HK,
Your argument theism is incoherent is your problem. Its appears its only persuades atheists and not even all of them find it persuasive. So called weak atheists who don't deny God exists don't find it incoherent. If they did they wouldn't just lack belief they'd disbelieve. To the billions who do believe clearly not incoherent.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, boy. The popularity of a belief has no bearing on its truth. Your argument that others "don't find it incoherent" does not dismiss the fact that I have found
specific contradictions within it that you (or anyone, really) have done nothing to address. I don't care if all of the earth tells me the sky is green, I see that it's fucking blue.
Your unpersuasive argument is your problem. Try something like facts that mindless naturalistic forces alone could and did cause all we observe.
The fact that it's improbable and not impossible, even by your standards, proves that it's at least possible. After that, it becomes improbability verses improbability, and I've already done an analysis to destroy your assertion that probability theory gives you any strong advantage.
The nature of the exact origin of the universe and its laws is mysterious, but that doesn't give your version of events any precedent. We also have some ideas, which through some mathematical grit we can characterize well enough to test (as with Hawking's no-boundary idea). Again, the most learned people on the planet are inching ever closer to the final answer, while your camp is stuck in the same rut.
We don't have evidence for "mindless naturalistic forces" creating the universe because we're not there yet and won't be for decades to centuries, but apparently you lot think that you're ready to tackle that problem. So let's have it. What is your POSITIVE evidence for your idea? I'm sure I've asked you this before, but you've remained curiously silent.
Who you kidding? They're are very smart people who hire accountants to do their taxes because the rules and regs have become exponentially complex.
Then you admit that
expertise matters! What sort of expertise in cosmology do your billions who believe in a creator have? Even if billions of people believe in this creator of yours, because of their
lack of expertise, the acedemic merit of those beliefs is nonexistent. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.
Cosmology is
exactly the kind of exponentially complex subject where people defer to the experts, like tax law. Yet this is exactly the subject that you fearlessly wade into and make speculations on the nature of the universe, and think those speculations are equal in quality to anything experts in cosmology have come up with, and the fact that those experts don't think anything of your view doesn't concern you in the slightest. Furthermore, you do nothing to get yourself educated on cosmology, instead being satisfied with your easy answer. Arrogant and lazy.
They don't and you don't. You have blather...lots and lots of blather.
The evidence of the existence of your god is at
least as lacking as ours. The time to believe in something is when you have evidence
for it. You do not have
positive evidence for the existence of your god. Your "evidence" is based entirely on the argument from incredulity of the naturalistic case. That is a castle built on sand.
The intention of the scientists who caused virtual universes to exist is to make predictions about the universe and to see if the figures they used would appear as the universe appears. It wasn't there intention to demonstrate how intelligent beings can cause a universe to exist.
You are conflating a computer model with a theoretical model. They are not the same thing. Such computer models are based upon the theoretical model, but it is the theoretical model that predicts and explains. Whatever the computer finally churns out, it is the theoretical model that gets the credit.
You have no theoretical model of your god-creator. You can't even extract from your laughable "theory" how likely it is for your god-creator to exist to make the universe. Again, you're the ones who think you're ready for this, the ones who think that you have that answer. Yet a clear explanation and presentation of evidence remain strangely elusive.
I'm sure they would have used the naturalistic method of causing the universe to exist but apparently no one knows how that came about, do you?
They haven't done creation of
any universe at all. Not even in the computer. What exists in the computer is a
simulation of a universe, not an actual universe. It has no independent ontology. Power down the computer, and this "universe" vanishes in a puff of bits.
The simulated universe does not solve the conundrum of existence. It simply denies our existence altogether. It still leaves the question of where the damn computer that we would be running on came from in the first place, and what natural laws it follows. There's also still the question of how to test the idea that we live in a simulated universe, etc.
---
The principle reason why we don't have evidence for how "mindless naturalistic forces" create what we see is because we're still in the middle of figuring out what the nature of the universe is and the laws it operates under. I don't know about you, but I think that both would have great relevance to figuring out how they came to be. So, we're not ready to present any case for the natural creation of the universe, even if we have some ideas. I have never pretended that we are ready, and have made specific denials that we are in a position to tackle this puzzle of existence.
You, on the other hand,
do think that you're ready to present that explanation. Only, it's clear that you aren't, because that "explanation" of yours boils down to "naturalism doesn't provide an explanation." It's never been any more sophisticated or developed than that lazy, arrogant position. Naturalism doesn't provide an answer because it's not ready for that step. But, again, you think that you are, and you
could proceed without us. Problem is that you need
positive evidence for that position, and a cogent argument that stands on its own to draw a logical connection from your creator through its design and ending up in a realized universe, with the provisio that it has to be more detailed than, "The creator made a design and then did it."
I don't think you know how to do it because you have a cargo cult understanding of science. I'm not an expert, yet it's clear that you're having your ass handed to you, your denials notwithstanding. An expert in cosmology would have you for lunch.
You are free to your opinion, but it has no academic merit. You may have billions of people who think similarly, but their opinions have no academic merit. A real theory stands on its own support of argument and evidence, so as long as Goddidit is based upon naturalism not having the answer, it will continue to have no academic merit.
