> So are you suggesting that the other things that science justifies are themselves justification for a belief in a god?

No, I'm not suggesting that. Normal cause-and-effect are a different matter than cosmology and the broad observation of components of the universe that beg for a more complete explanation than science can give.

> Is this part of why you believe he exists? What evidence for any of this do you have that science doesn't?

Not really, and since this is your second item of misunderstanding in just a few short paragraphs, I'm guessing your mind is on a completely different plane and closed to what I'm talking about. You obviously don't understand what I'm talking about, or possibly you're making assumptions that aren't accurate.

There are about a dozen reasons why I ~~believe~~ know God exists. The multiple dozen examples of fine tuning is one of them. I don't just assume a creator and then try to fit everything into that template. Instead, I follow the evidence where it leads and infer the most reasonable conclusion, which points to theism.

> I prefer a specific answer that can be fact checked.

Theism is abductive reasoning, not deductive. There are certain parts of science that can't be fact-checked either (our notions about dark matter, about black holes, about multiverses, etc.). Even this article from Nova (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/) questions the whole axiom of fact-checking and falsifiability.

Fact-checking is beneficial in many scientific arenas, but not all. And it has little place in other disciplines. The Supreme Court is deciding about whether certain situations violate certain rights. That's not an issue of "fact-checking" at all. There are many such things. The idea that God is involved in many aspects of the natural world can't be fact-checked because science has limited reach that doesn't extend into the metaphysical or supernatural. If, for the sake of argument, there is such a thing as supernatural realities, I would have no expectation that they are measurable by science. I fear that if you are limited your knowledge to what can be fact-checked, you won't even believe if your friend tells you he doesn't feel well or that he had a headache last night. My mind isn't so small as to believe only things that can be fact-checked.

Here's a challenge for you. Take your sentence "I prefer a specific answer that can be fact checked" and submit it to scientific experiment. You can't even fact-check your own position, because any answer you give is anecdotal, not scientifically verifiable. Your own position is self-defeating.

> Who was it that couldn't figure out the complex math of orbiting bodies oin our solar system and famously gave up and said god did it?

No clue, and this doesn't pertain to our conversation. Even just two months ago Dr. Fauci said "We're going to have millions of cases" of Covid in the U.S. Lots of people say lots of things. What does this have to do with our conversation?

> But if you are ever more concerned with the truth, rather than a belief, maybe you'll ask yourself why you're defending this belief, over following the evidence.

I'm not believing in God over the evidence; instead, the evidence is motivating me to infer theism as the most rational explanation of the data.

> But I would point out that many of your answers feel like a defense of a belief, rather than a critical evaluation of the question. That's your prerogative.

What's the difference between defending my belief and responding to your attacks of my positions? How can I evaluate and respond to your attacks and not simultaneously be accused of defending? Instead, in answer to the OP's search, I gave a rational position. After giving that, my position was attacked and so I defended it. Why does that disqualify me for being a critical evaluator? That doesn't make sense. I staked out a position and I am defending it. That's what people are expected to do in debates. So don't accuse me "feels like you're defending rather than a critical evaluation of the question." That's not fair or legitimate at all.

> No, it doesn't. There isn't a single scientific theory that mentions a creator.

HA! You really made me laugh with this one. I never said a "scientific theory" mentions a creator. That's hysterical. Of course they don't. Any scientific theory that said "the answer is a creator" would no longer be science. The natural world is the object of science's studies, not the supernatural world. The best science can do when it reaches the end of its range is to say, "We can't explain this," and that's fine. But any scientist who says "God is the explanation" is no longer doing science.

> Everything you believe about your god can be attributed to fairies, magic, or other gods. That is not science.

Now you're just being derogatory and insulting. We've had a better conversation than this, and this is undeserved. We've been talking about science for multiple exchanges. We've been talking about scientific evidence, logical positions, and reasoning to a conclusion. Now suddenly you toss in fairies and magic? That's a red herring if ever I saw one. One could possibly surmise that someone would only resort to such drivel if one knew their position was under assault by a stronger case.

I never claimed theology was science. I never claimed metaphysics was science. I never claimed the supernatural was a legitimate scientific pursuit. Of course such things are not science. Science has its field. Jurisprudence isn't science, either. Nor is historiography. Nor is examining and interpreting Shakespeare or Picasso. Lots of things aren't science. As fantastic as science is, it is not the only source of knowledge. I am not at all interested to limit the ways of obtaining knowledge to those that I call scientific.

> I obviously don't understand. The OP wrote to Christians asking about a creator. Isn't it more accurate to say that OP was asking me to justify a theistic answer? And when I do, you accuse me of adding theism. How can I add it if theism is explicit in the question and necessary, therefore, in the answer.

