Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[sdelsolray]

...
It is my job to cite evidence, reason and arguments as to why I believe a fix is in and we owe our existence to a Creator.
...

This one needs a new occupation.  He's an abysmal failure at his current one.

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, but we should forgive him, I guess - since this is National Forgiveness Day.

[SGOS]

Yeah, but we should forgive him, I guess - since this is National Forgiveness Day.

Oh my.  Will the Post Office be open?

[Unbeliever]

There must be one open - somewhere...

[Drew_2017]

Hakurei Reimu,

I don't think we're covering any new ground..I'm going to say my piece and you can have the last word.

It doesn't matter if the odds of a universe being created like ours is one out of 10^(one million billion billion) against, if the odds of a god existing is one out of Graham's Number against, the universe is unbelievably more likely to exist as a matter of chance than by the designs of your god.

This statement once again demonstrates your complete and total faith in what you believe. I'm dealing with a born again believer who thinks that even when they say if something is true that its equivalent to it being true. I might as well say if God exists then God exists and pretend I'm saying something significant. Do you actually read and think about what write?

Now, either you start assigning some numbers for calculating the probability of your god, or I'm going to start assigning some for you, and you will not like the numbers I assign.

Assign what ever fanciful numbers you want just don't forget to put the disclaimer 'if' before it.

And yet you cannot deny the possiblity that some of them believe it, even in the face of all the evidence. You cannot deny the fact that serious people believe that Noah really did take two of every creature on the Ark and rode out a global flood, thus your statement:

You would have been better served quitting while you were a mile behind. Like many atheists you are a bait and switch artist. You compare belief in theism to belief in a flat earth minus the overwhelming preponderance of demonstrable evidence, facts and data that supports a round earth (or a 4 billion year old Earth) and just pretend we didn't notice. Secondly you only prove my point that if there was an equivalent of scientific data that supports your point of view only a small group of kooks would still believe in theism.

For instance, is not this god you posit arguably an intelligent life form? Does that not mean that an intelligent life form has arisen before any universe got around to being created? Did this creator himself arose through design, or spontaneously through the action of chance or (hyper)natural law?

What's ironic is you are attempting to box in a 'super' natural explanation with the same inherit limitations of a natural explanation. If your correct and God can't exist for the reasons you state...how do naturalistic forces escape the same fate? I'm not offering any theories on how God came about any more than your offering theories of how the universe and the laws of physics came about. To possibly solve for X we have to put the = sign after the universe came into existence because I don't think we can drill down any further.

Last word...granted if humans didn't exist we wouldn't be having this discussion. If (somehow) we observed a universe that was chaotic with no life it would be easy to say that universe was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't care if planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies and least of all intelligent life existed. I don't have to argue and say something truly silly like if the universe had laws of nature that caused intelligent life to exist I can say we do observe a universe with laws of physics that allowed intelligent life to exist. You say it happened by accident, no plan no intent no engineering degree (it just takes several degrees to attempt to understand the universe) not to cause it. I say it took engineering and design to cause it just as it takes such to understand it.

[Cavebear]

Since you are a theist, and science is your enemy, I can understand--to a point--why you'd say that.  You alter your view of reality to encompass the supernatural (which is a fiction) so that you can then find room for you views on god and such.  You have to push and pull at reality to get your fiction worked in--and then call athiests deceitful.  And you also then, repackage reality with the supernatural and say 'see'.  You do have a kinship with Drump and his alternate facts.

Outstanding!  I especially loved "push and pull at reality to get your fiction worked in".

[Baruch]

Outstanding!  I especially loved "push and pull at reality to get your fiction worked in".

You didn't quote what Mike CL was quoting (my point) ... which makes your post ... inarticulate ;-)  Mike CL has his own POV ... and at times it is as dogmatic as a Catholic priest.

[Mike Cl]

You didn't quote what Mike CL was quoting (my point) ... which makes your post ... inarticulate ;-)  Mike CL has his own POV ... and at times it is as dogmatic as a Catholic priest.

Yeah, but sans the little boys.

[Hakurei Reimu]

This statement once again demonstrates your complete and total faith in what you believe.

So once again you try to dodge and weave to get around the fact that you have no ability to assess probability.

I'm dealing with a born again believer who thinks that even when they say if something is true that its equivalent to it being true. I might as well say if God exists then God exists and pretend I'm saying something significant. Do you actually read and think about what write?

