Of course.

Now I want to see estimates of the probability of God 'just existing' in his supposed form.

It is intellectually dishonest or bankrupt to argue from science that these values are improbable (NOT impossible), and then 'explain' it by proposing something which violates all logical and scientifically established principles so utterly.

But, hey, some blend of intellectual dishonesty and simple ignorance is a prerequisite for Theism, which our opponent amply demonstrates, in ways such as totally ignoring or dismissing all the counter-evidence painstakingly collected by yourself and others.

The paper you linked to, uses the bayesian argument.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31-30.htm

Richard Swinburne reaches the opposite conclusion using Bayesian probability.....

This is the same argument, Richard Dawkins uses in his God delusion book. What a weak point to discard God.
While science in fact only accepts answers of the physical world, i question people who seek the last truth, do limit themself only on seeking answers from Science. Why not accept philosophy and religion as well ?

Who created God ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

many good questions in this regard answered through William Lane Craig :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/christian-apologists-scientists-and-authors-f9/dr-william-lane-craig-t95.htm

So so.... and can you give a example what can arise without a cause ? the universe, for example ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-t132.htm

My preferred model did NOT refer to something arising without a cause, but of course we already know you cannot read clearly.

Nevertheless, every radioactive decay is a virtually a causeless event, and the Universe could indeed be triggered by some equivalent event.

Richard Swinburne is a believer, and merely a philosopher, so that conclusion is entirely unsurprising, and so of no substance.

Scientists only limit themselves to what can actually be tested and verified to at least some degree, any thing else is by definition in the world of speculation.

Craig has no credence whatsoever - I have heard him attempt to justify the belief in something by what amounted  to wishful thinking, in that he could not accept a reality where something like 'absolute morality' did not exist...

To ignore or minimize the fundamental fallacy of attempting to explain complex design and improbability with something even more complex and improbable reveals a deep and determined blindness to reality and logic.

You, angelobrazil, have thoroughly confirmed that you are a deeply deluded, ignorant, arrogant, dishonest, worthless waste of space.

I asked the same question...good luck getting something other than a link to a web site or a swipe from somewhere else....

  Who else but God could have fine-tuned the many incurable diseases like ALS, cancer, ebola....

Two points.

1) Your miracle story:  the problem is Hucksters have been doing supernatural stuff for years.  When a fortune teller/UFO believer/Muslim/stage magician does it, you know it is garbage.  But when a pastor does it, it is a miracle.  It is like you turn your brain off when religion is involved.  You hold the entire world to a certain standard of evidence, but this one area you accept anything without question.  We reject that, and think if there is a god it should be held to the same standards as everything else.  No special pleading for deities!

2) Your line about Dawkins is exactly what I have been complaining about, please stop doing it!  This is what you did, and for brevity I will assume Dawkins really said this, even though you don't link it:  Dawkins said fine tuning is a challenging idea = Dawkins says fine tuning is true= atheists are all wrong = dawkins admits god is real = god is real.

Do you see where you messed up?  Reality goes like this: Dawkins said fine tuning is a challenging idea, but not convincing = ......nothing.  That is it!  The chain of logic stops right there.  You have done this with biologists, physicists, philosophers and atheists.  If I did this you would tear me apart!  Let me try it on for size.

In the old testament, god said he is a jealous god = he killed people in Egypt = god kills everyone he doesn't like = Ronald Reagan died = god hates Ronald Reagan = god hates America = god is a Muslim.

*sigh* I don't like spending time on this, but....

In this part of the discussion, we were talking about whether your fine-tuning argument was circular. If you recall, the point was that regardless of how unlikely the constants of this universe were, ultimately, it meant nothing unless you had already shown that something in this universe was of particular significant or had some transcendent meaning or purpose.

Now you're saying it's matter of faith and religion. I don't even know what that means, but regardless, if you can't demonstrate that life has purpose or something similar, then your fine-tuning argument is fallacious.     

