to zero.

As to the alternate forms of life, in a collapsed and/or dispersed universe there would be no complex interactions between matter of any form. In the case of a collapsed universe all the matter in existence would occupy the same point, and in a dispersed universe only stray particles would exist, which would then continue to spread out to infinity until the density of the universe became zero. In neither case are the complicated systems necessary to form life possible.

Absolutely not. Atheists do not need to prove anything, because they do not make the positive claims about the world that theists do.

Atheism must be able to show that it is possible to have a logically consistent view of the world without invoking either God, god(s) or any untestable claims. Any positive claims made while doing so must have at least some support. Otherwise an atheist position is no more logical than a theist one.

An atheist position doesn't make any positive claims. It would be more accurately defined as 'lack of belief', not belief that there is no god. This difference is key.

You haven't addressed my concern though. In order for this position not to be inherently hypocritical an atheist must be able to explain the universe, and prove his explanations true. If at any point you come to a phenomena you can't explain from an atheistic viewpoint or that you can't test your explanation for, then your position is logically no stronger.

For starters, if you look at things objectively, you have literally no evidence which solely supports the idea of the existence of God - none whatsoever

Frequently cited, and invariably followed by something to the effect of "well, that doesn't count because . . ."

You say that like it's not allowed to disprove something. Maybe this example will clear things up.

Person A: Well leprechauns exist because I feel they do.
Person B: Well, that doesn't count because your feelings have no relevance to the question of whether or not leprechauns exist.

The problem isn't with trying to refute an argument. The problem is you've already decided that the argument is invalid before you've even seen what it is. The declaration is made that the evidence is invalid before the atheist even looks at it. Imagine going to a trial, and the jury said they wanted to vote the defendant innocent before any evidence had been presented.
It's logically unsupportable.

If I can use an example from your own post, QuantumT, you have replied basically saying my explanation of Biblical interpretations is invalid before I've posted it. If there is a way to be more close-minded in a debate than this I'm unaware of what it is.
(p.s. not all Christians believe the Bible is infaliable)

I know I often come across rather harsh on atheism in general, but I honestly think that it is perfectly possible to have an entirely logically defensible atheistic position. I simply do not think that hiding behind Russel's teapot is one of those positions.

Russell's teapot is perfectly valid and I'm fairly certain you believe it as much as I do.

If I were to claim that leprechauns exist but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that they don't exist.
If I were to claim that unicorns exist but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that they don't exist.
If I were to claim that the loch ness monster exists but I failed to produce any evidence, you would continue to believe that it doesn't exist.

Does a claim require some evidence? yes. Is any claim that hasn't been exhaustively and irrefuably proven true automatically false? No.
This is the problem.
Russel's teapot shows us that there needs to be some reason to expect something could be true, yet many forms of modern atheism are taking this to mean anyone who would believe in any sort of religion must first irrefutably prove their beliefs true. This is a ludicrous way to live your life.

Consider:
Person A :"I love you."
Person B: "You're lying- you cannot prove that you love me. In fact, there is no proof that love exists at all. Therefore there is no such thing as love. You must be trying to brainwash me with this myth of 'love'."
Person A: " . . . what?"

Basically what I'm getting at is that something can be likely true without being proven true. 

I'm kind of interested what is it that you would consider to be logical atheistic position?

Essentially, there are no clear cut boundaries as to what constitutes "enough" evidence for one belief versus another, and given that someone could easily come to a very different conclusion than I have, even after reviewing the same evidence. After all, how do you decide which one should carry more weight in how you live: a personal experience or a logical argument? There are some of both that weigh in on either side, so how do you decide where the scales tip?

Especially if someone has had different life experiences than I have, they could easily come the conclusion that an atheist or agnostic position is the most sound one, since no hard and fast rules exist on how to make such decisions.

Just out curiosity, how do some of the Teapot Atheists (I hope that's not offensive, I'm just trying to find a term to distinguish Russell's teapot from all atheism) out there react to this:
Nothing exists
Simply put, let's take the ultimate "no positive claims" stance: nothing exists whatsoever. Not you, not me, not the thoughts in your head.

Not only does this make no positive claims, it's also completely unfalsifiable: in order to prove anything exists, we must first presume that something else exists.

If there's another term people would prefer I used than "Teapot atheist" let me know. Others are of course free to react as well, I'm just particularly curious about that specific group's reaction.

[QuantumT]

There are many possible explanations as to why our universe ended up the way it did, the problem is that  none of them, including the ones you mention, are testable, or falsifiable.

Then why is it okay to disqualify God due to being unfalsifiable but not the others?