Yes. You seem to think that there's nothing to be said about this subject but "Well, it's possible," and nothing can be said about even relative probabilites.

To this I say this in reply:

WATCH ME!

Fair warning: This will be a slog, but what did you expect for any attempt to answer this particular question?

Edit: Went ahead and spoilered it.

[spoiler]
Let U be "The universe," and x′ be "The creator of x."  (You will understand the notation later on.)

You propose that U (the universe) implies a U′ (the creator) for the purpose to be suitable for life, and intelligent life in particular. Yet this design for U has a very low yield of intelligent life, so claims you. Your referencing other forms of life in U as evidence against your hypothesis indicates that you figure this planet may be the only world with intelligent life on it. In short, U is at best marginal for intelligence (and life, but let's concentrate on intelligence). Any less complex, and intelligence in U would be impossible.

But U′ needs to be at least as complex as U in order to be intelligent (because any less complexity would fall below the threshold for intelligence that U apparently sets), and by assumption U′ is intelligent (otherwise, we have a universe that is designed without intellect, an absurdity), so U′ must be at least as complex as U.

Let's ignore indigency for a moment (by indigency, I mean the creator may not create an object at all, even though he's perfectly capable), so Pr(∃x|∃x′)=1, where ∃x means "x exists." Then there are two possibilities for the explanation of this creator: he is spontaneous, or he is himself created.

Case 1: U′ is Spontaneous

U′ does not have a U′′ to create it, therefore the occurance of U′ is due to unthinking forces, randomness, and/or other possibilities other than purposeful design by an intelligent being. Ie, U′ has no hypercreator, U′′. Of course, the purpose to introduce U′ in the first place is to avoid the improbability of U â€" You consider U (and its laws) to be so complex, that the improbability of U and its laws existing in its present form is slim enough that U requires an explanation supplied by U′, but we already showed that U′ is at least as complex as U, therefore â€"without a U′′ to create U′â€" Pr(∃U′|~∃U′′) ≤ Pr(∃U|~∃U′). Thus, the ratio of probabilities R = Pr(∃U′|~∃U′′)/Pr(∃U|~∃U′) ≤ 1.

Let α = Pr(∃U|~∃U′), and 0 ≤ β < α such that Pr(∃U′|~∃U′′) = Pr(∃U|~∃U′) - β. This leads us to the following:

   Pr(∃U|~∃U′′) = Pr(∃U,∃U′|~∃U′′) + Pr(∃U,~∃U′|~∃U′′) (mutually exclusive events)
      = Pr(∃U|∃U′,~∃U′′) Pr(∃U′|~∃U′′) + Pr(∃U,~∃U′|~∃U′′) (def of conditional)
      = Pr(∃U′|~∃U′′) + Pr(∃U,~∃U′|~∃U′′) (no indigency)

We're going to stop here for a moment, because we know that Pr(∃U′|~∃U′′) = (α-β). Whatever probability this is, Pr(∃U,~∃U′|~∃U′′) eats the rest of Pr(∃U|~∃U′′). So, lets find an expression for Pr(∃U,~∃U′|~∃U′′), using Pr(∃U′|~∃U′′) = (α-β).

    Pr(∃U,~∃U′|~∃U′′) = Pr(∃U|~∃U′,~∃U′′) Pr(~∃U′|~∃U′′) (def of conditional)
       = Pr(∃U|~∃U′) Pr(~∃U′|~∃U′′) (if no U′, U′′ irrelevant)
       = αPr(~∃U′|~∃U′′) (substitution)
       = α[1 - Pr(∃U′|~∃U′′)] (def of complement)
       = (α+αβ) - α² (substitution & algebra)

Let Pr(∃U|~∃U′′) = k ∈ [0,1]. Then, we get the equation

   k = (α-β) + (α+αβ) - α²
   0 = α² - (β+2)α + (k+β)

We use the quadradic formula to solve for α = β/2+1-√[β²/4+1-k] (since the other root would not put α in [0,1]). Under the restrictions 1 ≥ k ≥ α ≥ β ≥ 0, we get perfect anticoincidence between Pr(∃U,∃U′|~∃U′′) and Pr(∃U,~∃U′|~∃U′′).