What do you know about natural selection?

I still think that the constants can be related and, at this point, we can't say for sure how likely it is for a universe to be suitable for life. But, I don't really know enough about cosmology, so let's just leave it at that. 

Nope, I still don't see where he says he recognizes design in nature. Sorry.

Why not? All you're doing is arguing from incredulity.

Intelligence is an abstraction of characteristics of organisms with powerful central nervous systems. It doesn't make any sense for something intelligent to simply be "immaterial." 

Also, no one ever even coherently explains what God is, how he exists, or how he created the world. Virtually all descriptions of his characteristics are figures of speech and analogies. There is widespread disagreement over even the most basic attributes, for God has been everything from axe-wielding giants, to flirtatious fairies, to omnipotent narcissists. Your God is the omnipotent narcissist. So God, in general, to me, is nothing more than an ad hoc, an euphemism for a category of supernatural entities, used to temporarily explain what we don't yet understand. People fear what they don't understand. In ancient times, some people thought that dragon Gods caused thunderstorms. Now, we know more about the weather. In ancient times, some people thought that God made man out of dirt and made a woman from his ribs. Now, we know more about biology. 

Thus, as the evidence builds up for abiogenesis, I see the origin of the universe as the last great God of the gaps.  

Huh? Everywhere. That's irreducible complexity. Do you disagree? What does irreducible complexity say if not that?

Hahaha, don't you get it? It doesn't have to be all or nothing; that would be a false dichotomy. A wing or flap of skin that's not powerful enough for full flight (or "half a wing," as Creationists like to call it) can still be an advantage. In the right environment, it might be beneficial to have a little wing at first, just to slow down in case you fall out of a tree or something. Then, if a bigger wing is better, we already have an evolutionary pathway and incentive to develop flight.

I caught the insult. Thanks.

Anyways, reason is not necessarily exclusive to humans. Depending on how you define "reason," there are several other animals that can reason. Some parrots have developed vocabularies of hundreds of words and shown that they understand what they're saying. For example, they can tell you if it's raining outside or identity colors. Similar feats have been accomplished by dolphins, chimpanzee, pigs, etc. 

I don't know the subject well enough to go into detail. But, I do know that there is currently no competing theory (no, the scientific community doesn't take Creationism seriously), and I know that we evolved and that consciousness comes from our brains. 

The point is there appears to be NO clear cause for the decay, yet it occurs, at a purely random but statistically precise rate - the probability of decay of any particular atom of a specific type in a given period of time can be stated to a high degree of accuracy. This means that the more atoms in a group, the more precisely we can predict what proportion will decay in a given period of time, even though we cannot predict at all when a particular atom will decay. This is observed fact.

It either means that there IS a purely random 'energy' or some other 'force' pervading reality which triggers such events when it imparts the tiny 'nudge' needed to tip such unstable atoms over the small energy threshold stopping from decaying immediately, OR the fundamental limit on the precision with which the energy of a particle can be defined (according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) means that there is simply a finite probability that at any instant it may temporarily possess sufficient energy to trigger the decay.

So the takeaway message from this solidly established science is that any simplistic idea of necessary 'cause' is simply obsolete.

Since even the decay of a single atom can, in the right circumstances, trigger something as significant on our scale of reality as the nuclear chain reaction leading to a city-destroying atomic explosion, it is in principle not a logical stretch to consider similar primordial essentially uncaused events as capable of triggering the Big Bang event.

Revelation, as such, is simply a particular class of mental event, and may well be the subject of scientific study.

There is of course no way to distinguish between a hypothetical 'genuine' revelation and a hallucination in themselves. To establish significance of some experience as going beyond ordinary mental processes would require matching its content against external verifiable events in a careful, unbiased, methodical, ie scientific manner.

Personal experiences are definitely significant, there is a lot of effort going in to study consciousness, behavior, attitudes, etc.

