So why doesnt God appear every now and again?

[obsidian]

To the Atheists:

For life to exist in our Universe the fine tuning required to the four fundamental forces of our Universe is so very extreme that it could not have happened randomly. Scientists concede this.

However this did not satisfy some scientists since that means they would have to admit a higher force / intelligence created the Universe.

So they came up with the theory that you would need an infinite amount of universes. In this multiverse it would be possible that at least one of those Universes would have the correct values for life to develop as it has over billions of years.

This is hilarious. I mean, the odds of this is even greater than the odds of a Creator existing.

And how did this multiverse come to be?

Anybody with eyes wide open and a clear mind will realize there is a Creator.

[TheGrinch]

This wasn't an accident...

[Necrosis]

To the Atheists:

For life to exist in our Universe the fine tuning required to the four fundamental forces of our Universe is so very extreme that it could not have happened randomly. Scientists concede this.

However this did not satisfy some scientists since that means they would have to admit a higher force / intelligence created the Universe.

So they came up with the theory that you would need an infinite amount of universes. In this multiverse it would be possible that at least one of those Universes would have the correct values for life to develop as it has over billions of years.

This is hilarious. I mean, the odds of this is even greater than the odds of a Creator existing.

And how did this multiverse come to be?

Anybody with eyes wide open and a clear mind will realize there is a Creator.

oh jesus, the weak and strong anthropomorphic arguments, CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!!!

How about reality, there are millions of planets in the goldilocks zone for habitable environments, the chances of life not occurring is rare, there are near infinite oppurtunities. Other universes may have other or no "fine tuning". Just like the water in a puddle you think this hole was made for me, I fit it perfect, it must have been created for me.

[Necrosis]

This wasn't an accident...

A dirty asshole would look the same.

We are fractals

[BigRo]

This wasn't an accident...

x Infinity

[10pints]

I've admitted no such thing and my previous posts already outline my position so this will be my last statement in that regard.

Now if you aren't a God hater you shouldn't be bothered by the term because it doesn't apply to you.  It's really that simple.  

You admitted that reason cannot persuade you in relation to Jesus Christ not being the Son of God. Therefore, you are admitting that your belief in this as being true is beyond reasonable discourse. As such, you are being unreasonable in relation to this particular topic.

I am not bothered by the use of the term "God Hater". It is a term that an unreasonable person would use to describe someone who has an alternative world view.

[avxo]

Logical fallacies called out in bold red.

The Creator does exist. Proof for that is the Universe you live in and you yourself. You can't have a design without a designer.

First sentence: Proof by assertion; second sentence: fallacy of the single cause, circular reasoning and regression fallacy; third sentence: reification and false analogy.

There you go again... "Everything requires a creator! Except the creator, because that'd just be silly. He's just eternal." Come on... that argument was debunked at least as early as 1927 by Russell.

Some call him God, others Allah. Whatever. To me it is more important to comprehend that a Creator exists instead of getting caught up in religions or differences between them.

Well, if it's important to you, I'll try. But in order to comprehend that a Creator exists, I first need to comprehend why (a) a Creator is needed and (b) why this Creator doesn't, himself, need a Creator. On your mark... Ready... Set... Go!

I am unsure if the Creator is a "Personal Creator".

But you're sure there is one. Interesting. Tell us, what attributes are you sure of and how did you come to be sure? How can we discover them for ourselves so that we can be sure too?

For life to exist in our Universe the fine tuning required to the four fundamental forces of our Universe is so very extreme that it could not have happened randomly. Scientists concede this.

First paragraph: Fallacy of the single cause, gambler's fallacy, proof by assertion, begging the question, fallacy of insufficient sample and lucid fallacy; second sentence: Fallacy of quoting out of context and appeal to authority and/or accomplishment.

Ah yes, the argument of the fine-tuned universe. It's all the rage these days... except, it's nonsense. Let's start with the simple and indisputable fact that the Universe doesn't seem to be at all tuned to support human life.

However this did not satisfy some scientists since that means they would have to admit a higher force / intelligence created the Universe.