No complexity explosion (β=0) gives us Pr(∃U,∃U′|~∃U′′) = Pr(∃U′|~∃U′′) = α, so Pr(∃U,~∃U′|~∃U′′) < α, so B = Pr(∃U,∃U′|~∃U′′)/Pr(∃U,~∃U′|~∃U′′) > 1. Now, you may be puzzled why I put this forward, as if B > 1, then it does mean that U and U′ is more probable than U alone. To answer, consider how B changes as k and α change. As k and α get smaller, B approaches 1. That is, as the spontaneous occurance of U gets rarer, the chance that we have both U and U′ approaches equality with U alone.

Experimentation also reveals that as k gets smaller, the threshold at which β establishes even odds shrinks. At k = 0.5, the two probabilities meet at β â‰... α/4, whereupon any larger β gives B < 1. At k = 0.05, this crossing happens at β â‰... α/40, and a similar β â‰... α/4 gives us B â‰... 0.7666. At k = 1e-6, crossover occurs at β â‰... α/2e6, and β â‰... α/4 gives us B â‰... 0.75. After this, the behavior of these functions is such that as k shrinks, β â‰... α/4 gives us a consistent B â‰... 0.75. If we go to smaller β's, B follows 1 - β/α, whereas B = 1 is crossed at β â‰... α². So, we can characterize B as dependent on k and β as in general beginning at negligably close to even odds at small k, and B descending linearly with increasing β.

Thus, if Pr(∃U,~∃U′|~∃U′′) is as small as you claim, due to the intuition that more complex things are in general harder to form naturaly, and that U is only marginal in its ability to form intelligence, then Pr(∃U,∃U′|~∃U′′) is also small, even with a marginally complex U′, due to the fact that the U′ is itself hard to form, with the difference between complexities of U and U′ expressed in the form of β. This is essentially what I've been saying all along.

But now, let's move on to the second case, where U′ is not spontaneous.

Case 2: U′ is Designed

U′ requires a U′′ to create it, therefore U′ implies U′′. Given the marginality of U to produce intelligence, the same argument applies to U′′ as applies to U′. In fact, the same applies to any Uâ†'n (the â†'n indicates n prime applications). If we were to submit to the intuition that U′'s complexity demands an explanation in the form of U′′, U′′'s complexity demands an explanation in the form of U′′′, etc., then we have the general rule, Pr(∃x|~∃x′) ≤ α, and by correlary Pr(~∃x|~∃x′) ≥ 1-α.

If we choose some n to terminate the chain of creators, then we can replace the conditioning on ~∃U′′ in the previous section with ~∃U′â†'n. We also propose an additional proposition, ∃In, which is the composition of all propoisitions ∃Uâ†'i where i ≤ n (note that ∃U′â†'n denotes one more prime application than ∃Uâ†'n). Then, where i+1 < n,

   Pr(∃U,∃In|~∃U′â†'n) = Pr(∃U,∃U′,∃In|~∃U′â†'n) (yank ∃U′ from ∃In)
      = Pr(∃U|∃U′,∃In,~∃U′â†'n) Pr(∃U′,∃In|~∃U′â†'n) (conditional)
      = Pr(∃U|∃U′) Pr(∃U′,∃In|~∃U′â†'n) (∃In,~∃U′â†'n irrelevant to ∃U)
      = Pr(∃U′,∃In|~∃U′â†'n) (no indigency)

   Pr(∃Uâ†'i,∃In|~∃U′â†'n) = Pr(∃Uâ†'i,∃U′â†'i,∃In|~∃U′â†'n)
      = Pr(∃Uâ†'i|∃U′â†'i,∃In,~∃U′â†'n) Pr(∃U′â†'i,∃In|~∃U′â†'n)
      = Pr(∃Uâ†'i|∃U′â†'i) Pr(∃U′â†'i,∃In|~∃U′â†'n)
      = Pr(∃U′â†'i,∃In|~∃U′â†'n)
      = Pr(∃Uâ†'(i+1),∃In|~∃U′â†'n) (formal completion of inductive step)

   Pr(∃Uâ†'n,∃In|~∃U′â†'n) = Pr(∃Uâ†'n|~∃U′â†'n)
      â‰¤ α (by hypothesis)

which establishes our base case, induction case, and terminal case. Notice that we get exactly the same answer as we got in the case where there is no ladder. Further, this solution is stable in the case where complexity is not fluctuating.

