The Religion Discussion

[meccalli]

Exactly what the Bible says, Man cannot know God in his natural/sinful state. Science cannot explore the realm of the spiritual with its physical tools and their current myopic view of things observable.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Slartibartfast]

The law of causality points to an uncaused being. That being would have to be immaterial, eternal and not spacial, because the effect was matter, time and space. You have to say it's unknown because you rely on your perception of scientific concensus to deem truth. But science cannot determine all truth, in fact it relies on several unprovable axioms. Yes science cannot explain it therefore God did it. At least you are using my suggestion to structure your argument better

Atheism does point a unregulated world. If you are however agreeing that the world is regulated, only intelligent minds can regulate (add rules) something. You see why I say you have to borrow from the theist worldview to attack it?Why can only intelligent minds regulate? You must first prove this.

Your parents could only instructed you down a religious path but you were borne with innate knowledge of God. Your parents religious interstruction just fit into to your teleological quest to explain your world because you by design had to sense of your world. Even if your parents were atheist they would have to explain the world using atheist alternatives. Nevertheless, you innately desire to know God, sadly you were maligned.... and you know this because the bible says so? I won't argue with the ramblings of a mad man so take win on this one.

You claim there are no verifiable attributes of God yet you claim that the cause of the Big Bang is unknown....you see how you fall short in absolute knowledge about these things? I swear you beat around the bush more that prepubescent teenager. I am throwing you a bone with this one. All you have to do to prove me completely wrong is state one verifiable repeatable attribute (or action, or whatever you want to call it) of God for which there is no alternative scientific explanation. I am purposefully structuring my argument to make it easy for you to disprove me. Don't disappoint. Until then I would assume "absolute knowledge" that there are none. Just like there are no unicorns, there is no dragon is Carl Sagan's garage and narwhals are mythical creatures <--- a joke, they really do exist!

Also, if you state something it must be clear that it had input from God. No bull$h!t like "the sunrise each day" or "babies being born miracle" etc.

[Habit7]

The law of causality points to an uncaused being. That being would have to be immaterial, eternal and not spacial, because the effect was matter, time and space.

Gawd would have to abide by the law of causality as well, the law of causality would ask then what caused gawd to be created? And then if we found out what, we would have to ask what created the creator of gawd...

The law of causality states the every effect has a cause, therefore it doesn't point to an infinite regress as you alluded to. It points to an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, in fact it points to one who created to law of causality along with many other complex laws at the start of our universe.

Whether atheists want to admit or not our natural world could not have come about naturally, there has to be some supernatural cause. The proof for this is the natural world, nature doesn't create itself. Atheists would rush to claim this the 'God of the gaps' assumption, however it is even more bias to say that it isn't. To say we have no example of natural things creating itself, but atheists have faith that they do...

Your faith in a universe out of nothing is probably stronger than my faith in an "imaginary" God.

[Habit7]

The law of causality points to an uncaused being. That being would have to be immaterial, eternal and not spacial, because the effect was matter, time and space. You have to say it's unknown because you rely on your perception of scientific concensus to deem truth. But science cannot determine all truth, in fact it relies on several unprovable axioms. Yes science cannot explain it therefore God did it. At least you are using my suggestion to structure your argument better

Atheism does point a unregulated world. If you are however agreeing that the world is regulated, only intelligent minds can regulate (add rules) something. You see why I say you have to borrow from the theist worldview to attack it?Why can only intelligent minds regulate? You must first prove this.

Your parents could only instructed you down a religious path but you were borne with innate knowledge of God. Your parents religious interstruction just fit into to your teleological quest to explain your world because you by design had to sense of your world. Even if your parents were atheist they would have to explain the world using atheist alternatives. Nevertheless, you innately desire to know God, sadly you were maligned.... and you know this because the bible says so? I won't argue with the ramblings of a mad man so take win on this one.