The point here isn't that this once and for all proves the hand of God at work in our world, merely that the "untestable hypothesis" often cited in theological arguments becomes unavoidable, even for atheists.

*edit*
The universe we live in will disperse- eventually. If the force of gravity were outside of that slim range the universe would disperse/collapse many, many orders of magnitude faster than it is. As gravity went to either infinity or negative infinity the time it took the universe to die would go to zero.

As to the alternate forms of life, in a collapsed and/or dispersed universe there would be no complex interactions between matter of any form. In the case of a collapsed universe all the matter in existence would occupy the same point, and in a dispersed universe only stray particles would exist, which would then continue to spread out to infinity until the density of the universe became zero. In neither case are the complicated systems necessary to form life possible.

Most of this, however, is just conjecture based on our somewhat limited view of the universe. Maybe when we understand the universe better we'll know why the constants took on these values. Stenger's idea is unfalsifiable, but it is only offered as an alternate perspective to the also unfalsifiable idea of divine influence.

An atheist position doesn't make any positive claims. It would be more accurately defined as 'lack of belief', not belief that there is no god. This difference is key.

You haven't addressed my concern though. In order for this position not to be inherently hypocritical an atheist must be able to explain the universe, and prove his explanations true. If at any point you come to a phenomena you can't explain from an atheistic viewpoint or that you can't test your explanation for, then your position is logically no stronger.

Except that as an atheist, "I don't know" is an acceptable response to a phenomena I can't explain. In fact, it's the default one.

This is in contrast to the typical theist response to an unexplainable phenomena, which is frequently "god did it."

For starters, if you look at things objectively, you have literally no evidence which solely supports the idea of the existence of God - none whatsoever

Frequently cited, and invariably followed by something to the effect of "well, that doesn't count because . . ."

You say that like it's not allowed to disprove something. Maybe this example will clear things up.

Person A: Well leprechauns exist because I feel they do.
Person B: Well, that doesn't count because your feelings have no relevance to the question of whether or not leprechauns exist.

The problem isn't with trying to refute an argument. The problem is you've already decided that the argument is invalid before you've even seen what it is. The declaration is made that the evidence is invalid before the atheist even looks at it. Imagine going to a trial, and the jury said they wanted to vote the defendant innocent before any evidence had been presented.
It's logically unsupportable.

At what point in there was the argument ignored? An argument was put forth, and it was succinctly refuted.

And lets be honest here, do you always fully examine the arguments of anyone who comes up to you for all possible truth, or do you dismiss some of them? If you do always fully examine them, then I claim that I'm invisible, but only when nobody is looking.

The reason why you might not fully examine every claim is rather hilariously shown below:

If I can use an example from your own post, QuantumT, you have replied basically saying my explanation of Biblical interpretations is invalid before I've posted it. If there is a way to be more close-minded in a debate than this I'm unaware of what it is.
(p.s. not all Christians believe the Bible is infaliable)

Saying that the Bible isn't infallible is fine, it's just that it loses any special place in the world. Once you let go of it's infallibility, it's just a book. Maybe it's a really good book, but still just a book.

However, I do apologize for cutting you off at the pass, so if you'd like to offer up your interpretation, go ahead.

*snip*
Does a claim require some evidence? yes. Is any claim that hasn't been exhaustively and irrefuably proven true automatically false? No.
This is the problem.
Russel's teapot shows us that there needs to be some reason to expect something could be true, yet many forms of modern atheism are taking this to mean anyone who would believe in any sort of religion must first irrefutably prove their beliefs true. This is a ludicrous way to live your life.

Consider:
Person A :"I love you."
Person B: "You're lying- you cannot prove that you love me. In fact, there is no proof that love exists at all. Therefore there is no such thing as love. You must be trying to brainwash me with this myth of 'love'."
Person A: " . . . what?"

Basically what I'm getting at is that something can be likely true without being proven true. 

Sure things don't necessarily have to be proven true (actually it's impossible to prove anything about our universe is "true"), but they do need 2 things.

1) They MUST be falsifiable. Anything that is unfalsifiable (as most religion is), is inherently unscientific.

2) There must be some evidence to suppose them to be true (Russell's Teapot). Furthermore, the amount of evidence that is required to make this supposition is proportional to the size of the claim. As Daxx eloquently stated earlier:

Ah, you misunderstand. It doesn't mean it must be false, only that the standard of proof needed to establish it is true is proportional to the claims it makes about the world. For example, if your friend told you he had bought a new shirt, you probably wouldn't need to see the shirt in order to accept his claim as being probably true. If, however, he had claimed to have bought a space station, you might be more skeptical.