You were justifying a few things using science. Then you added a god or theism without that justification.

So are you suggesting that the other things that science justifies are themselves justification for a belief in a god?

> Created. God created the heavens and the Earth. He used natural means perceivable by science as His mechanism.

Is this part of why you believe he exists? What evidence for any of this do you have that science doesn't?

> Everywhere. God is continually involved.

I prefer a specific answer that can be fact checked. This answer seems intentionally vague as to defend a belief. Going forward, just keep in mind that I'm asking questions that could lead me to some kind of evidence. Vague glib answers don't help.

Where specifically, does your god interact with our natural reality? One single example please. Or if you don't believe because of good evidence, just say that so I don't keep asking.

> It doesn't depart from science, it's instead a realm where science cannot go.

It does if you're claiming this god created everything. The interactions in our reality, that you said are everywhere, the beginning of the universe, those aren't in another realm.

I asked:

>> Where does your creator interact with our natural reality? Those are the places where you're making a conclusion about a creator, which departs from science.
> If any scientist concluded, "God did it," he or she would no longer be doing science, but theology.

That's true, unless they also discover a god that could have done it. Then they're still doing science because now a god has been found to exist and has explanatory power in the natural world. But everywhere someone has said "god did it" before having discovered an actual god, we have since found the true, natural, explanation for how it got did.

Who was it that couldn't figure out the complex math of orbiting bodies oin our solar system and famously gave up and said god did it?

> I haven't heard an epistemological question from you. I haven't been dodging;

Ok. Fine. But if you are ever more concerned with the truth, rather than a belief, maybe you'll ask yourself why you're defending this belief, over following the evidence.

> I'd be glad to answer it. Give it to me.

That's fine. I don't need to repeat myself. I don't expect you to not repeat your answers. But I would point out that many of your answers feel like a defense of a belief, rather than a critical evaluation of the question. That's your prerogative.

>> Except the science doesn't lead to a creator.
> Of course it does, because it leads us outside of science to a metaphysical answer.

No, it doesn't. There isn't a single scientific theory that mentions a creator. Everything you believe about your god can be attributed to fairies, magic, or other gods. That is not science.

This has been a good conversation, and I thank you for it. I appreciate the respectful back and forth we've had. I'm of the opinion that we could go back and forth dozens of more times, each expressing our views but not making any significant progress on the issue. To that end, I think I'll let the conversation end. I definitely have responses to what you've said, but I don't want to be the person who just wants to get in the last word and then close the conversation down. I'll let you have the last word (this post to which I'm responding) and thank you for good dialogue. May we meet again in dialogue in the near future.

This is becoming somewhat long and repetitive so for that sake I shall answer a few specific points here. Firstly, my point was that an emotional argument lacks substance. Human emotion, personality, intelligence, lacking extrinsic meaning is not evidence against naturalistic explanations. It might be a consequence of them, but it might just be that those things don't have extrinsic meaning.

Again, on personality, we have animals. We can clearly see chains of complexity and emotional response ranging from most simple to most complex. Evolution is a natural explanation for personality and "human-ness". While behaviorally modern humans, capable of abstract thought, do many things that aren't clearly evolutionarily beneficial, our cultural abilities are clearly well adapted to our environment. Behavioral modernity corresponded with a massive increase in the population of anatomically modern humans. There is no reason that evolutionary theory isn't a sufficient explanation for humans in particulair. For the general principle of impersonal forces shaping our world, we can turn to a multitude of scientific theories with varying level of evidence and see explanations arising as to how things are shaped, from understanding how mountains formed to where protons come from. Our explanations are incomplete, that's the bargain of science, you trade certainty in what you know for an ever improving but remarkably robust and useful picture of the world. In the specific there are things we don't know, but I see no indication naturalistic empiricism is not fit for the task of explaining them considering the progress that's been made.

On language, we seem to have hit at a fundamental agreement. "it is impossible that the meaning of language has a material cause", why? The assertion that the non-material cannot arise from the material doesn't seem to have any basis. In the case of meaning specifically I would argue the only examples of meaning we can point to all seem to have arisen from material systems. Language does not exist outside of the brain, at least not as something meaningful. The brain can be connected to language by studies of brain damage in language-linked parts of the brain, charting human brain development alongside linguistic development, and by neural scans of the functioning of the brain during linguistic tasks. Again, neuroscience is a complicated field that is still developing, but we have pretty clear indications that the brain is doing work in regards to language. Sure "atoms" can't give meaning to language if we reductively examine them individually, but the only things that have ever been able to generate meaning and language have been physical things, made of atoms. And not only humans. Again, monkeys are capable of having different alarm cries for different animals, and have been shown to be capable of using them deceptively. Ie they understand that others in the group respond to the alarm calls in a specific way and can give them even when they aren't confronted with the thing the alarm call symbolizes. Unless you have some evidence that language is not something produced by the brain, then what we've observed studying it seems to strongly indicate that meaning does originate from the material. Sure, studying chemistry wouldn't meaningfully allow you to infer it, but neither would studying the behavior of a drop of water allow you to predict the ocean. That doesn't mean we conclude that the ocean isn't made of water.