You claim there are no verifiable attributes of God yet you claim that the cause of the Big Bang is unknown....you see how you fall short in absolute knowledge about these things? I swear you beat around the bush more that prepubescent teenager. I am throwing you a bone with this one. All you have to do to prove me completely wrong is state one verifiable repeatable attribute (or action, or whatever you want to call it) of God for which there is no alternative scientific explanation. I am purposefully structuring my argument to make it easy for you to disprove me. Don't disappoint. Until then I would assume "absolute knowledge" that there are none. Just like there are no unicorns, there is no dragon is Carl Sagan's garage and narwhals are mythical creatures <--- a joke, they really do exist!

Also, if you state something it must be clear that it had input from God. No bull$h!t like "the sunrise each day" or "babies being born miracle" etc.

Making a caricature of my argument is not refuting it, it is a straw man.

The fact of us having this discussion proves intelligent minds regulate, you have to prove unintelligent minds could regulate.

That is a genetic fallacy, the source of my info doesn't invalidate it, men are naturally religious and so were you as a "strong Catholic."

It is already proven you don't have absolute knowledge despite your audacious claim to the contrary. Why compound that with another subject that lies outside your grasp only for you to claim to know it absolutely? You are an irrational atheist.

[Slartibartfast]

Making a caricature of my argument is not refuting it, it is a straw man. All I am saying is that there are some things for which science does not currently have the answer (or at least one simple enough for you to understand).

The fact of us having this discussion proves intelligent minds regulate, you have to prove unintelligent minds could regulate.I never said "intelligent minds cannot regulate". I agree that they can. I asked you to prove your axiom that ONLY intelligent minds can regulate. Also, state exactly what you mean by "regulate" as there naturally occuring inanimate objects (which are by definition not intelligent) that can regulate depending on the definition that you are using.

That is a genetic fallacy, the source of my info doesn't invalidate it, men are naturally religious and so were you as a "strong Catholic."Lol, the source of your info in not validated and therefore cannot be used (unless you can validate it). I was a strong catholic because I was brought up in a strict catholic home. However, reason overcame all of the efforts of my friends and family to keep me indoctrinated. Some may say that I tended to atheism... as though what is natural tends to a more natural state. But I digress. Anyway, I already gave you win on this one. No use arguing with someone whose mind is not based in reality.

It is already proven you don't have absolute knowledge despite your audacious claim to the contrary. Why compound that with another subject that lies outside your grasp only for you to claim to know it absolutely? You are an irrational atheist.Just one example.... just one. You can walk into a patent office and get thousands of examples of things that were created by man through science and not by God. You just need to give me one example. I am purposefully making it extremely easy to disprove me.

EDIT: It must be repeatable and verifiable like stated earlier.

[Habit7]

Yet you want to subject God to science...

The regulation I am talking about is the world, the world is regulated as seen in the laws of science. Theism can account for this with with the world being created by an intelligent mind. Atheism cannot account for the regulation of the world, in fact that reality runs counter to atheism. Thus an intelligent mind regulates, regulation cannot come from unintelligence.

It still doesn't matter the source of my info, you are innately desirous to know God, He is going to hold you accountable to that.

It's funny how you can identify man creating things and them being regulated with a patent office, but for you man has no creator and the world is not regulated by an intelligent mind.

You have absolute knowledge, what more can I tell you that you don't already know?

[nareshseep]

The law of causality points to an uncaused being. That being would have to be immaterial, eternal and not spacial, because the effect was matter, time and space.

Gawd would have to abide by the law of causality as well, the law of causality would ask then what caused gawd to be created? And then if we found out what, we would have to ask what created the creator of gawd...

The law of causality states the every effect has a cause, therefore it doesn't point to an infinite regress as you alluded to. It points to an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, in fact it points to one who created to law of causality along with many other complex laws at the start of our universe.

Whether atheists want to admit or not our natural world could not have come about naturally, there has to be some supernatural cause. The proof for this is the natural world, nature doesn't create itself. Atheists would rush to claim this the 'God of the gaps' assumption, however it is even more bias to say that it isn't. To say we have no example of natural things creating itself, but atheists have faith that they do...