Such events as you describe could be investigated scientifically, to establish whether the probabilities of such correspondences arising without some currently unknown mechanism or intervention were such as to raise a significant question. One would need to know how many times similar 'predictions' were made and did not appear to actually match any subsequent events, for example.

In practice, when someone with the skills and approach to thoroughly assess such events has had the opportunity to thoroughly investigate such events, they have either ended with insufficient and/or conflicting information to 'prove' anything either way, OR a perfectly natural and unremarkable explanation has been found, that the original observers never thought to look into, or did not have the knowledge and/or equipment necessary to do so.

Because that statement is totally backwards - if there is insufficient evidence of any kind to allow an emprical hypothesis to be be formed and tested, there is NO basis for any claims of knowledge.

History has shown Science explaining far more things than even imagined by mythology, as so many things, from thunder and lightning to the motions of the stars and planets have been uncovered to replace the false beliefs of earlier times.

Scientific study has revealed a far more detailed and plausible basis for the emergence of ethical codes and attitudes than religion. Morality is ultimately the weakest argument for religious belief, IMHO, considering how many evil practices have been supported by religious 'authority', from the stoning of adulterers, the burning of witches, the persecution of homosexuals, the killing of infidels in general, encouragement of the endorsement of slavery, failure to condemn rape and torture - indeed the endorsement of inflicting them on a conquered nation.

You have not given any links, AFAICS, pointing to non-apologetic or other than Christian-based sites who demonstrate a determination to believe that God does exist far surpassing any 'desire' on the part of people here that Got not exist.

I came back to point out the more blatant fallacies in your 'arguments' for the benefit of others reading this forum. I know it is wasted on you.

When people speak colloquially about science (as in what you quoted) it usually means the people who bust their humps working in the fields would be insulted.

That makes more sense than creating a deity that you claim has feelings so you can feel special

And how do you know they'd be offended? I see no reason as to why the majority of individuals working in these fields, judging that vast majority of them past and present combined would be religious, would feel insulted by what's been said?

Are you just going to create more mythical offended beings for us?

The vast majority of modern physicists and biologists are theists?

A nuclear chain reaction leads, as you mention it by your own, to a city destroying explosion. A completely random event, which destroys , or in other words " order to chaos " . The BigBang cannot by all means be compared . First of all, the atoms where formed right after the "Big Bang" when our known universe originated from pure energy some billions of years ago. So you have not given by all means a rational explanation....

hahaha. good one.. you wanna say, the mind is capable of " knowing " the future intuitively , and that should be subject of scientific study ?

Of course. I forgot to ask the pastor, if he took some LSD....

Well, the bible has tons of prophecies, see the odds these fulfilled by chance.... Jesaja 53 is a good example. Since we know through the qumran rolls, this book was written before Jesus, how do you explain, the events took place exactly as described ?
How about the nation os israel, which fulfilled biblical prophecy, and is back in its holy land, as a nation ? 200 Years ago, Skeptics were laughing about the bible..... now, they ignore the hard facts.... you can google - prophecy fulfilled in my life testimonies -
and find numerous testimonies of Christians who had similar experiences.

I absolutely disagree.

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay1.htm

Most practitioners of science today hold that the only way to knowledge about the natural world is science. They deny, therefore, that divine revelation in the Bible can afford to man any true knowledge about nature. They include that denial in their definition of science, but this is an error, a distortion of science. It cannot be proved that science is the only source of knowledge about the natural world. It cannot be proved by science that the biblical revelation about the origin of the world is not true. Science cannot prove that divine revelation is not a source of true knowledge, particularly concerning origins. Belief in science as the only way to such knowledge is a faith, just as much as is faith in divine revelation. Faith in autonomous human reason is a faith, even as is faith in divine revelation. And neither one is science.