> You don't seem to be grasping the odds of probability here. With enough instances, even the most unlikely things are bound to happen.

When probability approaches zero, it ceases to be meaningful in our context. For instance, if we just use abiogenesis as one example among hundreds. Since there are 20 amino acids that have to be present in a correct order for the replication of biomolecules, the probability of getting the first one right is 1 in 20. Duh. The probability of getting the second one correct after the first one is (1/20)^2. The shortest functional protein reported to date has 20 amino acids in sequence, while most have 100 or more. If we choose a median number (say, 50), we get (1/20)^50, equal to 10^-65, an infinitesimally small probability.

If we take our probability estimate to the next phase, we recognize that a single functional protein is not likely to be biofunctional. That is, it would take more than one biomolecule to carry out life-sustaining processes. How many would we need? The best estimates are a minimum of 250. Taking this number as our protein count, for all of them to occur together, we will make the outlandish assumption that they are all relatively short (50 amino acids). Thus our probability to have a working cell appear in the primordial soup using this rather conservative approach would be (10^-65)^250. That number comes to around 10^-16300. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, through their own calculations using their own particulars, arrived at 10^-40000. The bottom line is that the such a small probability "could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." If these calculations are even remotely accurate, abiogenesis is a hopeless cause.

Now that's just abiogenesis. But if we add in the probabilities for protons to neutrons ratio, the force of gravity, the speed of light, and dozens of other cosmological constants, what we have is a "probability" equation that isn't probable at all. We cannot safely say, "Hey, eventually it would happen." And we ESPECIALLY can't say that if we have only 13.5 billion years to play with. You just can't claim certainty with confidence.

> It's essentially a hypothesis, an explanation that fits existing data but ought to be tested

Fits the existing data? I am very skeptical about this claim. There is no data. It's a speculative hypothesis.

> The argument that intelligence must come from intelligence seems nonsensical to me.

Science cannot give a single example of information data that did not come from previous informational data. Even the most popular scenario—the RNA world—defies logical probabilities. It is full of biological scientific imagination and nightmarish obstacles.

Scientists admit the implausibility of the emergence of an RNA replicator from a soup of polynucleotides by a purely random process. Joyce and Orgel believe that the [i]de novo[/i] appearance of oligonucleotides on the abiotic Earth would have been a near miracle.

And, again, that's just one factor. When we put it all together, we have to admit, "Something more is going on here."

And then you talk about lightning and gravity, neither of which are examples of informational data.

> So why should it be surprising that intelligence arose from the evolution of greater complexity in the brain

Because science can't bridge that progression. It's a god-of-the-gaps argument.

> But what does inserting God do here?

Inserting God here yields the Principle of Sufficient Explanation. Science can give only a partial and hypothetic explanation; theism can give a sufficient one.

> Just because we don't know what led to abiogenesis doesn't mean any explanation is valid.

Agreed. It certainly doesn't lead us a flying spaghetti monster.

> Firstly, something being disappointing to you is not an argument for it being wrong.

Agreed. That's why my case was not built on an emotional response.

> why does personality need to be an illusion, as opposed to it merely being what it appears to be?

I explained. But I'll go at it again for you with a fuller explanation. Again, theism has sufficiency of explanation where science does not (as fantastic as science is).

There were only three possible basic answers to the personality, personalness, "humanness" of us: (I credit Francis Schaeffer for these thoughts, just to be circumspect)

ONE. Everything that exists has come out of absolutely nothing: Nothing nothing: no energy, no mass, no motion, no personality. You must not let anybody say he is giving an answer beginning with nothing and then really begin with something: energy, mass, motion, or personality. That would be something, and something is not nothing. But it is unthinkable that all that now is has come out of utter nothing nothing. There is nothing possible about this alternative.

TWO. Everything that exists had an impersonal beginning (such as mass, energy, or motion, but they are all impersonal, and all equally impersonal). As soon as you accept the impersonal beginning of all things, you are faced with some form of reductionism, which argues that everything there is now is finally to be understood by reducing it to the original, impersonal factor or factors.