But two cautions. First, this is a finite case, where In terminates at n. We have not assessed the scenario where the infinite ladder is fully developed, I. To do so, we need to consider that these entities are not of equal complexity. α denotes the imporbability of the minimum complexity, but we must now consider that the complexity may fluctuate. We tracked this through the use of β. As complexity fluctuates as we climb the ladder, β creeps up as we encounter Uâ†'i's that are too complex for the previous tier to generate, so βâ†'α almost surely, and B crashes, as in any infinite sequence where there is no upper bound to the complexity of Uâ†'i.

Thus, the infinite ladder will collapse if there is no upper limit on the complexity of the Uâ†'i, which has not been guaranteed.

Indigency:

Again, no guarantee has been made that any Uâ†'i from any tier is not indigent and bone idle. Lazy people exist, so why not lazy gods? Therefore, the former "no indigency" condition needs to be relaxed: Pr(∃x|∃x′) = σ < 1.

For the finite case, it's just another damn thing to keep track of, in a manner similar to β. For the infinite ladder, it's fatal. This is because each step creates a factor of σ < 1, and when n goes to infinity, σⁿ collapses to 0. Even if we say that the inequality is not strict, σ's will be randomly distributed, which means that for any fixed M < 1, there will be an infinite number of σ's ≤ M, so the ladder is knocked over.

I think this convincingly strikes down case 2. There is no infinite ladder.
[/spoiler]

Now, at this stage, I haven't done anything but address the bare existence of a U′ capable of intelligence by way of some sort of mechanism or laws. I have yet to address whether or not it has the ability to manipulate other objects and their natural laws. I have yet to address whether it is actually intelligent. After all, only a vanishingly small amount of U is intelligent, so intelligence on the part of U′ is not guaranteed. I have also not addressed if U′ is intelligent enough to create U, or had enough resources to complete the task of constructing U. That's a lot to deal with, especially in one sitting. However, none of them gives you an advantage: they can only lower the probability of U′, and the above analysis gives U′ a clear advantage only if the existence of the universe is almost certain â€" which is not something that you have supported.

Assign what ever fanciful numbers you want just don't forget to put the disclaimer 'if' before it.

Yes, you can always claim that, can't you? But the reason why you can claim that is because the proposition that you put forward is fanciful. You know nothing about the universe, yet you claim that any proposition you put forward is viable. No, that's just your ignorance talking.

You would have been better served quitting while you were a mile behind. Like many atheists you are a bait and switch artist. You compare belief in theism to belief in a flat earth minus the overwhelming preponderance of demonstrable evidence, facts and data that supports a round earth (or a 4 billion year old Earth) and just pretend we didn't notice. Secondly you only prove my point that if there was an equivalent of scientific data that supports your point of view only a small group of kooks would still believe in theism.

You sure do love you're empty posturing, don't you? From the beginning, the point of comparing your belief to flat earthers was to demonstrate that people believe silly things often despite evidence. For a lot of people, they are not convinced of an idea because of overwhelming evidence, but rather it's because they want to believe it.

There is nothing in my derivation above that is above someone with a high-school education. Whatever you didn't learn in class, you could have found on the internet, and investigated using tools you can find on the internet (like online graphing calculators). You could have come up with this derivation. You could have seen that a creator doesn't really get much advantage over the universe existing spontaneously. But you didn't do it because you don't want to know if your theory has any advantage over spontaneous universal creation. It satisfies your intuition, therefore it must have some sort of merit.

You are intellectually lazy. That's been clear from day 1, and I don't respect intellectual sloth in any form. It's hilarious that you say that you're ahead by a mile, when actually you are running the wrong way.

What's ironic is you are attempting to box in a 'super' natural explanation with the same inherit limitations of a natural explanation. If your correct and God can't exist for the reasons you state...how do naturalistic forces escape the same fate?

You drop the assumption that's causing the trouble. You assume that the universe cannot spontaneously form because reasons, but then you set up god as the exception even though the reasons apply equally to it, and I'm simply not allowing you to special plead your way out of that inevidable conclusion. You are asking for special treatment of some of your ideas. Sorry, but the rules apply to everyone.

You've been asserting that the universe is a "design." You have not characterized what a "design" is, and all indications of its use makes it out like that qualifier would apply to god just as much, and I reflected that argument back onto god. Instead of pointing out why god shouldn't be affected, you whine and complain because I applied your own rules consistently.