Your faith in a universe out of nothing is probably stronger than my faith in an "imaginary" God.

The universe cannot be created nor destroyed it was always was there.
The entire universe contained within the space of one atom is still the universe.
Quoting the bible is circular logic.
If you cannot know gawd how would you know what is gawd?

[Slartibartfast]

Yet you want to subject God to science...

The regulation I am talking about is the world, the world is regulated as seen in the laws of science. Theism can account for this with with the world being created by an intelligent mind. Assuming that only intelligent minds can regulate which you are yet to prove. Science covers in animate objects which seem to regulate themselves through the laws of science. Atheism cannot account for the regulation of the world, in fact that reality runs counter to atheism.Again, if "reality" assumes an intelligent creator Thus an intelligent mind regulates, regulation cannot come from unintelligence.This is circular reasoning. You are assuming that an intelligent mind is needed to regulate (and create the laws of science) and use it as proof that there must be an intelligent mind.

It still doesn't matter the source of my info, you are innately desirous to know God, He is going to hold you accountable to that.Yeah.... sure. Take win here buddy

It's funny how you can identify man creating things and them being regulated with a patent office, but for you man has no creator and the world is not regulated by an intelligent mind.I clearly missed the joke. Please elaborate what is so funny about identifying reality and not believing in unrelated fairy tales.

You have absolute knowledge, what more can I tell you that you don't already know?One example. That is what you can tell me. One example and prove me completely wrong. I swear even a stripper would be tired of dancing around by now. I gave you a source of thousands of my examples. I just need one. Isn't there one in the bible. After all, that is supposed to be the source of all information and it is all true Just pull out one (1) verifiable/repeatable attribute/action of God.

[meccalli]

The universe cannot be created nor destroyed it was always was there.

Not according to entropy and thermodynamics.

The entire universe contained within the space of one atom is still the universe.

Which space?

Quoting the bible is circular logic.

As is quoting science to disprove God.

If you cannot know gawd how would you know what is gawd?

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Yeshua is the way provided to know God.

They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Science covers in animate objects which seem to regulate themselves through the laws of science.

How ever when we delve into quantum level we have sub sub atomic particles that do not obey the general laws of physics.

You are assuming that an intelligent mind is needed to regulate (and create the laws of science) and use it as proof that there must be an intelligent mind.

Not quite, that's directly observable in the natural world including the laws and its impossibility of occurring in a state of chaos.

Just pull out one (1) verifiable/repeatable attribute/action of God.

Will you prove love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control with scopes, accelerators and philosophy?

[Slartibartfast]

Mecalli all I can say is re-read everything that was said. This argument is clearly above you head at the moment.

[Habit7]

The universe cannot be created nor destroyed it was always was there.
The entire universe contained within the space of one atom is still the universe.
Quoting the bible is circular logic.
If you cannot know gawd how would you know what is gawd?

You statement about the universe violates the second law of thermodynamics, cuts the theory of the Big Bang in with you appeal to and goes against the heat death of the universe. Please quote a source for your view.
I didnt quote the Bible to you, nevertheless if quoting the Bible is circular logic, how do you expect me to answer how to know God?

Yet you want to subject God to science...

The regulation I am talking about is the world, the world is regulated as seen in the laws of science. Theism can account for this with with the world being created by an intelligent mind. Assuming that only intelligent minds can regulate which you are yet to prove. Science covers in animate objects which seem to regulate themselves through the laws of science. Atheism cannot account for the regulation of the world, in fact that reality runs counter to atheism.Again, if "reality" assumes an intelligent creator Thus an intelligent mind regulates, regulation cannot come from unintelligence.This is circular reasoning. You are assuming that an intelligent mind is needed to regulate (and create the laws of science) and use it as proof that there must be an intelligent mind.

It still doesn't matter the source of my info, you are innately desirous to know God, He is going to hold you accountable to that.Yeah.... sure. Take win here buddy

It's funny how you can identify man creating things and them being regulated with a patent office, but for you man has no creator and the world is not regulated by an intelligent mind.I clearly missed the joke. Please elaborate what is so funny about identifying reality and not believing in unrelated fairy tales.