Essentially, there are no clear cut boundaries as to what constitutes "enough" evidence for one belief versus another, and given that someone could easily come to a very different conclusion than I have, even after reviewing the same evidence. After all, how do you decide which one should carry more weight in how you live: a personal experience or a logical argument? There are some of both that weigh in on either side, so how do you decide where the scales tip?

Especially if someone has had different life experiences than I have, they could easily come the conclusion that an atheist or agnostic position is the most sound one, since no hard and fast rules exist on how to make such decisions.

When it comes to personal experience vs. logical argument, I would tip the scales very heavily towards logic. After all, people's senses fail them all of the time.

Just out curiosity, how do some of the Teapot Atheists (I hope that's not offensive, I'm just trying to find a term to distinguish Russell's teapot from all atheism) out there react to this:
Nothing exists
Simply put, let's take the ultimate "no positive claims" stance: nothing exists whatsoever. Not you, not me, not the thoughts in your head.

Not only does this make no positive claims, it's also completely unfalsifiable: in order to prove anything exists, we must first presume that something else exists.

Remember: unfalsifiable=bad
And:

Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am)
-Descartes

If there's another term people would prefer I used than "Teapot atheist" let me know. Others are of course free to react as well, I'm just particularly curious about that specific group's reaction.

Generally, the term is rationalist.

[theloconate]

I have a question for original poster. Did you look up refutations/responses to your claim? Or did you but you didn't find any of them convincing

[ratcharmer]

@theloconate:
I'm not entirely sure which “claim” you're referring to. Do you mean counters to my arguments in general?

I do make it a point to try and read up on atheistic authors and their arguments (indeed, I was doing so before I became Christian) and have not found any that I find convincing.
However, I think you may be confused on one point—for the most part I am not citing these arguments out of a book or another source. These are my own responses after reading through a given argument and considering it. Therefore, for many of these, there is no published attempt at a rebuttal for me to look up.

Invisible pink unicorn
Let me try to break down what I'm trying to get at with the teapot, as I don't think it's really gotten across yet

This is the scientific method in it's most basic form:
A Make an observation
B Hypothesize about why you observed that
C Test your hypothesis experimentally

Russell's teapot established the need for A in order for an idea to be given consideration. As a result, you are insisting that I must provide C.

1) They MUST be falsifiable. Anything that is unfalsifiable (as most religion is), is inherently unscientific.

Inherently unscientific and inherently untrue are NOT equivalent. Neither are inherently unscientific and inherently not worth consideration.

Why do you keep treating them as such?

All something being unscientific means, at least in this context, is that you can't investigate it via the scientific method and so you need to try a different approach.

At what point in there was the argument ignored? An argument was put forth, and it was succinctly refuted.

The problem lies not in the refutation (or attempt at one), but in the fact that the atheist has already decided the the argument to be presented is invalid before having even looked at it.

Consider two jurors being interviewed before being selected for a trial:
The first juror says that she will consider the evidence carefully, that she takes jury duty seriously, and will do her best to decide fairly. She is found acceptable to both the defense and the prosecution.

The second juror, however, starts off his interview with the following speech:
“Oh boy! I've always wanted to send someone to jail! Can I be the one to say 'GUILTY' at the end? I've got this really menacing tone to say it in. Oooohh! Do you think we could get him the death penalty?! Is that legal in this state?”

Clearly the second juror is unacceptable to the defense, because he's already decided on the verdict before he's seen any evidence. If he's in the jury then there's very little hope of a fair trial.

And lets be honest here, do you always fully examine the arguments of anyone who comes up to you for all possible truth, or do you dismiss some of them? If you do always fully examine them, then I claim that I'm invisible, but only when nobody is looking. 

Invisibility can be safely dismissed for several reasons:
First, simply on the grounds that it's completely irrelevant—whether you're visible when unobserved or not has absolutely  no bearing on how I'd live my life. It makes no difference in how I would act whether you still reflect light or not when I'm not looking at you or not, so it isn't worth my time considering it.

Second, from the context it's abundantly clear that even you don't believe the statement.

Third, I'm not going out of my way to try to argue against the possibility of your invisibility powers. If I was, then I would at least owe you the courtesy of listening to your case before discarding it. There's no way a person can be an expert on every given subject, so we have to choose our battles and simply accept that some things aren't worth debating over.