I'm not offering any theories on how God came about any more than your offering theories of how the universe and the laws of physics came about. To possibly solve for X we have to put the = sign after the universe came into existence because I don't think we can drill down any further.

While that is true, that does not mean that we have nothing to say about it. See above derivation. Even without a specific mechanism, there's still something to say.

Last word...granted if humans didn't exist we wouldn't be having this discussion. If (somehow) we observed a universe that was chaotic with no life it would be easy to say that universe was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't care if planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies and least of all intelligent life existed.

False. That, too, would require just as much an explanation as seeing order. Chaos, after all, is not really simple. We have an entire mathematical field devoted to studying it. Another example of our intuitions failing us. And of course, you can't observe this kind of universe as a living being, so you have to take into account selection bias (as detailed in Ikeda-Jefferys).

I don't have to argue and say something truly silly like if the universe had laws of nature that caused intelligent life to exist I can say we do observe a universe with laws of physics that allowed intelligent life to exist. You say it happened by accident, no plan no intent no engineering degree (it just takes several degrees to attempt to understand the universe) not to cause it. I say it took engineering and design to cause it just as it takes such to understand it.

Nice rhetoric, but that's all it is. It's an appeal to your intuitions, but you have done nothing to justify those intuitions, because they are your intuitions and they can't possibly be wrong. It is exactly that kind of attitude that has held us back in the past. You need to question these intuitions, even this one, because they have so often proven to be dead wrong.

Let me leave you with this thought: is it easier to program a universal simulation that consistently applies the same laws over all things, in all positions, at all times, with all orientations, or one that has special handling for some or all objects, and varied from place to place, from time to time, and had a preferred direction? I would think it was the former, and if true would pull in a lot of physics with it. Yet the latter describes your "chaotic" universe. Chaos is complicated, and order is simple. That's why its more likely for ordered universes to exist.

[Cavebear]

So once again you try to dodge and weave to get around the fact that you have no ability to assess probability.
Yes. You seem to think that there's nothing to be said about this subject but "Well, it's possible," and nothing can be said about even relative probabilites.

To this I say this in reply:

WATCH ME!

Fair warning: This will be a slog,

Yes, and a meaningless one at that.  Don't do it again.  In fact, don't have done it before. 

The entire post is either blithering stupid or blindingly brilliant and *I* can't tell.  And I'm a bit above the average nitwit...

So save yourself the effort and us the boredom!

[Hakurei Reimu]

Should I spoilerize it?

Edit: Went ahead and did it. I'm not deleting it, though. Showing your work is important, and there's nothing in it that is beyond a high-school graduate.

[Cavebear]

Should I spoilerize it?

GO FOR IT!

[Drew_2017]

No, I don't make a bolder claim than you.  I look around and see nature.  The nature I see and feel and live in has an underpinning of being proved by the scientific method.  Trees are green--we know why; the sky is blue--we know why; etc., and on and on.  (This is not, as you keep insisting, naturalism--I've explained that before)  I don't know, as you keep insisting, that what caused nature and our physical universe, is mindless or not; I don't care.  You and millions of others, insist there MUST be a creator behind all of nature.  Yet there is no evidence of that.  There is not a single piece of evidence that any god(s) exist or ever existed.  I put god in the same company as Paul Bunyan, Roger Rabbit and many others--a fiction.  There is as much evidence that Bugs Bunny exists  as there is for god.  If you want me to think Bugs Bunny exists you will have to produce some evidence.  I am not asking you to 'believe' anything.  I don't need to 'believe' that nature exists.  It is evident.  I think nature exists and I have physical proof of that thought.  You want me to 'believe' in something that has not any reason to.  You need me to believe, because there is no physical proof of your belief.  I have supported my position.  You have no position to support.  Must I prove to you that Bugs Bunny is not real?  I'm not going to do that, for it is evident; it is up to you to provide some proof for his existence; same for god or a creator.  You say it is god did it or nature did it.  No.  There is no god to have done anything.  You are trying to create an argument where none exists.  And, no, there is not always two sides of an argument--sometimes the argument should not be called an argument for there really is no other side.  And that is the side you are on--the, there is no side.