The great problem with beginning with the impersonal is to find any meaning for the particulars. A particular is any individual factor, any individual things—the separate parts of the whole. A drop of water is a particular, and so is a human. If we begin with the impersonal, then how do any of the particulars that now exist, including humans, have any meaning, any significance? Nobody has given an answer to that.

Beginning with the impersonal, everything, including humans, must be explained in terms of the impersonal plus time plus chance. There are no other factors in the formula, because there are no other factors that exist. If we begin with an impersonal, we cannot then have some form of teleological concept. No one has ever demonstrated how time plus chance, beginning with an impersonal, can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the personality of man.

There are two problems that always exist: the need for unity and the need for diversity. Beginning with the impersonal gives an answer for the need for unity, but it gives none for the needed diversity. If it begins with energy, it ends with energy. Morals have no meaning as morals, for all is energy, then. But beginning with an impersonal, there are no true answers in regard to existence with its complexity, or the personality of man.

If we begin with less than personality, we must finally reduce personality to the impersonal. The modern scientific world does this in it reductionism, in which the word personality is only the impersonal plus complexity.

THREE. Everything that exists had a personal beginning. That which is personal began everything else. In this case man, being personal, does have meaning. This is not abstract. It gives a legitimate answer to humanity’s aspiration for personality.

The third choice is the one that has the most coherence and the best explanatory power.

> Language is still marvelous and fascinating.

It is. Language is another attack at the same issue, though not a scientific thread to theism. It's more logical and philosophical. This argument comes from the writings of John Baumgarder and Jeremy Lyon. If you're interested, its basic premise is that the meaning in language can only come from an intelligent source. The argument goes as follows.

1. Language is effective only if it is endowed with meaning. It can only be understood as we assign meaning to otherwise meaningless sounds or symbols. Not only do individual words have abstract meaning, but also the sequences and combinations of words can yield greater meanings.

2. Meaning is non-material; it is neither matter nor energy. The essence of meaning is entirely distinct from both energy and matter. Therefore linguistic expressions are also non-material. A bodily thing such as a dog is different from the word "dog."

3. Language therefore demands a non-material source, since it is impossible that the meaning of language has a material cause. Material causes are incapable of generating non-material effects. The laws of chemistry and physics offer no clue whatsoever that matter can assign meaning or otherwise deal with meaning at even the most rudimentary level. Atoms cannot assign meaning to meaningless symbols to form a vocabulary or to give meaning to vocabulary. Sub-point A: Mathematics is a language, and math has no material source; sub-point B. The laws of nature themselves are non-material.

4. Language therefore demonstrates that we as humans possess non-material attributes. We not only form language and attribute meaning to it, we even create our own languages (such as computer languages). Our language ability demonstrates that we possess obvious and profound significant non-material capacities within ourselves.

5. Therefore, since material causes cannot account for linguistic phenomena, the most plausible explanation for the linguistic content of DNA is an entity with mental faculties qualitatively similar to our own, but vastly superior.

6. We can reasonably conclude the possibility that God exists.

> And I don't find Christianity's purpose for us particularly fulfilling

An emotional argument really doesn't have any substance. What you find fulfilling has no pertinence to truth.

> I don't think you've convincingly demonstrated that theism is anything but a series of logical leaps to fill in gaps with anthropomorphic shapes

Of course you don't. This is no surprise.

You don't seem to be grasping the odds of probability here. With enough instances, even the most unlikely things are bound to happen. Even if we accept your assertions that the universe is very unlikely to exhibit the traits it does that allow life to exist, given enough instances it is inevitable one universe would show those traits and that universe would be the one in which we are able to have this conversation. Of course there isn't evidence at the moment for multiverse theory. It's essentially a hypothesis, an explanation that fits existing data but ought to be tested. But my point is that if we are demanding some kind of explanation, multiverse theory seems a far better explanation that invoking theism, with equal amounts of empirical evidence for its existence (more if you invoke the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics as weak evidence.)