I could go into more, but the point is that, yes there are valid reasons for not considering something before discarding it, but those reasons don't apply to religion. This also heavily relates back to something I said earlier:
Allow me to demonstrate:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawk911.htm
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=0C9F4CBB-2B35-221B-628A70E93A04E86C

In the first article (and many others) Dawkins maintains his claim that the absolute entirety of the burden of proof must rest on the religious person, yet in the second one he maintains that he shouldn't have to listen to arguments in favor of religion in order to know that it's false.
What's that? Place the burden of proof on the other party and then not listen to what they have to say? Why I could prove anything using that method. Including the sky being green and the grass being blue.

If I may, I'd like to go into more detail on the concept of “claims of supernatural powers”:
Atheists frequently cite things like this, in part because they want to discredit theism by lumping it in with various “out there” beliefs, and in part because they earnestly think this is true.

The problem is that the uneven distribution doesn't stem from certain claims as being easily grouped  as unreliable, but an oddity in the way “supernatural” is classified.

Supernatural is often assumed to mean things that are untestable, unsupported by science or clearly contradictory with known science. Thus, as soon as scientific testing confirms something it immediately becomes no longer “supernatural” but instead science.

Let's have an example:
Around the Renaissance in Europe several disciplines emerged that are now referred to as “pseudo-science”. Among these were two I would like to focus on: alchemy and astrology.

Astrology is (as I'm certain you know) an attempt to predict events based on star positions etc. and alchemy was attempting to turn one substance into another. Both were considered “supernatural” and were given aspects of mysticism.

Then as time went on along comes Mendeleev and a host of other brilliant minds, and suddenly they're able to quantify and predict what changes will take place as different chemicals mix. Alchemy becomes known as chemistry. Suddenly chemistry is proof of what a logical mind can do, whereas astrology is proof that those quacks will believe anything. Nevermind that it was the same quacks who first started investigating both fields.

Not saying you should check your horoscope, as there are several underlying logic faults involved there that I'm certain you don't need pointed out, but in evaluating “supernatural” claims you have, essentially, taken only the failures into account and not the successes.

A more recent case of a “supernatural” thing that science has upheld is acupuncture. After a clinical trial it was found that acupuncture was extremely beneficial, especially in the case of muscle injuries. This is a particularly interesting case right now because (to my knowledge anyway) science has established that acupuncture does work, but it can't fully explain how it works.

Hume's Maxim
The problem with Hume's Maxim is that how you're defining a “big” claim versus a “small” one is largely arbitrary. You're starting from an atheistic worldview, so to you anything inconsistent with that worldview looks like a much bigger claim than anything that is consistent with that worldview.

It's basically a very academic way of stating that you have a confirmation bias.

nothing exists
Unfalsifiable = Bad is sort of the point.

What I'm trying to show here is that the reasoning as to why a theist must be the one carrying the whole burden of proof is inconsistent with itself.

As to Descartes, he started from the assumption that his thoughts exist.

And of course he did—after all what can you be more sure exists than your own thoughts? Yet it is equally impossible to prove that those thoughts exist. This is actually very similar to the way many people experience God.

[theloconate]

@theloconate:
I'm not entirely sure which “claim” you're referring to. Do you mean counters to my arguments in general?

I do make it a point to try and read up on atheistic authors and their arguments (indeed, I was doing so before I became Christian) and have not found any that I find convincing.
However, I think you may be confused on one point—for the most part I am not citing these arguments out of a book or another source. These are my own responses after reading through a given argument and considering it. Therefore, for many of these, there is no published attempt at a rebuttal for me to look up.

You're right I probably should have used a different term. Yes I did mean that

Yes but you have presented arguments for god in this thread that are well known arguments that have been refuted and i'm asking you whether or not you've researched any responses to them. For example: fine tuned universe is one you provided on this thread and can be dismissed in one sentence. Life can develop in different ways too their environment (assuming that the universe would allow for genetics or something similar). Just to explain a bit more as long as a universe has or can allow for a replicating system that can sometimes change then that universe can have life on it, and that life would be able to evolve to a state in which the universe seems fine tuned to it. And in a counter question: since you think that because it's so unlikely that life would arise naturally then why would there be so much empty space in space if a god did it? And why would he allow stars to die killing whatever life existed on the planets around it? Also how can you say that there is an infinite possible range of values for gravity (since that was the only variable you chose) when we only have a variable of one (which is a different one lined refutation of the fine tuning argument). My question was simply whether you had looked up refutations to your argument like the ones seen above

[ratcharmer]

For example: fine tuned universe is one you provided on this thread and can be dismissed in one sentence. Life can develop in different ways too their environment (assuming that the universe would allow for genetics or something similar).