Yes we do observe nature, stars, planets, the laws of physics. We also observe intelligent living humans and the question that is raised by this observation is how did these things come about? As you and others have stated we don't actually know how the universe came into existence and we have no explanation as to why the conditions for intelligent life obtained. Do you believe the nature we observe and the noted laws of physics are also capable of bootstrapping themselves into existence? If not then the explanation nature did it  is a non-starter if some form of nature we aren't familiar with caused the universe and laws of nature to occur. The evidence you submit in favor or your belief we owe our existence to natural forces amounts to we know natural forces exist. That would be highly probative if we knew, had evidence or proof that the natural forces we observe are capable of causing themselves to exist. As a thought experiment suppose nothing existed except baseballs. It would be tempting to infer that base balls caused there own existence and the evidence I submit is the existence of baseballs. However barring any evidence baseballs can create or reproduce baseballs its only provides evidence that baseballs exist which no one would dispute. There are a couple of other options. We could say baseballs always existed and were never created or we could suggest that baseballs came into existence uncaused out of nothing (and pretend like that isn't magic). Or it could be suggested that baseballs were caused to exist by intelligent forces for some unknown reason).

I've never insisted a Creator is necessary because I don't know for a fact a Creator is necessary. I also don't know for a fact one isn't necessary. Neither do you! You insist a Creator isn't necessary because you allege some unknown (but naturalistic) forces caused the universe to exist and the laws of nature which allowed stars, planets and human life to exist were by happenstance...no planning or design necessary. You submit the existence of natural forces as evidence mindless naturalistic forces caused such in spite of the fact you don't know if they did or if they could. You have plenty of grounds to be skeptical of your own claim. You could easily dismiss your own claim for the same reason you reject my claim lack of solid evidence.

Again if we observed a lifeless chaotic universe it would be easy to chalk it up to the result of mindless naturalistic forces (even though it would still remain a mystery how such came about). You say we should subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to naturalistic forces because we know they exist. By the same token we also know intelligent self aware beings exist that use intelligence, design and engineering to create highly complex things like a virtual universe for example. Some day humans might be capable of causing an actual universe to exist. If so would you still say it was caused by naturalistic forces? 

     

[Blackleaf]

How did we get 81 pages from this silly premise?

[Mike Cl]

Yes we do observe nature, stars, planets, the laws of physics. We also observe intelligent living humans and the question that is raised by this observation is how did these things come about? As you and others have stated we don't actually know how the universe came into existence and we have no explanation as to why the conditions for intelligent life obtained. Do you believe the nature we observe and the noted laws of physics are also capable of bootstrapping themselves into existence? If not then the explanation nature did it  is a non-starter if some form of nature we aren't familiar with caused the universe and laws of nature to occur. The evidence you submit in favor or your belief we owe our existence to natural forces amounts to we know natural forces exist. That would be highly probative if we knew, had evidence or proof that the natural forces we observe are capable of causing themselves to exist. As a thought experiment suppose nothing existed except baseballs. It would be tempting to infer that base balls caused there own existence and the evidence I submit is the existence of baseballs. However barring any evidence baseballs can create or reproduce baseballs its only provides evidence that baseballs exist which no one would dispute. There are a couple of other options. We could say baseballs always existed and were never created or we could suggest that baseballs came into existence uncaused out of nothing (and pretend like that isn't magic). Or it could be suggested that baseballs were caused to exist by intelligent forces for some unknown reason).

I've never insisted a Creator is necessary because I don't know for a fact a Creator is necessary. I also don't know for a fact one isn't necessary. Neither do you! You insist a Creator isn't necessary because you allege some unknown (but naturalistic) forces caused the universe to exist and the laws of nature which allowed stars, planets and human life to exist were by happenstance...no planning or design necessary. You submit the existence of natural forces as evidence mindless naturalistic forces caused such in spite of the fact you don't know if they did or if they could. You have plenty of grounds to be skeptical of your own claim. You could easily dismiss your own claim for the same reason you reject my claim lack of solid evidence.

Again if we observed a lifeless chaotic universe it would be easy to chalk it up to the result of mindless naturalistic forces (even though it would still remain a mystery how such came about). You say we should subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to naturalistic forces because we know they exist. By the same token we also know intelligent self aware beings exist that use intelligence, design and engineering to create highly complex things like a virtual universe for example. Some day humans might be capable of causing an actual universe to exist. If so would you still say it was caused by naturalistic forces? 

   

Round and round we go.  And you still don't make a lick of sense.