The argument that intelligence must come from intelligence seems nonsensical to me. The universe is full of things that develop from complex interactions between systems. Lightning results from friction generated in clouds. Fusion power results from gravity compressing fusible material into intensely tight spaces. With intelligence, again, we see a whole broad scope of simpler forms of intelligence that easily leads us down the path of intelligence developing from less complex to more. From instinctual response to stimuli to more complex ability to adapt to different environments. We can see different creatures exhibit links in this grand chain. So why should it be surprising that intelligence arose from the evolution of greater complexity in the brain (or, to start with, the evolution of the brain over something like a jelly fish or a mold colony)? Arbitrarily looking at the things humans find important or special about ourselves and concluding that the origin of the universe shared those things with us when naturalistic explanations are well developed and continuing to improve in resolution is not reasonable. Especially when the claim is so indirectly linked to the evidence. Intelligence comes from intelligence is the initial evidence, but every time we've observed that it's been directly, reproduction. Then claiming intelligence must have another intelligence to come into being at the end of a complex billions of years long process that involves the origins of atoms in the universe, galaxy formation, and the chemical properties of water seems poorly connected. The evidence for intelligence arising from intelligence (reproduction) does not lead to thinking that all things that led to intelligence must have originally began by intelligence. As for abiogenesis, it's not evolution. It's a separate question, evolutionary theory is well tooled to deal with how life adapts via genetic mutation and selection. We have some suggestions, but it's still an evolving field. But what does inserting God do here? For one the argument has been that God fine tuned the world in order for life to be able to arise within it, evoking him in the processes within that universe seems to be a leap to take. And would to some degree seem to counter the fine-tuning argument (the universe is fine tuned for life to arise, but life still couldn't arise naturally). And ultimately this is an argument from ignorance. Just because we don't know what led to abiogenesis doesn't mean any explanation is valid.

On personality love etc. Firstly, something being disappointing to you is not an argument for it being wrong. If I said that an all-knowing God willing to communicate with us renders the human quest for knowledge and understanding of the universe less meaningful, you would not see that as an argument against God existing.But besides that, why does personality need to be an illusion, as opposed to it merely being what it appears to be? Personality is the result of humans being emotional, social, cultural, intelligent creatures with different traits that are very sensitive to social situations and have a whole panoply of emotions designed to encourage social behaviour. I'd ask how it is that personality could not arise from the mind, considering physical things that affect the mind can affect it. Diseases, physical brain damage, drugs or other chemicals, all these things can change core features of what I'd consider personality. And again we see weaker analogues for the things that make up human personality in other animals. Emotional and social tendencies, individual traits, social behavior, etc. It's distinct, but humans are something of a cutting edge in many mental things, which makes sense. Again, we've entered my field now, and speaking as someone whose spoken with people asking questions of how language evolved, or where modern human behaviors arose, or how human emotions (from love to things like shame and jealousy) arose, understanding doesn't lessen the meaning. Love still feels like love. Language is still marvelous and fascinating. We don't have some grant singular purpose for which we were made, but isn't that better? I'd prefer to find meaning in things rather than have been created to fulfill some goal of some other being. And I don't find Christianity's purpose for us particularly fulfilling, I don't see how a naturalistic universe is either unlikely or someone emotionally negative.

I don't think you've convincingly demonstrated that theism is anything but a series of logical leaps to fill in gaps with anthropomorphic shapes, as humans have tended to do since time immemorial. I'd argue a naturalistic universe still seems more likely and logically requires less leaps than establishing eternal and personal creators outside the universe. And that theism doesn't seem logical or evidentiary, less so than belief in multiverse theory for example (which itself is non-evidentiary). As for questions, I'm trying to fill gaps or assertions I feel you've left and bring connections to ideas that seem unconnected to me. I'm not asking you something unrelated, like how you'd reconcile the Muslim arguments for the necessity of Tawhid in a divine being. I'm asking about things you are asserting, to explain why your views are preferable to established naturalistic explanations for all these things or how you think the mechanism you are proposing works.

> I get that. But you've added theism.

I obviously don't understand. The OP wrote to Christians asking about a creator. Isn't it more accurate to say that OP was asking me to justify a theistic answer? And when I do, you accuse me of adding theism. How can I add it if theism is explicit in the question and necessary, therefore, in the answer.

> And what do you assert this god has done that is in the realm of science?

Created. God created the heavens and the Earth. He used natural means perceivable by science as His mechanism.

> Where does your god interact with our natural reality?

Everywhere. God is continually involved.

> which departs from science.

It doesn't depart from science, it's instead a realm where science cannot go. If any scientist concluded, "God did it," he or she would no longer be doing science, but theology. Science can only operate in science's arena, which is observations about the natural world. Then it hits a wall. The supernatural can be part of the natural world, but science can't detect it or you're no longer doing science. You've stepped through a door where science can't go.

> If you're going to side step the spirit of my question so you can avoiding answering it, when I'm asking about your epistemology, then it seems tenuous at best that your belief in a god is truly based on good evidence, rather than something else.

I haven't heard an epistemological question from you. I haven't been dodging; you haven't asked. I'd be glad to answer it. Give it to me.

> Except the science doesn't lead to a creator.