An explanation being short is not the same as an explanation being accurate.

The entire point of the fine-tuned universe argument is that it would not allow for any complex interactions, including genetics or anything similar.

Let's look at an example where the force of gravity was stronger than it is currently:
What would happen is the entirety of the universe would collapse in on itself, forming a singularity. That means that all the matter in the universe would occupy a single point.
You can't have complex chemical interactions necessary to form anything resembling a genetic code under those circumstances. Heck, you can't have any chemical reactions at all.

And in a counter question: since you think that because it's so unlikely that life would arise naturally then why would there be so much empty space in space if a god did it? And why would he allow stars to die killing whatever life existed on the planets around it?

Firstly, it isn't unlikely that a randomly generated universe could support life. It's impossible.

Why would God be averse to empty space? It's not as if an omnipotent being needs to be concerned with efficiency of space usage.
As to stars dying, so far we only have a sample size of one planet with life on it, and we haven't been wiped out yet. On a more serious note though, dying is as natural a part of the universe as being born. One of the major teachings of most religions is that death is not the end, but merely a transition from one state to another. Therefore an omnipotent deity would not particularly dread death either.

Also how can you say that there is an infinite possible range of values for gravity (since that was the only variable you chose) when we only have a variable of one (which is a different one lined refutation of the fine tuning argument).

If you assume a limited range of possible values then you need an explanation as to why only certain values are possible.

Simply put, even if we had a theory of everything which could accurately predict every single event in the universe, explaining everything in our lives with equations, you still can't explain where those equations came from.

I used gravity as an example, merely because it's easy to explain (you try writing a discussion of the strong nuclear force the average person can follow) and because gravity by itself is enough. If I can demonstrate that the value of one universal constant shows the universe couldn't have been put together randomly, then there's no point in repeating myself for the other constants.

The concept can, in fact, go far beyond even just the values of various constants. Why should F=ma? Or why are matter and energy conserved?

Basically any universe created by random values being selected for constants, and equations being built randomly would invariably end up being completely uniform. You would not end up with complex interactions and variability of substance that could give birth to something that could be described as "life". The chances of anything else are infinitely small (i.e. zero).

The only way around it is to either assume a) the universe isn't random, something guided it or b) there are infinite universes, and we're only aware of this one because it's the only one we can exist in.

Neither of these two are scientifically testable. So why are you assuming the one that also fits with other observations must be false?

[QuantumT]

For example: fine tuned universe is one you provided on this thread and can be dismissed in one sentence. Life can develop in different ways too their environment (assuming that the universe would allow for genetics or something similar).

An explanation being short is not the same as an explanation being accurate.

The entire point of the fine-tuned universe argument is that it would not allow for any complex interactions, including genetics or anything similar.

Let's look at an example where the force of gravity was stronger than it is currently:
What would happen is the entirety of the universe would collapse in on itself, forming a singularity. That means that all the matter in the universe would occupy a single point.
You can't have complex chemical interactions necessary to form anything resembling a genetic code under those circumstances. Heck, you can't have any chemical reactions at all.

You're supposing this based on our current, limited understanding of the universe.

For one thing, we don't have a good way of combining quantum mechanics with general relativity. It's possible that there are complex interactions that take place within the confines of the uncertainty principle.

And in a counter question: since you think that because it's so unlikely that life would arise naturally then why would there be so much empty space in space if a god did it? And why would he allow stars to die killing whatever life existed on the planets around it?

Firstly, it isn't unlikely that a randomly generated universe could support life. It's impossible.

A positive claim not supported by evidence.

Why would God be averse to empty space? It's not as if an omnipotent being needs to be concerned with efficiency of space usage.

On that note, why would an omnipotent god give a crap about a bunch of carbon based life forms?

As to stars dying, so far we only have a sample size of one planet with life on it, and we haven't been wiped out yet. On a more serious note though, dying is as natural a part of the universe as being born. One of the major teachings of most religions is that death is not the end, but merely a transition from one state to another. Therefore an omnipotent deity would not particularly dread death either.

Death is a transition of states. You transition from the state of being alive to the state of being dead.

Also how can you say that there is an infinite possible range of values for gravity (since that was the only variable you chose) when we only have a variable of one (which is a different one lined refutation of the fine tuning argument).

If you assume a limited range of possible values then you need an explanation as to why only certain values are possible.

Perhaps we'll figure out an explanation as science advances.

Simply put, even if we had a theory of everything which could accurately predict every single event in the universe, explaining everything in our lives with equations, you still can't explain where those equations came from.