You have absolute knowledge, what more can I tell you that you don't already know?One example. That is what you can tell me. One example and prove me completely wrong. I swear even a stripper would be tired of dancing around by now. I gave you a source of thousands of my examples. I just need one. Isn't there one in the bible. After all, that is supposed to be the source of all information and it is all true Just pull out one (1) verifiable/repeatable attribute/action of God.

I have shown the regulated world points to an intelligent mind. Disprove me by pointing to how a regulated world can come from unintelligence.

If I take win, are you say that the Bible is right when it speaks about you.

You believe that a scientific invention can create itself and lodge a patent for itself, a scientific invention such as a human being. In your worldview this has to precede before man can create anything and patent it. If you don't find it funny, find it contradictory.

God doesn't condescend to prove himself to you, He gives you an innate notion of Himself and an intelligently regulated world to live in. If you refuse to acknowledge this and claim absolute knowledge, He is not going to pity you for not having enough knowledge, He is going to judge you in your sin for the rebel you are.

[meccalli]

Mecalli all I can say is re-read everything that was said. This argument is clearly above you head at the moment.

It doesn't change your statements and my responses, a regulated world has to obey laws which were written in the fabric of existence.

[Slartibartfast]

You showed that by assuming that it pointed to an intelligent creator (i.e. your reasoning is circular... like this argument has become)

Sure thing buddy. You are free to believe that the bible is 100% correct when it talks about me. Make sure it mentions me by name (Slarti is fine though)

I was showing it can easily be seen what science has contributed to our world. As for the origin of man, there are theories (previously discussed right here in length) with work being done by scientists to overcome the current limitations of said theories.

Oh so now you are assuming that an intelligent being exists and he doesn't want to show himself? How convenient.

You clearly have nothing to back up your assumptions so I'll suspend this argument until you do (just one example... just one is all you need). I am only claiming absolute knowledge so that you can easily disprove me.

[Slartibartfast]

Mecalli all I can say is re-read everything that was said. This argument is clearly above you head at the moment.

It doesn't change your statements and my responses, a regulated world has to obey laws which were written in the fabric of existence.

Now re-word this without using any metaphors and I'll help you see where your unsupported assumptions come from. It makes no sense to argue with you until you understand what you are talking about.

[Slartibartfast]

Now that we established the Christianity has nothing to back it up, I am very interested to hear someone's response to this. I don't know much about Islam myself. Great post Shane. Take a bump.

I'm directing this to the Muslim population of tuner.
Please read & answer the questions honestly.

Why should Muslims follow the Hadiths?
Is Islam derived from the Qur'an or traditions/cultures of Muslim people?
Do you believe the collections of hadith by Bukhari and Moslim are the authentic words and teachings of prophet Muhammad?
Do you know why Scholars claim these hadith are authentic?
Do scholars claim a hadith is genuine if the chain of narrators (over 1400 years ago) all had a good character (were perfectly honest & had infallible memory)
How do scholars claim a hadith is genuine?
How can scholars prove hadith narrators had a good character?
Is believing in Hadith a form of "blind faith"?
Do you believe in blind faith?
Do you believe the Qur'an is the un-corrupted word of God?
Does the Qur'an say you should believe in blind faith?

And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying (out of ignorance, conjecture and assumption). )(Quran, 6:116)

Does the Qur'an say anything about believing in any other literature other than the Qur'an?

"We have permitted the enemies of every prophet human and jinn devils to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications." 6:112

"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognise that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbour any doubt.
The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient." 6:114-115

"This is to let the minds of those who do not believe in the Hereafter listen to such fabrications, and accept them, and thus expose their real convictions." 6:113

Would Bukhari & Moslim Hadiths be classified as literature other than the Qur'an?
Do scholars agree the Prophet prohibited hadith to be written during his life time other than the Qur'an?