Of course it does, because it leads us outside of science to a metaphysical answer. Dr. Evandro Agazzi, President of the International Academy of Philosophy and Science in Brussels, wrote a paper about ontology. He just said that in the realm of science we will make flat statements that we know the world exists, yet the same person would say they *believe* God exists. Why should we use different wording? He says it goes back to a principle of authority. Our view of science as an authority causes us to talk about material things as existent, but non-material things as simply our opinions or beliefs. Yet the moral law within us exists just as surely as the stars in the heavens (reflecting with Kant). He says that space is filled with places that have a particular purpose and therefore they exist—they are impregnated with meaning that differentiates each place from the other. There is material homogeneity (made up of atoms, molecules), but not homogeneity of purpose or role. He then moved to the issue of time. Time also has places, and in time we have distinct events that each has its own purpose. Special events have no homogeneity—each is unique as it exists in a moment in time. In space and time the distinctive places that exist are identified in relative terms. They all exist relative to the person. In time, you cannot speak about the present unless there is a subject who says "now." So, in the same way, time is relative to us. Present, past and future do not exist in Physics (he says, and he is convincing); they exist in our experience only in relation to us. Heaven, earth and time all have a religious sense and a personal sense—and that is why they really exist. Principles of Physics are delimited for the sake of objectivity. It cannot and does not cover the whole of reality. Metaphysics have always existed alongside of Physics and are needed to fill in the totality of reality. Never in history were these things seen as in opposition. Humans always seek to give sense and value to their life. Belief and knowledge together make up the totality of reality; science cannot have ultimate authority because it is only one slice of reality. He propounds an "operational ontology."

Science can lead us to the metaphysical, but it can't take us in. We need other disciplines of truth to take us in. Science leads us to the place where we can say with confidence that the causal mechanism of the universe was a powerful source outside of the natural world, i.e., a potential creator. Science can't answer the questions of consciousness, personality, and intelligence, and so leads us to a place where reasoning leads us to a potential creator who is conscious, personal, and intelligent. Science can't answer the questions of purpose and design in the universe and leads us to search for a teleological answer, i.e., a potential creator. Frankly, a creator has more evidentiary stability and is more in line with Occam's Razor than science.

Again, Plantinga: "There is deep concord between science and theistic belief; science fits much better with theism than with naturalism. Turning to naturalism, there is superficial concord between science and naturalism, if only because it is claimed—but they are mistaken. One can’t rationally accept both naturalism and current evolutionary theory. Both naturalism and evolution are self-defeating. There is deep conflict between naturalism and one of the most important claims of current science. There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic belief, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism. ... That’s where the conflict really lies."

> Theism automatically adds a G(g)od.

I get that. But you've added theism. And what do you assert this god has done that is in the realm of science? The creation of the universe perhaps? Miracles perhaps? Where does your god interact with our natural reality? Those are the places where you're making a conclusion about a god, which departs from science.

If you're going to side step the spirit of my question so you can avoiding answering it, when I'm asking about your epistemology, then it seems tenuous at best that your belief in a god is truly based on good evidence, rather than something else.

Yeah, you keep dodging. Creator/god, same thing. Sigh. Fine. ..

But you've added a creator, and what do you assert this creator has done that is in the realm of science? The creation of the universe perhaps? Where does your creator interact with our natural reality? Those are the places where you're making a conclusion about a creator, which departs from science.

>>what do you assert this creator has done that is in the realm of science?
> What I am asserting is that there is enough evidence for me to believe in the existence of a creator. That's what the discussion is about. And it is an examination of science and the evidence in the natural world that leads me to infer this conclusion as reasonable.

Except the science doesn't lead to a creator. This is one place where you are departing from science. Please explain how you can say you're going on the science, when you're making claims that is not science.

Since the rest of my questions are not about a creator and your god and creator don't share the same evidence, I'll skip the rest.

> Multiverse theory seems to me to have far higher prior probability than a complex intelligent being existing outside of time.

The problem with this is that you cannot claim it's a "probability" when there is zero evidence for it. The theory is 100% speculative, and based on nothing. You might claim possibility, but even that is stretching it. At this point the best you can claim is "theory without support."

> And our particulair universe existing doesn't require any special explanation.

I couldn't disagree more. The screams for an explanation. Your explanation is that we happen to be in a lottery-winning universe out of all the multiplicity of universes out there. But it's still puzzling that the values of our universes should have been exactly what they are, and this fact cries out for an explanation. It is no explanation at all to point out that these constants have to be fine-tuned for us to observe they are fine-tuned, any more than I can "explain" the fact that God decided to create me by pointing out that if God had not decided that or created the way He did, I wouldn't be here to raise the question. You wouldn't accept that explanation from me, which means your argument doesn't carry, either. The rejection of the latter argument requires the rejection of the former.