I used gravity as an example, merely because it's easy to explain (you try writing a discussion of the strong nuclear force the average person can follow) and because gravity by itself is enough. If I can demonstrate that the value of one universal constant shows the universe couldn't have been put together randomly, then there's no point in repeating myself for the other constants.

The concept can, in fact, go far beyond even just the values of various constants. Why should F=ma? Or why are matter and energy conserved?

Why do they have to come from somewhere?

Basically any universe created by random values being selected for constants, and equations being built randomly would invariably end up being completely uniform. You would not end up with complex interactions and variability of substance that could give birth to something that could be described as "life". The chances of anything else are infinitely small (i.e. zero).

The only way around it is to either assume a) the universe isn't random, something guided it or b) there are infinite universes, and we're only aware of this one because it's the only one we can exist in.

Neither of these two are scientifically testable. So why are you assuming the one that also fits with other observations must be false?

It doesn't fit any better with other observations.

Let me mention my biggest problem with the idea of god. I'm not really bothered too much by the idea of god. If you want to be want to be a deist, go ahead. What really bothers me is people's reaction to the idea of god. For one, they'll use it to justify just about whatever they want. My big problem with the idea of god though is that it promotes ignorance. The standard reaction to things that aren't understood becomes

I don't understand that. God must have done it.

instead of being

I don't understand that. Hmm... I wonder if I can figure it out.

Before you claim that this isn't true, think about how many times the idea of god/gods have been used this way. Lightning, tides, even the sun moving across the sky used to be described as the actions of the gods. Heck, you even do it all over the place in your post. If some people didn't break away from this kind of thinking, we'd still be in the dark ages.

[theloconate]

For example: fine tuned universe is one you provided on this thread and can be dismissed in one sentence. Life can develop in different ways too their environment (assuming that the universe would allow for genetics or something similar).

An explanation being short is not the same as an explanation being accurate.

The entire point of the fine-tuned universe argument is that it would not allow for any complex interactions, including genetics or anything similar.

Let's look at an example where the force of gravity was stronger than it is currently:
What would happen is the entirety of the universe would collapse in on itself, forming a singularity. That means that all the matter in the universe would occupy a single point.
You can't have complex chemical interactions necessary to form anything resembling a genetic code under those circumstances. Heck, you can't have any chemical reactions at all.

This is gonna be a fun discussion. First of all you don't state how much stronger, not to mention the fact that you're only assuming the same laws would exist. This is purely hypothetical bullcrap. How do you know that gravity would even exist in other universes? How do you know that it would allow for black holes? Or that in this alternate universe there are mechanisms that prevent it from allowing all the matter (if matter even existed in this hypothetical universe) to remain in the same place? In hypothetical scenarios you can't make any assertions about would could and couldn't be, and that's exactly what you're doing

And in a counter question: since you think that because it's so unlikely that life would arise naturally then why would there be so much empty space in space if a god did it? And why would he allow stars to die killing whatever life existed on the planets around it?

Firstly, it isn't unlikely that a randomly generated universe could support life. It's impossible.

Why would God be averse to empty space? It's not as if an omnipotent being needs to be concerned with efficiency of space usage.
As to stars dying, so far we only have a sample size of one planet with life on it, and we haven't been wiped out yet. On a more serious note though, dying is as natural a part of the universe as being born. One of the major teachings of most religions is that death is not the end, but merely a transition from one state to another. Therefore an omnipotent deity would not particularly dread death either.

Please demonstrate that it is impossible for a randomly generated universe to be able to support life. It is impossible to do so because you can't gather any data on hypothetical universes

Also how can you say that there is an infinite possible range of values for gravity (since that was the only variable you chose) when we only have a variable of one (which is a different one lined refutation of the fine tuning argument).

If you assume a limited range of possible values then you need an explanation as to why only certain values are possible.

Funny thing actually, you haven't provided an explanation as to why the same laws that exist in our universe would also exist in another universe, yet you need an explanation for this. And by the way, I never said that there is a limited range of values but that it's impossible to know

Simply put, even if we had a theory of everything which could accurately predict every single event in the universe, explaining everything in our lives with equations, you still can't explain where those equations came from.

Yes I can, the equations came from humans who were trying to find something that accurately reflects our universe. If you're trying to throw in a quick kalam cosmological argument then just say so.

I used gravity as an example, merely because it's easy to explain (you try writing a discussion of the strong nuclear force the average person can follow) and because gravity by itself is enough. If I can demonstrate that the value of one universal constant shows the universe couldn't have been put together randomly, then there's no point in repeating myself for the other constants.