Essential questions remain unanswered, like meaning .Why are we here? What is life all about? No conceivable advance of science will empower it to answer these questions. The real question is which offers the "best explanation" of things.
Owen Gingerich, Harvard University's distinguished astronomer, published God's Universe. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, brought out The Language of God. Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in God as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.

So what exactly has science revealed ?

that has actually nothing to do with the argument... You might take a few minutes, and see Craigs video on the subject....

oh , i see. Doing proselytism of atheism...

The link doesn't work.

But I am familiar with the idiotic assumption Dawkins makes in the God delusion, by claiming scientist of National Academy of Scientist who don't believe in a "personal" god as atheist, as if impersonal god believers, are atheist. 

Regardless, if you can paint a picture of the average scientist as Richard Dawkins (not just atheist), then it would be plausible to believe that most scientist are insulted by something like the anthropic principle. But the picture of the average scientist in the image of Dawkins, is just sheer mythologizing, and delusion. 

I sincerely doubt that my non-believing bio professor, though he disagrees with the assumptions of the anthropic principle would find it insulting to his profession. 

If you're offended by the assumptions of something like the anthropic principle that's fine, pointing out that a certain scientist is insulted by it, that's fine, but don't get in the business of taking your pet peeves as representative of larger population that's just not there. 

So how about we have you eat your own?

Dude, you should serously learn how to read the survey 

Read the survey heading, and eat your own dog food there buddy:http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Secondly using the NAS to make the case for insulted scientific community, is dimwitted at best, particulary when the NAS issued a statement claiming ""Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"

Don't you think there would be a certain bit of offense taken by some who have devoted their lives to their research if a person trained only in the study of a holy book said, "You're wasting your time - God did all of this and that's all you need to teach"?

Then again, you and angelo are content with the goatherd stories so perhaps I'm asking the wrong person.

Notice the changing of the goal post, a statement claiming an, insult to physics, science, mathematics etc (a claim that implies a majority view), has now become a claim that "some" who devoted their lives are insulted. 

Some atheist may find mustard a revolting condiment to put on hot dogs, but it would be entirely idiotic of me to claim by this some, that "atheist" (implying the majority) are revolted by mustard. 

Some white people are racist, doesn't mean that most white people are. Some scientist might be offended by the anthropic principle, doesn't mean that most are. 

And apparently you don't understand that just because it's an opinion, doesn't mean that its not a stupid one. Just like a theist opining that atheists have a desire to admit their mothers into mental hospitals, because Brian Sapient does, would be a dumb ass conjecture to make. 

He had an opinion on what the majority (not some, or a few) of the individuals in the fields oh physics, mathematics, and the sciences would feel, that was utterly stupid. And apparently this point alludes you huh?

Wtf are you talking about? When did I start worshiping a god? The only god I worship is the flying spaghetti monster, and that's cuz he's real, and I can feel his presence every Sunday at the dinner table along side the parmesan cheese. 

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html <-- The original article

Can you explain how this possibly helps your case?  The best you could possibly get out of it is that they are deists, at the worst atheists.

If everyone in the world was a deist, atheists wouldn't give a crap, because deism and atheism are the same when it comes down to how you live your life.  The only difference is cosmology, which might never be figured out before the big bang anyway.  Either way, my original point stands.  The more a person knows about the natural world, the less influence religion has.  This confirms one of the basic ideas of many atheists...religion exists primarily to "answer" questions that used to be unanswerable, but now they can be answered.  Religion is an almost useless, sometimes harmful vestigal organ of the human psyche in the modern world.

(Edit for duplicate words)

I have to say thank you, because this is the first post I have read in which you have been polite.

1) Can you show why the survey is bogus?  We have 7 doctorates at my company, all physical scientists.  Most of them are non-theists, so it seems to anecdotally line up with what the survey reports.

2) I never intended to get into that part, so I can't say much either way, not being a scientist.  That is your fight with the other people, not me.

http://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html <-- That seems like a decent primer on modern deism, and I am hard pressed to see much practical difference between an atheist and a deist.  Both believe morality is from nature, and that the supernatural does not interfere with daily life.  I fully understand the deism is not atheism, I was merely pointing out that deism is not something most atheists are very concerned about.