Appeal to motive, false dilemma and bulverism

If they thought this, they committed a number of logical fallacies - starting with the either/or fallacy. I'm forced to conclude that the unnamed scientists whose motives and thought you're privy to probably weren't very good scientists. Are you sure you aren't just making this shit up and pretending that "some scientists" said it?

So they came up with the theory that you would need an infinite amount of universes. In this multiverse it would be possible that at least one of those Universes would have the correct values for life to develop as it has over billions of years.

Straw man fallacy

The same is possible without a multiverse, just not in parallel. Not that "in parallel" means much when applied outside the temporal causality framework of the Universe we exist in.

This is hilarious. I mean, the odds of this is even greater than the odds of a Creator existing.

Pooh-pooh fallacy, wishful thinking, kettle logic, argument from incredulity and Nirvana fallacy.

Well, since you see to have, precisely, quantified the odds, care to share them with us? I mean, it's not like I think you're bullshiting us... I just like to see the numbers.
 

And how did this multiverse come to be?

Onus probandi and moving the goalposts

I'll answer after you tell me how your Creator come to be.

Anybody with eyes wide open and a clear mind will realize there is a Creator.

Fallacy of esoteric knowledge, fallacy of magical thinking, proof by assertion and thought-terminating cliché

[Raymondo]

Excellent post by avxo.

[obsidian]

Logical fallacies called out in bold red.

First sentence: Proof by assertion; second sentence: fallacy of the single cause, circular reasoning and regression fallacy; third sentence: reification and false analogy.

There you go again... "Everything requires a creator! Except the creator, because that'd just be silly. He's just eternal." Come on... that argument was debunked at least as early as 1927 by Russell.

Debunked? Lmao. You don't have to provide an explanation of an explanation. That would lead to an endless loop of explanations with no answers and against the very principles on which science is based.

For example, if humans were to find extraterrestrial artifacts or technology on the moon which were not left behind by anyone from Earth, they would be able to recognize that a designer created those artifacts without asking the question who designed these extraterrestrials. Another example might be digging up artifacts from an ancient civilization on Earth. The archaeologists can instantly identify arrows as designed by a designer, without having to answer the question if these designers were created by a Creator.

[obsidian]

oh jesus, the weak and strong anthropomorphic arguments, CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!!!

How about reality, there are millions of planets in the goldilocks zone for habitable environments, the chances of life not occurring is rare, there are near infinite oppurtunities. Other universes may have other or no "fine tuning". Just like the water in a puddle you think this hole was made for me, I fit it perfect, it must have been created for me.

You don't understand the fine tuning concept moron.

There are 4 fundamental forces that have been identified. In our present Universe they have rather different properties.

Properties of the Fundamental Forces
•The strong interaction is very strong, but very short-ranged. It acts only over ranges of order 10-13 centimeters and is responsible for holding the nuclei of atoms together. It is basically attractive, but can be effectively repulsive in some circumstances.

• The electromagnetic force causes electric and magnetic effects such as the repulsion between like electrical charges or the interaction of bar magnets. It is long-ranged, but much weaker than the strong force. It can be attractive or repulsive, and acts only between pieces of matter carrying electrical charge.

• The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay and neutrino interactions. It has a very short range and, as its name indicates, it is very weak.

• The gravitational force is weak, but very long ranged. Furthermore, it is always attractive, and acts between any two pieces of matter in the Universe since mass is its source.

Scientists have ran computer simulations of the Big Bang, and if any of these forces are different by a minuscule fraction, the Universe does not develop as it did. Galaxies don't form, solar systems don't develop out of Nebulae, accretion of solar dust into planets and stars does not occur. And life does not develop on planets.

The fact that there could be millions of planets in the Universe teaming with life is irrelevant to the discussion about this fine tuning of the Universe. Planets would not even exist if the forces were different by a minuscule, incalculable amount.

Go do some reading and stop being a fucking idiot.

[10pints]

For example, if humans were to find extraterrestrial artifacts or technology on the moon which were not left behind by anyone from Earth, they would be able to recognize that a designer created those artifacts without asking the question who designed these extraterrestrials.