Plantinga explains it like this. Suppose I am convicted of treason and sentenced to be shot. I am placed next to a wall, and 8 sharpshooters take aim and fire, each firing 8 bullets. Oddly enough, they all miss. I have two choices: (1) they intended to miss, or (2) they intended to kill. I note that my evidence is greater for (1) than for (2). Therefore (1) is to be preferred to (2).

The problem is that it would not be possible for me to make the observations or draw a conclusion if I had been shot and killed. But my argument looks right and rational.

With regard to a universe seemingly fine-tuned for life, we have two choices: (1) the universe has been designed by some powerful and intelligent being; (2) The universe has come to be by way of some changes process that does not involve a powerful and intelligent being. With respect to the evidence, (1) is to be preferred to (2). Granted, we would not exist if the universe was not fine-tuned for life, but how is that relevant? We're here, and the reality begs for an explanation. And there is still zero empirical evidence for multiverses. Zero.

> And, of course, we still have the assumption that we are aiming for 10 aces.

Not necessarily, because that is retrogressive. What I'm saying is not: "We know ahead of time that we're heading for 10 aces, so when we get it, we'll know something funny is going on." Instead I'm saying, "Why does 10 aces accomplish what it does?" Now we have to look backward for an explanation as to why 10 aces, say, stops the machine from blowing up. Then we have to seek an explanation for how the machine got the place where 10 anything but 10 aces would result in an explosion. That's where science comes in, and that's where "It's been set up that way" is a better explanation than "there's no rhyme or reason to it except that it works."

> We know universes exist, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to support the possibility of others existing.

For one, we don't [i]know[/i] "many universes (plural) exist." There is no empirical evidence for any universes besides our own. QM may support the possibility, but until we have something to do on, it's an empty theory without support. Science without empirical evidence is no longer science.

> An intelligent, complex, personal, moral being with the power to create universes? That is far more supposition than there merely being many of the thing we already know exists.

Obviously not. There is a straight line of rational thought to claim that our capability for intelligence came from some prior capability for intelligence, that ordered complexity came from something other than an "explosion," that our sense of morality derived from a moral source, and that the power that motivated the Big Bang came from outside the natural world. Those are all easy lines. The line from science to multiverses, by contrast, doesn't exist.

> To my mind the correct answer to the question of where the universe came from is "we don't know."

And this has some merit to it. But since we are always seeking, right now both logic and science point us more towards theism than towards scientific naturalism. Agnosticism at this stage of the game is closing a blind eye to the evidence because you don't want to admit the direction the evidence is pointing.

> My point on the switch to the Judeo-Christian God was that we went from a creator to one who was personal.

Agreed, but it's all part of the picture. As part of the whole of creation, we have to be able to rationally explain how humans are personal. Personality is intrinsic to what is. The two alternatives are obvious. Either there is a personal beginning to everything, or what we see is the result of what the impersonal (chemicals and forces) throws up by chance out of the time sequence. If we really are matter + time + chance (nothing personal), then personality is only an illusion, and there is no explanation (or logic) to how personality comes from impersonality. No one has been able to feasibly explain how matter + time + chance can give personality. If we're here only by time and chance, the things that make us human—purpose, significance, love, morality, rationality, beauty, language—are ultimately unfulfillable and meaningless.

I have more to say on this, but I'll stop now so I don't write too much.

> Evolutionary theory explains perfectly well how creatures that have what we describe as intelligence could evolve.

It cannot explain it well at all. Certainly abiogenesis has never been explained. The jump from RNA to DNA is tenuous and nowhere near "explained perfectly." From non-consciousness to consciousness is a shaky explanation, and from non-personality to personality is just theorized.

> Because God must be able to act on things outside of himself, therefore sociality?

God can only act on things outside of himself if there is such a thing as "things outside himself." And since there are such things, therefore reality is not monadic, and therefore there is subject/object "sociality," and therefore the possibility of relationships. Otherwise we are in a condition of logical impossibility and non-explanation of personality and the subject/object relationship that is part of reality.

Then you ask so many questions and raise so many topics I would need pages and screens to deal with them all. Listen, I'm under no illusion that anything I've said will convince you of my case. But that's not really my purpose. My purpose is to show that there is evidence enough to believe in the existence of a creator. My purpose is to show that the theistic position is not vapid or based on blind faith, but that the theistic position is actually logical, evidentiary, and reasonable. But I'm not here to convince you to be a theist. I'm not sure any amount of evidence would do that. I just want people to know that theism is not only a rational position, but is actually a stronger position than that of scientific naturalism. Obviously you disagree, and that's your prerogative. But my position is based on evidence and logic, not on theories for which there is no evidence (multiverses) and only non-logical progressions (matter + time + chance) that bring us informational data, consciousness, intelligence, purpose, and morality.