"Do not write down anything of me except the Quran. Whoever writes other than that should delete it" (Ahmed, Vol. 1, page 171.....also Sahih Muslim )

Is the Sunnah of Mohammed mentioned in the Qur'an?
Can you show just one verse where the Sunnah of Mohammed is mentioned in the Qur'an?
Was the writing of hadith prohibited for the first 200 years after the death of the Prophet (historically)
Do you think it's possible it was prohibited because the prophet prohibited it?
After answering all the questions do you think a Muslim can still be a Muslim by only following the Qur'an & not Bukhari's/Moslem's Hadiths or a combination of both is required for you to be a True Muslim?

Thanks for reading.

Please post your answers below.

Regards,

Shane

[MG Man]

Given the current state of the concepts of mass energy and entropy, we know the universe has a cause as it points to itself being created. Things seem explainable on the surface, the more science digs into the foundation of existence, the constants and checks that must exist become impossible to fathom. God by definition exists outside of time as well as the physical universe. Uncreated, eternal and everlasting.

do you know what a quible-flabble is?
a quibble-flabble by definition, is a lilac coloured furry condensed-milk tin that dances to Bethoven's 5th Symphony 347 feet below the magnetic north pole of the planet Zeitgeist in the Quarillion star cluster

Does that mean a quibble-flabble is real? It has a definition, so by your logic, surely it must be real, yeah?

[meccalli]

Now re-word this without using any metaphors and I'll help you see where your unsupported assumptions come from. It makes no sense to argue with you until you understand what you are talking about.

You can't, there is no support in the scientific realm to explain that which they cannot see. Only theories that grow more ridiculous every time they make a discovery that dumbfounds the foundational laws. It's words-philosophy and theory, much more metaphors and literary devices than substantiated evidence.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/132932268 ... -may-exist

[meccalli]

do you know what a quible-flabble is?
a quibble-flabble by definition, is a lilac coloured furry condensed-milk tin that dances to Bethoven's 5th Symphony 347 feet below the magnetic north pole of the planet Zeitgeist in the Quarillion star cluster

Does that mean a quibble-flabble is real? It has a definition, so by your logic, surely it must be real, yeah?

That's reasonable you know. Imagine if multiverse and parallel dimensions are real, somewhere out there, you're quoting me scripture and I'm being a moron conjuring up quibble flabbles.

[Slartibartfast]

Now re-word this without using any metaphors and I'll help you see where your unsupported assumptions come from. It makes no sense to argue with you until you understand what you are talking about.

You can't, there is no support in the scientific realm to explain that which they cannot see. Only theories that grow more ridiculous every time they make a discovery that dumbfounds the foundational laws. It's words-philosophy and theory, much more metaphors and literary devices than substantiated evidence.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/132932268 ... -may-exist

You do realise that you are saying that you do not understand what you are saying well enough to properly state what you mean right? This is why I cannot argue with you. You must first understand what you are talking about.

[meccalli]

Then I guess so. Mg you should think about publishing work on quibble flabbles. It could revolutionize science.

[Slartibartfast]

More importantly it could revolutionise condensed milk!

[Habit7]

You showed that by assuming that it pointed to an intelligent creator (i.e. your reasoning is circular... like this argument has become)

Sure thing buddy. You are free to believe that the bible is 100% correct when it talks about me. Make sure it mentions me by name (Slarti is fine though)

I was showing it can easily be seen what science has contributed to our world. As for the origin of man, there are theories (previously discussed right here in length) with work being done by scientists to overcome the current limitations of said theories.

Oh so now you are assuming that an intelligent being exists and he doesn't want to show himself? How convenient.

You clearly have nothing to back up your assumptions so I'll suspend this argument until you do (just one example... just one is all you need). I am only claiming absolute knowledge so that you can easily disprove me.

Systems that are regulated points to an intelligent mind creating them. The world is regulated. The regulated world points to points to an intelligent creator.
Please show how my premise relies on its conclusion (circular logic). Furthermore, state how a regulated world can come about without an intelligent mind.

The Bible doesn't mention you in specific but it refers to you in general as one who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (see below).

