There is no God PERIOD

[Sorginak]

I agree, there is a comma missing in the original post title.

[Cavebear]

I give you 1 point for originality, and 2 points for actually saying what I was thinking. All hail Gaia!!!

That assumes any true deity would have gender and physicality.  Which, allowing for the unlikely possibility of a deity at all, seems rather limiting.

[Unbeliever]

There may be no God period, but there was a God fart:

[fencerider]

There may be no God period, but there was a God fart:

"That's funny right there. I dont care who you are, thats funny right there"

So you're saying the dude doesnt show up cause he got embarrassed.

[Unbeliever]

Nah, he's just off farting out some other universes...

[Baruch]

Nah, he's just off farting out some other universes...

Welcome to Lurianic Kabbalah.  G-d is a clumsy scientist, who dropped the proto-universe onto a hard floor, shattering it into countless pieces.  The goal of the Kabbalist is to re-assemble it.  G-d doesn't clean up after himself, we do ;-)

[Drew_2017]

 author=Blackleaf link=topic=11269.msg1166188#msg1166188 date=1486946161]

If it took divine intervention to create the world, then creation was not naturalistic. But I'm not sure if your scientist qualifies as a god. If the world was created by someone like us, he used the materials and laws of his world to design ours. That would make our world designed, but it wouldn't be supernatural either.

The difference is really subtle in either event the main thrust of theism would be true, we would owe our existence to a Creator that is transcendent to our universe.

Even if this scientist creator were real, it would only raise more questions. Where did he come from? Was he designed too? If so, who designed the designer? And who designed the designer of the designer? Eventually, you have to get to a point where the designer came from nowhere. Well, if a designer could come from nowhere, why not our universe? God is just an unnecessary middle man.

I agree it would only push the envelope one step back. I don't deny its possible the universe could have sprung into existence un-caused out of nothing but that would seem like invoking a magic trick to explain the universe and it still offers no explanation why a life permitting universe obtained. The belief it was intentionally designed and created does provide a reason even if it was from a scientist from another universe.

A watch does not grow on trees because it requires something to intentionally make it. It's not natural, but it was made with materials that came from nature. If your reasoning is that the universe is the same way, I don't see any evidence to support that claim. "We exist" is not evidence. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the known universe. Galaxies vary in size, but they generally contain hundreds of billions of stars. That's a whole lot of chances for life to appear by chance somewhere in the universe. And keep in mind, the known universe keeps growing. Every time the number of galaxies in the known universe expands, the need for divine intervention to explain life becomes smaller and smaller. And this is just from our universe. Who knows how many other universes might exist?

My reasoning is due to a preponderance of evidence I've listed elsewhere. Our existence isn't dependent on just there being lots of planets. Several laws of physics are necessary just for the existence of stars. Also the physics of supernova's which create matter that later becomes planets is needed. Scientists consider water to be essential to any life (even alien life) so a method of drenching a planet with water is needed also. Its also very fortunate (providential?) that there is a magnetic force field around the earth that protects us from the sun. Also very handy to have a large moon that stabilizes the earth so it maintains a 23 degree angle allowing for the seasons.  Bear in mind, naturalistic forces don't care if life exists, water exists magnetic poles exist, stars exist to believe in naturalism is to believe we owe our existence to happenstance. There are a host of other conditions such as black matter and black energy for galaxies to stay together. Many of these conditions are in an extremely high degree of tolerance in order for a life creating and life supporting conditions to obtain. I can understand why many scientists are floating the notion this is one of many or even an infinitude of universes its the ultimate time and chance paradigm. 

[Cavebear]

author=Blackleaf link=topic=11269.msg1166188#msg1166188 date=1486946161]

My reasoning is due to a preponderance of evidence I've listed elsewhere. Our existence isn't dependent on just there being lots of planets. Several laws of physics are necessary just for the existence of stars. Also the physics of supernova's which create matter that later becomes planets is needed. Scientists consider water to be essential to any life (even alien life) so a method of drenching a planet with water is needed also. Its also very fortunate (providential?) that there is a magnetic force field around the earth that protects us from the sun. Also very handy to have a large moon that stabilizes the earth so it maintains a 23 degree angle allowing for the seasons.  Bear in mind, naturalistic forces don't care if life exists, water exists magnetic poles exist, stars exist to believe in naturalism is to believe we owe our existence to happenstance. There are a host of other conditions such as black matter and black energy for galaxies to stay together. Many of these conditions are in an extremely high degree of tolerance in order for a life creating and life supporting conditions to obtain. I can understand why many scientists are floating the notion this is one of many or even an infinitude of universes its the ultimate time and chance paradigm.

Wow, the arguements are stunning in their simplicty.

What I think you don't understand is that any deity is simply one added and unnecessary step in the the formation of the universe.  What seems to bother you most is how mere pre-atoms  and then later atoms can cause the existence of beings such as we.

A lot can happen in 13 billion years. Or do you doubt the 13 billion years too?

[Hydra009]

Its also very fortunate (providential?) that there is a magnetic force field around the earth that protects us from the sun.

With the exception of UVA/UVB rays and skin cancer, the magnetic "force field" does a stupendous job.

Also, what are the odds that life would emerge on a geologically active world?

Also very handy to have a large moon that stabilizes the earth so it maintains a 23 degree angle allowing for the seasons.

Wow, it's so strange that a puddle would fit its hole.  I'm blown away.  [/deadpan monotone]

Bear in mind, naturalistic forces don't care if life exists

You don't say.

to believe in naturalism is to believe we owe our existence to happenstance.

That or the null hypothesis of the divine magic explanation.  Meh, same thing.

There are a host of other conditions such as black matter and black energy for galaxies to stay together.