The concept can, in fact, go far beyond even just the values of various constants. Why should F=ma? Or why are matter and energy conserved?

First of all, that is impossible to demonstrate without any data. Second of all, how do you know that constant is likely to exist in other universes. And finally, the reason why F=ma and E=MC squared is because that's how the laws just are. This is exactly like asking why is it that my computer is an exact shade of black.

Basically any universe created by random values being selected for constants, and equations being built randomly would invariably end up being completely uniform. You would not end up with complex interactions and variability of substance that could give birth to something that could be described as "life". The chances of anything else are infinitely small (i.e. zero).

The only way around it is to either assume a) the universe isn't random, something guided it or b) there are infinite universes, and we're only aware of this one because it's the only one we can exist in.

Neither of these two are scientifically testable. So why are you assuming the one that also fits with other observations must be false?

Wait, what? completely uniform? Where did that come from? Can you prove it?

And finally, for the last time. You can't possibly know that.

No, neither of those options are appealing. How about this one. We simply don't know whether it was guided random or anything like that. Also I'd like to point out the fact that since things evolve to their environment (you accept evolution, right?) of course the universe will seem fine tuned for them

[iampostal]

well lemme add to what youve said with something not brought up.every claim religion has made and prediction they made has been wrong and all evidence ALL 100% of the last 2000 years favors the fact that there is no biblical god.for example the sun travels around the earth.the earth is flat. disease is caused by sin.surgery is sin.aids is gay punishment (yet lesbians are the lowest risk group).god is prolife (though has no problem killing babies to satisfy his blood lust).the earth is 6000 years old.and when their backs are against the wall their reasoning is nothing short of hilarious (dinosaur bones is gods way of testing our faith is my favorite). religion is now so irrelevent and silly that the ONLY claim they have  left is apromise they cannot even prove real ,and that is life after death.thats the only lure they got left and they cant even be sure about it.church numbers are dwindling checka ny countries census over the last twenty years and the smarter we get a s a species the more distant god will be.though im sure that in 2000 years from now there will still be some people waiting for christ to appear from the clouds ina superman uniform to save us all.....

[BluePriest]

Jumping back in the discussion after just skimming it and being mia for a couple months...

First off. Id like to bring this saying to the table.

The Lack of Evidence, is not Evidence to the Contrary (I DARE someone to challenge me on that)

Secondly. Atheists fall into a fun little circle. Saying "Science hasnt discovered it yet" or "We just dont have the knowledge at this time" or anything of the like is no different than saying "God did it". Saying we don't have the knowledge for it assumes something is scientifically possible where as saying God did it says that God did it. Both are assuming something and neither has any facts whatsoever to back it up.

Quotes by Theloconate

This is gonna be a fun discussion. First of all you don't state how much stronger, not to mention the fact that you're only assuming the same laws would exist. This is purely hypothetical bullcrap. How do you know that gravity would even exist in other universes? How do you know that it would allow for black holes? Or that in this alternate universe there are mechanisms that prevent it from allowing all the matter (if matter even existed in this hypothetical universe) to remain in the same place? In hypothetical scenarios you can't make any assertions about would could and couldn't be, and that's exactly what you're doing

Yes, and how do YOU know that God doesnt exist? Give me your logic for the laws of physics to be different in another universe just because its another universe. You are speaking blindly in circles trying to humiliate when in reality the only one you are humiliating is yourself. That has to be the most desperate attempt at a cop out I have seen in a long time.

First of all, that is impossible to demonstrate without any data. Second of all, how do you know that constant is likely to exist in other universes. And finally, the reason why F=ma and E=MC squared is because that's how the laws just are. This is exactly like asking why is it that my computer is an exact shade of black.

You seem to completely miss his point... You are showing that time and time again. His point was why does F=ma and not F=mC squared.  This about sums up half of your responses as well. You completely missed his point. however, to further prove that....

Yes I can, the equations came from humans who were trying to find something that accurately reflects our universe. If you're trying to throw in a quick kalam cosmological argument then just say so

REALLY! HUMANS MADE GRAVITY! WOW! I just thought we discovered the theory to it. But since he wasnt asking who discovered the equation, but instead why the equation exists in that manner, and how it came to be, and I assume you were answering his question, WOW! MY ANCESTORS MADE GRAVITY!

Quotes from QuantumT

You're supposing this based on our current, limited understanding of the universe.

See my second point.

On that note, why would an omnipotent god give a crap about a bunch of carbon based life forms?

Because he loves us. Its one of the many wonders of God. Why does he love us? Ask me that, and I will have no answer for you, because we do not deserve his love.