Again science is only possible in the regulated world that the theist points to. Atheism points to an unregulated world where somehow order comes from chaos, with a faith that somehow science would resolve that this could happen although it disagrees with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I lack that faith.

I don't know why you are making an issue of assuming. In the very first words on this page you are assuming what the law of causality is, and you where wrong. God isn't hiding Himself, He is ironically making Himself very evident in the science you are appealing to, that very science which has dead ends pointing back to him. You but put your faith in your self-creation and that those dead ends could just go a little further, however they will always point back to Him.

I feel sad for your irrationality, furthermore how much you exemplify God's object of wrath

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Romans 1:18-23

[Slartibartfast]

Systems that are regulated points to an intelligent mind creating them. The world is regulated. The regulated world points to points to an intelligent creator.
Please show how my premise relies on its conclusion (circular logic).

What of the possibility that this was not the first universe created? What if countless universes were created before. However, of all the universes ever created, this is the first universe to have to environmental and atomic constants needed to allow it to be what it is today. (Eg. suppose gravitational forces were extremely small to the point of non-existence, then atoms would not clump together to form stars or planets and life would not thrive. Now suppose gravitational forces were so large that each atom would collapse on itself and life would not survive). It is not impossible that many universes have come before and many may come afterwards. With this theory it is purely by chance that a universe conducive to life developed. When the number of events approaches infinity, the probability of any event happening approaches one.

The event in this case is the production of a universe in which environmental and atomic constants naturally lead to certain kinds of order being developed, from which the laws of nature can be derived.

You see, this is just one example that explains how a "regulated" universe can come out without the input of an intelligent being. The fact that just one example exists means that your premise "systems that are regulated [always] point to an intelligent mind creating them" is false, ergo, your argument is invalid.

This theory cannot be disproved by science. However, it cannot be proven by science either. That is why I do not use it in my arguments (except in this case to show that there are alternatives to prove your axiom wrong).

EDIT: By "created" I mean "to come into being". I just used that word to keep my writing concise. I was not implying an intelligent creator of any kind.

[Slartibartfast]

The Bible doesn't mention you in specific but it refers to you in general as one who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (see below).

Fine. Does it at least mention my last name. I'll accept that it talking about me in general if it mentions Trinis at least.

[Habit7]

Systems that are regulated points to an intelligent mind creating them. The world is regulated. The regulated world points to points to an intelligent creator.
Please show how my premise relies on its conclusion (circular logic).

What of the possibility that this was not the first universe created?

Firstly, you didnt show my logic as circular.

Secondly you are punting to a multiverse, which doesn't account for the laws which govern a regulated world, it just explains how we might happen to live in one. Nevertheless, if we live in that universe among other universe, that universe in which we resulted from a random fine tuning of multiple laws, in which life occurred by a succession of chance events, if we live in such a world of astronomical probability, why don't see actions of lesser astronomical probability occurring? Why dont we get a perpetual motion machine, a pin falling on its point and standing or a total extinction event in the millions of years of our existence? If we are the result of a such chance occurrence, shouldn't lesser chance occurrence happen more often?

Furthermore why would life happen after such a long succession of chance occurrences. If life had to occur it would have to be after a few occurrences, start adding more and more the chance for life to occur become less and less to a point were even if it occurs it is doom to fail very shortly.

We have no evidence of a multiverse, nevertheless it still points to an uncaused cause to branch out multiverses anyway. You are not resolving the issue you are just complicating it. Even so if we are placed in this fined tuned universe amongst the others, even more so we have to account for the obvious intelligent mind that designed our existence.

[meccalli]

If you accept multiverse, you accept an infinite amount of universes, each possibly existing with laws contrary to our own and an infinite amount of life supporting ones as well as parallel universes. If you're not up to date, m theory and multiverse reality is the only supporting theory for big bang to exist as a collision of pulsating membranes of adjacent universes ever since science couldn't accept the fact that subatomic particles seem to be omnipresent.