Both of which are theoretical, so don't get too overeager and claim that God fine-tuned them.  You might get burned.

Many of these conditions are in an extremely high degree of tolerance in order for a life creating and life supporting conditions to obtain.

*yawn*  Anthropic principle.

I can understand why many scientists are floating the notion this is one of many or even an infinitude of universes its the ultimate time and chance paradigm.

Don't flatter yourself, scientists don't need that stuff to counter Goddidit.  The Greeks managed it with only a basic education and a toga.  It's not really that hard.

Besides, multiple universes is the logical next step from our acknowledgement of a multitude of galaxies where previously we thought it was just the one.  This multiverse idea might not pan out, but it's a way more plausible idea (and more worthy of consideration) than a cosmic sorcerer.

[Cavebear]

When there is any evidence of a multi-universe, I'll consider it.  Until then, this one is sufficiently odd and unknown.

[sdelsolray]

...
My reasoning is due to a preponderance of evidence I've listed elsewhere. Our existence isn't dependent on just there being lots of planets. Several laws of physics are necessary just for the existence of stars. Also the physics of supernova's which create matter that later becomes planets is needed. Scientists consider water to be essential to any life (even alien life) so a method of drenching a planet with water is needed also. Its also very fortunate (providential?) that there is a magnetic force field around the earth that protects us from the sun. Also very handy to have a large moon that stabilizes the earth so it maintains a 23 degree angle allowing for the seasons.  Bear in mind, naturalistic forces don't care if life exists, water exists magnetic poles exist, stars exist to believe in naturalism is to believe we owe our existence to happenstance. There are a host of other conditions such as black matter and black energy for galaxies to stay together. Many of these conditions are in an extremely high degree of tolerance in order for a life creating and life supporting conditions to obtain. I can understand why many scientists are floating the notion this is one of many or even an infinitude of universes its the ultimate time and chance paradigm. 

You keep peddling fine tuning/argument from design assertions.  Got anything else?

[Drew_2017]

My reasoning is due to a preponderance of evidence I've listed elsewhere. Our existence isn't dependent on just there being lots of planets. Several laws of physics are necessary just for the existence of stars. Also the physics of supernova's which create matter that later becomes planets is needed. Scientists consider water to be essential to any life (even alien life) so a method of drenching a planet with water is needed also. Its also very fortunate (providential?) that there is a magnetic force field around the earth that protects us from the sun. Also very handy to have a large moon that stabilizes the earth so it maintains a 23 degree angle allowing for the seasons.  Bear in mind, naturalistic forces don't care if life exists, water exists magnetic poles exist, stars exist to believe in naturalism is to believe we owe our existence to happenstance. There are a host of other conditions such as black matter and black energy for galaxies to stay together. Many of these conditions are in an extremely high degree of tolerance in order for a life creating and life supporting conditions to obtain. I can understand why many scientists are floating the notion this is one of many or even an infinitude of universes its the ultimate time and chance paradigm.

Wow, the arguements are stunning in their simplicty.

What I think you don't understand is that any deity is simply one added and unnecessary step in the the formation of the universe.  What seems to bother you most is how mere pre-atoms  and then later atoms can cause the existence of beings such as we.

A lot can happen in 13 billion years. Or do you doubt the 13 billion years too?

My argument may have been simplistic but I offered known facts that comport with my contention. You in return offer an article of faith, you declare a deity is an unnecessary step without offering any facts or even an argument to support that contention. Please explain how you know a deity isn't necessary? What naturalistic method are you proposing that would obviate the need for a Creator? I agree a lot can happen in 13 billion years but only with the laws of physics we are familiar with.

[Baruch]

Ockham's Razor, use it or grow a beard ;-)

Also empirical evidence that is contemporary, rather than speculations of what might have happened 13 billion years ago, are much more persuasive.

[Drew_2017]

author=Hydra009 link=topic=11269.msg1167254#msg1167254 date=1487491474]
With the exception of UVA/UVB rays and skin cancer, the magnetic "force field" does a stupendous job.

Solar wind generated from the Sun is harmful to humans so the magnetic field is very providential. However, the solar wind generated by the Sun blows away cosmic rays that would be harmful to humans yet another in an endless serious of lucky breaks for us.

Wow, it's so strange that a puddle would fit its hole.  I'm blown away.  [/deadpan monotone]

Not strange at all since water has properties that allow it to take on the shape of a hole.

That or the null hypothesis of the divine magic explanation.  Meh, same thing.

If the universe was intentionally designed for the purpose of causing life its no more magical than when engineers design and create a laptop to function as it does. Its not magical when engineers design and produce a laptop it is? It would be magical if naturalistic forces minus plan or intent caused laptops to exist wouldn't it? The magic comes in when we attribute the existence of the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and the existence of life to naturalistic forces that didn't plan or care if any of these things came about yet caused the conditions for sentient life to emerge, something utterly unlike the source it is alleged to have come from.

Besides, multiple universes is the logical next step from our acknowledgement of a multitude of galaxies where previously we thought it was just the one.  This multiverse idea might not pan out, but it's a way more plausible idea (and more worthy of consideration) than a cosmic sorcerer.

The multiple universe hypothesis is interesting. Scientists realize the odds of one universe obtaining a myriad of exacting conditions to cause sentient life to exist is so astronomically small (apart from it was intentionally designed to do so) that the only explanation that allows for Naturedidit is an infinitude of universes with different characteristics and we exist in the one that did have life permitting characteristics. That look like a theory chasing a philosophical belief rather than facts leading to a conclusion.

[Drew_2017]

You keep peddling fine tuning/argument from design assertions.  Got anything else?

Yes I'm very skeptical of the naturedidit without plan or intent argument to be little more than wishful thinking.