Multiverse theory seems to me to have far higher prior probability than a complex intelligent being existing outside of time. And our particulair universe existing doesn't require any special explanation. With a large enough set, some universes would inevitably be like ours. In an infinite set, all possible universes exist. The odds of drawing 10 aces would be 1/1.14456e+17. If we imagine there are, say, 20 times more universes than the denominator then the odds of no one drawing 10 aces becomes unlikely. If there are exponentially more universes then no one drawing 10 aces would be evidence for the machine being rigged against drawing 10 aces. Naturally there would be many survivors who would ask why their machine drew 10 aces, but the answer would, in reality, just be that the vast majority didn't.
And, of course, we still have the assumption that we are aiming for 10 aces. This is my point with any combination being as likely as any other. If the universe was different, it would produce different orders. The puddle analogy from elsewhere in the thread is useful, if the universe were a different shape what exists would be different. It might be equally complex. Life exists in the way it does because of the structure of the universe, but that isn't evidence for fine-tuning, it's evidence for the structure of the universe producing things that fit within it. Human tendency to cheat and cards and prefer specific patterns would inform my response to your hypothetical card draw. I would not have that response to you drawing a 2 of spades, an jack of clubs, a 5 of diamonds, a king of clubs, and a 3 of hearts then another random combination of cards, even though it's as likely as 4 aces and a wild card, but that's because prior knowledge about human behavior, I don't think you've established theism strongly enough to make the analogy.

And multiverse theory seems to have far less supposition to me. We know universes exist, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to support the possibility of others existing. An intelligent, complex, personal, moral being with the power to create universes? That is far more supposition than there merely being many of the thing we already know exists. Same as I would prefer humans as an explanation for crop circles over aliens, even if I didn't know how humans make crop circles. Of course, to my mind the correct answer to the question of where the universe came from is "we don't know." We don't have the kind of evidence we'd need to establish what other kinds of universes could exist. We don't know how many there are. We don't know if our universe is the only possibility. But if we must resort to some explanation, multiverse theory seems preferable to theism.

My point on the switch to the Judeo-Christian God was that we went from a creator to one who was personal. Again, if we establish the universe was created by something intelligent this does not imply that God is personal, moral, social, etc.

And I utterly disagree that there is evidence for a personal god being needed for personality. Evolutionary theory explains perfectly well how creatures that have what we describe as intelligence could evolve. Human intelligence is obviously useful, and we can see analogues in other animals, indeed we can see a whole range of behavioural ability ranging from single celled organisms, to mold colonies, to monkeys exhibiting machiavellian intelligence. Life is a self-reproducing system. Once we've established a means for replication and mutation, natural selection fits entirely into explaining where life goes from there, in all its myriad forms. Human intelligence is a useful trait, and it's complex as hell, my academic career has been devoted to studying the myriad forms and structures that arise out of it. But it also seems well patterned by selective pressure. As for the subject object argument, you seem not to be defining relationships very thoroughly. Because God must be able to act on things outside of himself, therefore sociality? That doesn't seem to follow, nor would the kind of relationships implied by the existence of subject/object distinctions need to be anything like the relationships of humans. If acting on an object is sufficient, deer and plants fulfill that criteria. Why are humans particularly important here? We are more intelligent than, say, moles. But far less than your proposed God, in what way is our reproduction evidence that God is trying to shape something like himself out of us particularly, when we seem to share far more in common with our animal relatives than a hypothetical supreme creator of the universe. Also, why does God need to be the source for specifically love, knowledge, ethics, etc? Ethics seem absent from most of nature, gravity doesn't behave in accordance to ethical rules, and even most other animals have very nasty ways of surviving from an ethical perspective. Why is the universe fine tuned in such a way to produce orangutans, a species in which large portions of males adopt the reproductive strategy of sneaking into the territories of females and forcibly raping them? Humans seem hard-wired to produce ethical and social rules, but these are often contradictory between groups. Love and affection is certainly useful to reinforce mutual social bonds, but why would it be particularly what God wants when solitary creatures also exist, and not something more universal, like, again, fear. Knowledge is rather slippery to define in a philosophical sense but in practice seems to entirely fit being a useful survival mechanism. Again, it seems to me that it's far more likely this proposed God is humans giving anthropomorphic traits to naturalistic processes beyond their current comprehension (as we are wont to do) than a coherent explanation for the existence of the universe.