Why would their ability to question simply end with the extraterrestrials?

Also, you have dismissed the possibility that the universe could appear to be designed, simply because we have the intelligence to imagine it as being as such. Having this ability doesn't make it true.

[obsidian]

Question for Atheists:

Theists believe the Universe was created by a Creator.

Atheists reason the Universe came into existence randomly out of nothing.

Atheists argue who created the Creator?

Well, my question is, why can't the Creator come from nothing according to the Atheist's viewpoint?

I mean, Atheists are already open to the idea that the Universe came from nothing, so what stretch of the imagination would it be for them to acknowledge that a Creator could also start from nothing?

[10pints]

You don't understand the fine tuning concept moron.

Go do some reading and stop being a fucking idiot.

If you genuinely believe that avxo doesn't understand the concept, and has not read extensively on this subject, then perhaps it is you who should be impaled.  

[obsidian]

Why would their ability to question simply end with the extraterrestrials?

Also, you have dismissed the possibility that the universe could appear to be designed, simply because we have the intelligence to imagine it as being as such. Having this ability doesn't make it true.

Why would their ability to question simply end with the extraterrestrials?

Also, you have dismissed the possibility that the universe could appear to be designed, simply because we have the intelligence to imagine it as being as such. Having this ability doesn't make it true.

How can you prove it is untrue?

And you are dismissing the idea that a Creator could start from nothing, yet reason that the Universe COULD start from nothing??

The reality is, the odds of the Universe not being designed is so great that it is impossible to have developed randomly without design. This scientists acknowledge. Which is why they came up with the multiverse theory.

Go read up on the fine tuning of the Universe. Computer simulations have proven that the Universe simply does not develop as it did if the fundamental forces are slightly different.

[obsidian]

If you genuinely believe that avxo doesn't understand the concept, and has not read extensively on this subject, then perhaps it is you who should be impaled.  

That post was in response to Necrosis, who does not understand the fine tuning concept at all.

And apparently you don't understand the concept of reading.

You should be fucking impaled for your ignorance!

[BigRo]

A problem cannot be solved on the same level that created it.

[obsidian]

I'll answer after you tell me how your Creator come to be.

Could be out of nothing. You should be open to that idea, since you "believe" the Universe came from nothing. See you are a believer in something. "Nothing" is your Creator.

Checkmate.

[10pints]

How can you prove it is untrue?

And you are dismissing the idea that a Creator could start from nothing, yet reason that the Universe COULD start from nothing??

The reality is, the odds of the Universe not being designed is so great that it is impossible to have developed randomly without design. This scientists acknowledge. Which is why they came up with the multiverse theory.

Go read up on the fine tuning of the Universe. Computer simulations have proven that the Universe simply does not develop as it did if the fundamental forces are slightly different.

I dismissed nothing. I am well aware of the fine tuning concept. The multi-verse theory is an example of why the fine tuning theory, and the subsequent belief that everything is fine tuned = creator, is a human construct, based of on an incomplete understanding of reality.

[10pints]

That post was in response to Necrosis, who does not understand the fine tuning concept at all.

And apparently you don't understand the concept of reading.

You should be fucking impaled for your ignorance!

I stand corrected, and await my death sentence to be carried out by your dutiful minions.

[obsidian]

Avxo's posts are a thing of beauty. He just nailed obsidian to a cross of brilliant scientific reasoning. I do hope obsidian will have the courage to address all his points in a detailed and civil manner.

Hi CaptainTampon,

How nice to see you! This subject is way beyond your scope of "reasoning". Please, go make us a sandwhich.

I'll wait for Avxo's response to my questions that I asked.

Thanks!

[obsidian]

I stand corrected, and await my death sentence to be carried out by your dutiful minions.

LMAO! That was funny! 

[Wiggs]

How can you prove it is untrue?

And you are dismissing the idea that a Creator could start from nothing, yet reason that the Universe COULD start from nothing??