Perhaps we'll figure out an explanation as science advances.

... yeah... that explains it... not

Why do they have to come from somewhere?

The forces such as F=ma are the effect. But all effects require a cause. What is the cause? If we simply conclude that certain things require causes, and others the effect alone is enough, then what kind of science would that be? Why even find out the equation for gravity? Why not just have the effect that being in the sky causes us to fall and be happy with it? Science is as much a search for cause as religion is. Only, religion is a search for spiritual cause and science is a search for physical cause.

Let me mention my biggest problem with the idea of god. I'm not really bothered too much by the idea of god. If you want to be want to be a deist, go ahead. What really bothers me is people's reaction to the idea of god. For one, they'll use it to justify just about whatever they want. My big problem with the idea of god though is that it promotes ignorance.

And saying that a god doesnt exist is just as much a step of ignorance as well. Completely depending on something and saying that something doesnt exist are 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. A Christians viewpoint should be that God created order, as it is very clear in his word that he did.

Do you think it would be possible to time travel? What about move things with your mind? What about predict the future? What if I said that science will figure it out soon? Then what would you think? Youd think I was crazy huh? Because certain things are just impossible. Science cant do all things believe it or not. It can explain many many things, however, it can not do all things, and no amount of science will change that.

[QuantumT]

Jumping back in the discussion after just skimming it and being mia for a couple months...

First off. Id like to bring this saying to the table.

The Lack of Evidence, is not Evidence to the Contrary (I DARE someone to challenge me on that)

But when you don't have evidence to support something being true, you shouldn't suppose that it is anyway. See Russell's Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Secondly. Atheists fall into a fun little circle. Saying "Science hasnt discovered it yet" or "We just dont have the knowledge at this time" or anything of the like is no different than saying "God did it". Saying we don't have the knowledge for it assumes something is scientifically possible where as saying God did it says that God did it. Both are assuming something and neither has any facts whatsoever to back it up.

This is basically science just claiming ignorance, which is the correct course of action when you don't know something, not the invention of unsupportable ideas.

Yes, and how do YOU know that God doesnt exist? Give me your logic for the laws of physics to be different in another universe just because its another universe. You are speaking blindly in circles trying to humiliate when in reality the only one you are humiliating is yourself. That has to be the most desperate attempt at a cop out I have seen in a long time.

You haven't proven god to exist, so there is no reason to suppose that he does. It's the same logic that you apply to leprechauns, unicorns, and the loch ness monster. You assume that they don't exist because no one has provided any evidence that they do.

You seem to completely miss his point... You are showing that time and time again. His point was why does F=ma and not F=mC squared.  This about sums up half of your responses as well. You completely missed his point. however, to further prove that....

Why does there have to be a reason? Why can't it just be?

Why do they have to come from somewhere?

The forces such as F=ma are the effect. But all effects require a cause. What is the cause? If we simply conclude that certain things require causes, and others the effect alone is enough, then what kind of science would that be? Why even find out the equation for gravity? Why not just have the effect that being in the sky causes us to fall and be happy with it? Science is as much a search for cause as religion is. Only, religion is a search for spiritual cause and science is a search for physical cause.

Just call the cause the universe. Otherwise you get into an infinite regression. You say god caused it, I respond with what caused god? And what caused what caused god?

Basically, making the supposition that god is the cause just further complicates the matter, because anything capable of creating the universe will be harder to explain than the universe itself.

And saying that a god doesnt exist is just as much a step of ignorance as well. Completely depending on something and saying that something doesnt exist are 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. A Christians viewpoint should be that God created order, as it is very clear in his word that he did.

It's exactly the same step of ignorance you make in dismissing leprechauns and unicorns. At least I apply it to everything. I'm reminded of a quote:

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
– Stephen Roberts.

Do you think it would be possible to time travel? What about move things with your mind? What about predict the future? What if I said that science will figure it out soon? Then what would you think? Youd think I was crazy huh? Because certain things are just impossible. Science cant do all things believe it or not. It can explain many many things, however, it can not do all things, and no amount of science will change that.

You are correct. Science can't do things like violate causality. It is based in reality, and therefore doesn't make nonsensical claims about things outside reality.

Also, even if we were to allow god to be the source of the universe and all of it's laws, that only gets you as far as deism. Where does all of the other stuff come from?

TL;DR

You don't suppose that things exist without proof that they do. Your (presumed) dismissal of leprechauns and unicorns shows you think this as much as I do.

Calling god the source of something like the physical laws or the universe just leads to an infinite regression that isn't helpful in the slightest.