XxSabrinaxX:

We don't know. That's no reason to go right to "god did it".

It might be, if enough of the constants allow matter to form. It now becomes a question of "Are the finely-tuned constants of the universe more probable under atheism or theism?" I think the answer to that is obvious. If you think it's likely under atheism, then by all means go ahead and prove it so.

XxSabrinaxX:
And nothing in theoretical physics includes a necessary diety, or fine tuner.

I don't think you've understood what I was trying to say.

XxSabrinaxX:
The conditions of the universe...which we don't fully know...have allowed animate matter to emerge. And that's all we can say. There is no justification for assigning great significance or teleological "intent" to it.

Then is there also no justification for assuming God isn't behind it? I'm confused as to what your position is to the fine-tuning argument. Are you agnostic? Or atheist?

The argument definitely still holds up. We find ourselves in an ordered universe that has permitted life to come about. Whether we have the argument backwards or forwards or upside down, doesn't matter. It demands an explanation.

I would also like to hear your positive argument for why you believe we are not special. How would you go about proving something like this?

XxSabrinaxX:
Omnipotence is by definition unlimited and unrestricted. Unless you have another definition? Do you believe God can make 2+2=5?

Absolutely I do. It's very common for atheists to misunderstand this. God can't make 2+2=5.
First, the question is not a legitimate omnipotence question. A legitimate omnipotence question would be: "Can God make a stone so heavy that he can not carry it ?"
Second, your question already violates your definition, so I think you have the wrong definition.

NnennaG6:

It might be, if enough of the constants allow matter to form. It now becomes a question of "Are the finely-tuned constants of the universe more probable under atheism or theism?" I think the answer to that is obvious. If you think it's likely under atheism, then by all means go ahead and prove it so.

God could have just created matter if he wanted. Or made us of something else. Like the puddle analogy, the puddle thinks a city planner made the dip in the concrete just so it could exist because the puddle fits in it perfectly. The notion of emergence from the conditions as they were doesn't cross it's mind.

Atheism doesn't, unlike theism, claim to understand the universe enough to make a statement of knowledge. Atheism admits it's ignorance. Theism is really just arbitrary narrative making that involves magic and emotional masturbation.

And as I have said, we cannot determine the probability with a sample of 1 and a lack of information about what the constants are and how they work.

NnennaG6:
Then is there also no justification for assuming God isn't behind it?

Appeal to ignorance.

NnennaG6:
I'm confused as to what your position is to the fine-tuning argument. Are you agnostic? Or atheist?

Gnostic atheist, and I think the fine tuning argument is profoundly absurd.

NnennaG6:
The argument definitely still holds up. We find ourselves in an ordered universe that has permitted life to come about.

Order is a psychological construct, not an objective property of things. We find ourselves alive, yes..but going from that to a creator god is neither rational nor likely.

NnennaG6:
Whether we have the argument backwards or forwards or upside down, doesn't matter. It demands an explanation.

Yes, it does. A good one, not a theistic one. And it may be no more significant then the pattern that emerges from raindrops falling on the ground. The fine-tuning argument still places life and consciousness as a goal of the universe, and without any justification for thinking this. This is why it is a gross example of anthropocentrism..the same thing that made people insist the Earth was the center of the universe.

NnennaG6:
Absolutely I do. It's very common for atheists to misunderstand this. God can't make 2+2=5.
First, the question is not a legitimate omnipotence question. A legitimate omnipotence question would be: "Can God make a stone so heavy that he can not carry it ?"
Second, your question already violates your definition, so I think you have the wrong definition.

You just said that God can't make 2+2=5. If there are limits to God, who created those limits?

NnennaG6:

God, being omnipotent, space-savvy and ubiquitous, would have himself exist simultaneously on Plane (A) and Plane (B). After fashioning a rock with a weight sufficient to exceed his ability to lift, the rock is positioned on Plane (B) where we find God attempting to lift the rock. On Plane (A) we have God physically lifting Plane (B), which already holds both God and the very heavy rock …and all done so at the exact same moment.

So the answer is “Yes!” God can create a rock so heavy that he couldn’t lift it while simultaneously maintaining His omnipotence.

…But how is this possible? This is called the “Circular God Counter-Paradox.”

This video is a 9 minute illustration of my argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDTsYYGNAMY&feature=youtu.be

lolz
See logic
The question is "Can God make a stone so heavy that he can not lift it
If he eventually succeeded in lifting the stone then that means that he made a stone that he could lift,the stone that he is to make is one that he can not lift,but in the scenario u gave he ended up lifting the stone,so he did not make a stone that he could not lift


Another point @ the bolded in ur explanation " to exceed his ability,what does that mean,how can something omnipotent have a limit to its ability,you just succeeded in creating more problems

NnennaG6:

How belief in a deity effects people is subjective to how seriously a person adheres to a certain religion or not. Or if not part of a religious faith - how it effects people through others.

Then it depends how fervently individuals follow the law of that particular religion to the degree it effects them. If taken very seriously it will be a predominant force in their lives. If people are loyal to the teachings - this will influence hugely their conscience, values (of right from wrong), their actions, and ultimately who they become.

Religion teaches and builds on a person's "faith" in God and goodness", which can have a positive effect on their mental health strengthening and protecting individuals against despair - as instead of giving up when troubles and adversity strikes, even in the face of death - they believe with God's help that goodness will win in the end and all will be well leaving it in God's hands. Even when losing a loved one - they believe they will be joined together again one day and not all is lost.

This faith which religion teaches can help people believe in themselves, as when they do their best God will do the rest, giving them the added strength through his grace to achieve and get through anything. That is great faith in action when up against the odds, and the effects on a person is an inner peace that the world cannot give.

Religion can be a big deal and have an enormous effect on people either for the positive or negative. If the religion does not have moral leaders and Godly example - it can be to a person's downfall if he/she cannot think objectively calling out a snake or fraud. If it's a virtuous leader, it can develop virtue and goodwill, and make the world a better place.

All depends if God's law of love is upheld, interpretated correctly and is a genuine religion (not a cult); - or if the religion's laws are misinterpreted by leaders made up of wolves in sheeps clothing, to brainwash people for personal power and selfish gain (i.e. The Pharisees and certain individuals using God's name to brainwash others to commit Godless acts for political power). The latter can lead to a vulnerable person's ruin - here and for eternity.

A good foundation to test the credibility of any religion I ask myself "if what they teach/preach is advocating love or harm?". If it is the latter it is false and can adversely effect a person's life. If the former it can transform a person from within and hugely enrich their lives.

You're like talking about the opium Karl Marx talked about.