The reality is, the odds of the Universe not being designed is so great that it is impossible to have developed randomly without design. This scientists acknowledge. Which is why they came up with the multiverse theory.

Go read up on the fine tuning of the Universe. Computer simulations have proven that the Universe simply does not develop as it did if the fundamental forces are slightly different.

Yes. The chances that this is all an accident or random are ridiculously small, so small it is virtually impossible.  The reason this narrative which is an obvious farce is continued is because it's really about two world views. God vs. no God. The secularists hijacked science and through lies and theories created a new religion. In this new religion, the earth is round not flat, there is a force called gravity that cannot be proven yet exists.  Gravity is a must for the heliocentric theory. In addition, the theory of evolution and big bang theory are a part of this religion. This religion is taught in public schools and institutes of higher learning. It's also perpetuated through media, television, film and print. NASA is very important in perpetuating these lies. Planets are actually wandering stars, we've never been to the moon, the sun and the moon move around the earth and not the earth around the sun. We've never been to outer space.  There's just so much we've been lied to for so long, trying to wake someone from their brainwashing/programming is nearly impossible. And that's just the beginning of some truths. All these lies are told in order to build a world where the idea that there is no God is the dominant thought. This has happened over a long period of time.

The thinking goes if God exists, and the Hebrews are his chosen and the Bible is correct as it is written not as it is currently practiced, we are all grossly out of order.  This is not a surprise as the bible stated all this would happen. Those without spiritual eyes don't see.

[obsidian]

I dismissed nothing. I am well aware of the fine tuning concept. The multi-verse theory is an example of why the fine tuning theory, and the subsequent belief that everything is fine tuned = creator, is a human construct, based of on an incomplete understanding of reality.

Humans happen to be creators themselves. And in the Universe we observe, the most logical conclusion would be that the Universe and everything in it was designed. Because we as designers can recognize this. I don't expect a dog to see this or any other known animal / species on Earth.

I agree that intelligence is required to recognize designs and designers.

If all humans disappeared and all our inventions and designs were left behind, no current species on Earth would understand the implications of these buildings, cars etc. And the question could then be asked: "Did we ever exist?"

[10pints]

Yes. The chances that this is all an accident or random are ridiculously small.  The reason this narrative which is an obvious farce is continued is because it's really about two world views. God vs. no God. The secularists hijacked science and through lies and theories created a new religion. In this new religion, the earth is round not flat, there is a force called gravity that cannot be proven yet exists.  Gravity is a must for the heliocentric theory. In addition, the theory of evolution and big bang theory are a part of this religion. This religion is taught in public schools and institutes of higher learning. It's also perpetuated through media, television, film and print. NASA is very important in perpetuating these lies. Planets are actually wandering stars, we've never been to the moon, the sun and the moon move around the earth and not the earth around the sun. We've never been to outer space.  There's just so much we've been lied to for so long, trying to wake someone from their brainwashing/programming is nearly impossible. And that's just the beginning of some truths. All these lies are told in order to build a world where the idea that there is no God is the dominant thought. This has happened over a long period of time.

The thinking goes if God exists, and the Hebrews are his chosen and the Bible is correct as it is written not as it is currently practiced, we are all grossly out of order.  This is not a surprise as the bible stated all this would happen. This without spiritual eyes don't see.

Do you understand the number of people who would have to "be in" on these multiple conspiracies for them to be to perpetuated? In our lifetime, providing we don't all kill ourselves, you will be able to take a flight outside of the earths atmosphere. How will you be able to perpetuate your theories of a flat earth, when anyone can jump on a flight and see that the earth is a sphere?

[avxo]

Question for Atheists:

Theists believe the Universe was created by a Creator.

Atheists reason the Universe came into existence randomly out of nothing.

Atheists argue who created the Creator?

Well, my question is, why can't the Creator come from nothing according to the Atheist's viewpoint?

I mean, Atheists are already open to the idea that the Universe came from nothing, so what stretch of the imagination would it be for them to acknowledge that a Creator could also start from nothing?

Occam's Razor. Why postulate the existence of a Creator if doing so isn't demonstrably needed and only adds complexity?