[Slartibartfast]

Firstly, you didnt show my logic as circular.You re-worded it and fixed it so your start from an incorrect premise instead of having a circular argument. So congrats on moving up from an irrelevant argument to a disprovable one.

Secondly you are punting to a multiverse, which doesn't account for the laws which govern a regulated world,Laws are laws. Can you show me existence without any laws? The fact that these laws happen to promoted certain kinds of order can be just by chance. it just explains how we might happen to live in one. Nevertheless, if we live in that universe among other universe, that universe in which we resulted from a random fine tuning of multiple laws, in which life occurred by a succession of chance events, if we live in such a world of astronomical probability, why don't see actions of lesser astronomical probability occurring? Why dont we get a perpetual motion machine,It cannot exist in this universe but science cannot disprove that it does not exist in another universe of past or future a pin falling on its point and standing or a total extinction event in the millions of years of our existence? If we are the result of a such chance occurrence, shouldn't lesser chance occurrence happen more often?No. They should happen more and more with time being infinite but the time between successive occurrences would not be reduced.

Furthermore why would life happen after such a long succession of chance occurrences.Why wouldn't it. It can happen immediately or only at the end of the timeline of the last universe. That is what random chance means. If life had to occur it would have to be after a few occurrences, start adding more and more the chance for life to occur become less and less to a point were even if it occurs it is doom to fail very shortly.Again, random means it can occur at anytime. The increase in probability is due to the increase in sample size (universes and time) and frequency would therefore remain unaffected.

We have no evidence of a multiverse, nevertheless it still points to an uncaused cause to branch out multiverses anyway.Only because you cannot imagine existence without the concept of time. Or who is to say that time is not an infinite loop and therefore we have all always been. You are not resolving the issue you are just complicating itMerely showing that there is more than one possibility. Even so if we are placed in this fined tuned universe amongst the others, even more so we have to account for the obvious intelligent mind that designed our existence.<---- And how does it "obviously point to an intelligent mind? I just illustrated where a regulated system can come into being without an intelligent designer which means your premise is now false and must be proven.

Your Premise (Correct me if I am wrong)
a intelligent mind is needed to create a regulated system, ergo, every regulated system points to an intelligent creator. The universe being a seemingly regulated system therefore points to an intelligent creator.

My Premise
A seemingly ordered or regulated system is a natural permutation of any system.

My Premise used to disprove your premise
Any system that is allowed enough time/chance to pass through an infinite amount of permutations (i.e. infinite occurrences) will eventually wind up in a permutation that looks like it was purposefully regulated/ordered (i.e. probability becomes one).

Note that he frequency of the occurrence is not affected.

There, I could not have made it less complicated for you. It's so simple, people from 2000 years ago could understand it.

[Slartibartfast]

If you accept multiverse, you accept an infinite amount of universes, each possibly existing with laws contrary to our own and an infinite amount of life supporting ones as well as parallel universes. If you're not up to date, m theory and multiverse reality is the only supporting theory for big bang to exist as a collision of pulsating membranes of adjacent universes ever since science couldn't accept the fact that subatomic particles seem to be omnipresent.

You really need to re-read a couple times before posting. It doesn't matter what I accept. All that is needed is an alternative to Habit's premise to prove that it is not an absolute truth and can therefore not be used as a premise for his arguments.

Again, as far as I know, this is not accepted science as yet because it cannot be proven. However, it has not been disproved either so Habit will need to disprove it before he can carry on.

[meccalli]

Multiverse came up, it's relevant information to the discussion.

[Habit7]

Quote me before I reworded and show my circular reasoning.

Again, as far as I know, this is not accepted science as yet because it cannot be proven. However, it has not been disproved either so Habit will need to disprove it before he can carry on.

If it is not proven in science yet how can it be an alternative? We observe a regulated, fined-tuned world, we know that because of the second law of thermodynamics this cannot occur naturally. Regulated, fined-tuned systems only occurs when designed by intelligent minds.

You are the one who has to produce an empirical means otherwise, that is what you have faith in. Referencing the multiverse is no different than referencing Interstellar or the Matrix, it is fiction.