I actually agree with your points on the growth of atheism, but I do think that knowledge is a large part of it.  A monk in a monastery has plenty of time for contemplation, but he is not likely to become an atheist.  You are just talking about Maslow's hierarchy, and again, I think you are correct.  But I think I am correct as well, the thoughts co-exist and reinforce.  People without the luxury of time for thought will probably just believe whatever they were told during childhood without much introspection.

Your final point about people who prefer aesthetic is, again, not something I disagree with.  Most atheists would agree that religion is driven by emotion, and that reason is not the primary motivator.

Ah, if only that were true...

1. Christians have that wonderful option of blanket forgiveness which allows them absolution without consequences for whatever "sins" they commit (until they want to commit them again). Atheists who live a "sinful, selfish and egocentric life" don't have that option. If they're lucky, they get forgiveness from the other members of their society - they are still responsible for the consequences of their actions.

2. An intelligent designer? Perhaps. The god of the bible - no way. the god of the bible was a creation of its authors. Why do you worship the creation instead of the creator?

3. As others have told you, the universe is not fine tuned for life. The earth is not fine tuned for life. Human bodies are poorly designed. If I were God, I certainly wouldn't want credit for any of it. As for the origin of life and abiogenesis (life from non-life), we don't know yet. That is still not a reason to put in "God did it" and stop looking for answers. Why are you so afraid of a search for answers?

have i said that ? 

I have never met a atheist, which said that he wished strongly to become a Theist, to believe in the God of the bible, but reason lead him to atheism, therefore he was unable to believe in God.

Atheism has in first instance to do with own personal wishes.  It is perfectly human, that we are biased. And so are people who stick to atheism. I don't think,there is a atheist, which did not first want to be a atheist, and then went after the reasons to justify his choice. 

Yeah, pretty much the same, except I was exposed to a lot of Catholicism when I was a kid, and that was patently insane. I couldn't believe that adults actually went for that kind of nonsense. Later, as a teenager, I really tried to embrace the bible and give it a chance. Unfortunately, after a while, I couldn't take it seriously. The more I read, the more I realized I had made a mistake. Then, I was relieved that other people were thinking the same way I was, so it was an easy move back.

well, i honestly doubt you were ever a true, born again christian. Otherwise, you wouldn't be a atheist today. Pleased to meet you as well. 

To be a christian isn't really something  based on reason in first place. It's based on faith. And on love the next. It's based on a real experience with God the father, the son, and the holy spirit. It's based on being  spiritually  born again , where someone makes actually a entry into a new family, the family of God. The holy spirit takes place in the heart of this person, and he becomes a new creation. When someone gets the seal of the holy spirit, nothing will be able to separate this person from the grace of god. this person will even give its life, to defend its faith.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth,¹¹ unless a person is born of water and spirit,¹² he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 3:6 What is born of the flesh is flesh,¹³ and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 3:7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all¹⁴ be born from above.

Cor.5:17 So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away³² – look, what is new³³ has come!³⁴ 

beside this, you must really KNOW God :

 John 17:3 Now this⁷ is eternal life⁸ – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,⁹ whom you sent.

Philippians 1:6 For I am sure of this very thing,⁹that the one¹⁰ who began a good work in¹¹ you will perfect it¹² until the day of Christ Jesus.

corinthians 1:8 He⁹ will also strengthen you to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Atheism is the only religion, that thinks it doesn't need God. 

Did this stuff 15 years ago - then I stopped being afraid. Why does a being who claims to love his creation rely so much on fear? I don't mean fear as in "having respect for" as one should have when one gives a live electic waie a wide berth. That makes sense. God wants mind numbing, wet yourself into copmpliance and obesiance fear. Why?