Can you show that the universe has been "created," or are you assuming this point?
Of course i think it can be shown that the probability of a universe capable of supporting ANY form of complex life is one out of infinity (or in comprehensible terms: exactly zero). This sounds like a grandiose claim, but it seems to me to be obvious, once you consider any fine tuned constant. Consider, for example, the fine tuning of gravity. The fine tuning of it is 1 part in 10^40. That is +/- 1 part away from that value would be life prohibiting (at least for any complex life). Though it should be enough to reasonably infer design. That is only looking at how sensitive that value is to change. It doesnt really address what that value could have been. That is, when you also consider what the range of possible values could have been outside of the life permitting range, then you are looking at the probability that the value you have would even be what it is. There could be possibly be an infinite number of possible values for the gravitational constant.For example, suppose the gravitational constant was increased +1. The fine-tuning argument would suggest gravity would be so great, that the universe would collapse in on itself before life had any chance to evolve (insomuch as any macro-evolution can occur in the first place). Ok. We added +1 to what the gravitational constant could have been. What if it was +2. Then we dont need to do the math to know that it would be even more life prohibitive. How about +3? Still no life. Why stop there
.How about +4? +5?
..etc
to.+infinity? The same goes in the opposite direction. -1 and the universe cant form heavy elements, and stars would not form (insomuch as stars could form from a big bang in the first place). If you go -2 from fine tuning, you obviously dont help the prospects, you logically hurt the prospects of any form of life. This would go all the way that possible range will go (probably to 0). But you still have an infinite number of possibilities. So, Id content, if it can be shown that the range of possibilities could be infinite, then it necessarily means that our universe is infinitely fine tuned.
And thats just looking at one fine tuned constant.
One might attempt to counter act the problem, but lets be honest. ANY possible way one might think of to increase the range can be met with an infinite number of ways to break it. Breaking is easy
fixing, is not.
Design is the only rational conclusion.
I don't think you have argued for intention very well.
That's your view.
Defining God as "everything" becomes somewhat problematic when considering the premises of the kalam argument. I'm not sure what you mean by God being "everything." Do you worship everything?
God created the Universe and God exists without the Universe so God is everything.
The Big Bang theory gets us part of the way there, but not the whole way.
That's argument from ignorance, we don't fully understand the Big Bang therefor either the Universe exists eternally or it was created because of chance. If we fully understand the Universe then we can talk about a Deterministic event and a Deterministic event must be Determined by Someone or something outside the Universe.
Atheism faces these problems
The Universe cannot have an infinite chain of causes and effects, even if the succession of causes is infinite the whole chain still requires a cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-24.
BVG Theorem proved that the Universe began to exist.
An Eternal Universe would automatically place science into garbage, something that has infinite causes cannot be learned.
This is just a bare assertion. Perhaps there is only one, perhaps there are two, or perhaps there are infinitely many. We don't know whether our universe is special or unique.
What you have is an argument from ignorance:
1. I dont know what other universes are like or if they exist
2. Therefore, we are here by chance
It doesnt follow, it is like arguing with fairy dust.
We Theists have an argument from analogy:
1. like causes spawn like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. therefore the universe is the result of intelligence
The only argument the atheists have is a mere wish:
1. like causes spawn like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. I wish like causes did not spawn like effects or I wish fine-tuning were the result of chance.
5. therefore, we are here by chance.
From where did you copy-and-paste this?
Do you agree or disagree? There is no Parthenogenesis in discussions.
I'm not sure what you're going on about.
Are Criminologists insert intention to a crime to fill a gap or they do it because they can recognize intention?
Yes, a space-time boundary. How does one leap from that to an absolute-beginning-from-nothing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I
If the values of any of these constants were different, then black holes could not form. Therefore, the values have been fine-tuned to ensure the formation of black holes. Therefore, our universe was designed for black holes. Life, and everything else, is merely a byproduct of the universe being finely tuned for black holes. A designer obsessed with black holes is therefore the only rational conclusion.
Stupid argument,black holes serve no purpose. They are just the end stage of massive stars, or in the result of supermassive ones, the result of a lot of matter coming together. As to why there are black holes, they are just what happen when enough matter is fit into a small enough volume. They are not part of any "circle of life", nor does does the term have any meaning when it comes to the universe as a whole.
