The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

[clrkbar]

Well if we can't grasp the concept of infinity, we can't claim god as being infinite; you can't have it both ways, claiming that we don't understand infinity and that god is infinite, because even if he was you've already said we wouldn't know.

As there's no evidence--none--for the existence of god whatsoever, people have to draw inspiration from some shit book written x number of years ago.

All the while, I might add, rejecting all the same books written by differing sects that try to substantiate their own frauds. Christians don't spend five seconds rejecting the faiths of 1.5 (approx.) billion Muslims, nor vice versa. Nor do they concern themselves with Zeus, or any of the other gods of antiquity. Only when it comes to their religion do they suddenly become credulous.

The last time when I frequented the forums, there was a Mormon on here. If you want to talk about credulity, consider a religion that teaches that the resurrected transported himself to America. Substantiated by the same method of personal testimony as were the Gospels, Jesus can now appear willy-nilly whereever someone is literate enough to narrate him doing some new feat.

Of course God can be infinite while we don't understand infinity. I just means we don't fully understand God or how he is. We can think of a concept and it can exist without us understanding it. I can though the idea out in the air of an animal that has no physical characteristics similar at all to any animal on earth, and I can think about that concept, but I still can't understand what that would look like.

Christians are very different from Mormons.

-- Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:41 pm --

There's at least just as much evidence for God as there is for evolution. There is no proof for God. But there is evidence - If you are considering evidence as anything that points toward an idea being true.

And what makes you call the Bible "some shit book"? (I assume you were referring to the Bible.)

[msbachman]

Christians are very different from Mormons.

You missed the point entirely. Smith claims to have been visited by the resurrected Jesus. Most Christians would dispute this, while at the same time affirming the Gospels despite denying Smith's testimony. If they were going to be consistent, they'd either accept both or deny both. But they deny one and accept another. Christians doubt that god interacts with any other group besides their own, all the while vehemently defending their own divine claims with no particularly valid evidence (that isn't possessed by those sects who claim something else).

There's at least just as much evidence for God as there is for evolution. There is no proof for God. But there is evidence - If you are considering evidence as anything that points toward an idea being true.

You don't possess special faculties for gathering evidence that I don't possess. If you want to believe the claims of some antiquated holy book, fine. There's no evidence for god outside of it. And I doubt the holy books because claiming the miraculous happened in the past is a very good way to fleece people, as we can't verify the past.

If you want to claim that god exists, then show some of this grand evidence. I'm talking about direct evidence about god. You said you doubted evolution because it wasn't observable, so I'm guessing since you don't believe things unless they are seen, you'll provide evidence that is observable and substantiates god's existence.

Also, you're in severe need of a science book to claim that evolution is as well evidenced as god's existence is. To claim that would require you to likely be one of the most ignorant (or brainwashed) persons on the planet. It's quite obvious that you have vested interests in denying evolution; you've shown that already.

And you also stated that you're not religious; I also don't believe this a wink, either. So quit lying.

-- Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:08 pm --

And I call the Bible a "shit book" because that's what I think of it. It's a poorly written book, even by the standards of antiquity. It contradicts itself numerous times. For the most part, the storyline is nearly non-existent.

It was likely written by delusional scumbags--delusional because of the subject matter, scumbags of the ethical content. And most of all, it attracts all kinds of the worst elements of society: the stupid, the feeble-minded, cowards, pedophiles, thieves, etc. People with the gall to wish atonement for their own weak moral character with the human sacrifice of another human being.

People like Abraham, who don't have a thinking bone in their whole body. Who have to be stopped by god after god gives the go-ahead to slit his own son's throat. And Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, etc. Numerous others.

So, above all, the Bible is a "shit book" because of the "shit" people that claim it as divine inspiration. I hope I've made my point clear.

[clrkbar]

Christians are very different from Mormons.

You missed the point entirely. Smith claims to have been visited by the resurrected Jesus. Most Christians would dispute this, while at the same time affirming the Gospels despite denying Smith's testimony. If they were going to be consistent, they'd either accept both or deny both. But they deny one and accept another. Christians doubt that god interacts with any other group besides their own, all the while vehemently defending their own divine claims with no particularly valid evidence (that isn't possessed by those sects who claim something else).

There's at least just as much evidence for God as there is for evolution. There is no proof for God. But there is evidence - If you are considering evidence as anything that points toward an idea being true.

You don't possess special faculties for gathering evidence that I don't possess. If you want to believe the claims of some antiquated holy book, fine. There's no evidence for god outside of it. And I doubt the holy books because claiming the miraculous happened in the past is a very good way to fleece people, as we can't verify the past.

If you want to claim that god exists, then show some of this grand evidence. I'm talking about direct evidence about god. You said you doubted evolution because it wasn't observable, so I'm guessing since you don't believe things unless they are seen, you'll provide evidence that is observable and substantiates god's existence.

Also, you're in severe need of a science book to claim that evolution is as well evidenced as god's existence is. To claim that would require you to likely be one of the most ignorant (or brainwashed) persons on the planet. It's quite obvious that you have vested interests in denying evolution; you've shown that already.

And you also stated that you're not religious; I also don't believe this a wink, either. So quit lying.

-- Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:08 pm --

And I call the Bible a "shit book" because that's what I think of it. It's a poorly written book, even by the standards of antiquity. It contradicts itself numerous times. For the most part, the storyline is nearly non-existent.

It was likely written by delusional scumbags--delusional because of the subject matter, scumbags of the ethical content. And most of all, it attracts all kinds of the worst elements of society: the stupid, the feeble-minded, cowards, pedophiles, thieves, etc. People with the gall to wish atonement for their own weak moral character with the human sacrifice of another human being.

People like Abraham, who don't have a thinking bone in their whole body. Who have to be stopped by god after god gives the go-ahead to slit his own son's throat. And Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, etc. Numerous others.

So, above all, the Bible is a "shit book" because of the "shit" people that claim it as divine inspiration. I hope I've made my point clear.

You seem very close-minded, so I will be brief.

If Christians agreed with Mormons or Muslims, there wouldn't be different groups. That's what makes them different. Islam says Jesus was a good teacher but not the son of God. Mormonism says Jesus and God were separate deities. Christianity says Jesus is God in human form, the Son of God, one and the same.

You keep insisting that I am lying about being religious. Perhaps I am religious to you. What makes you insist that I am religious? I'll let you know if that's how I really am or not.

What makes the Bible "poorly written?" Where does it contradict itself? Do you have evidence or are you just saying what you have been told? You mention the Bible having a story-line as if it is some child's fairytale book. The Bible is a history book - a collection of historical records. It has more of a story line to it than modern world history books. Besides, the "story line" isn't important to how true it is.

And you know you are calling Newton, Hershel, Linneaus, Dalton, Maxwell, Kelvin, Faraday, Boyle, Pascal, and Davy delusional scumbags, right? They all, for the most part, believed in the Bible.

The wost elements in society can be found everywhere. I'm sure there are a few of those who have visited this site, but that doesn't mean this site is trash. This is a great website.

And I can tell you don't know anything about the religions of Abraham's time.

Like I said. You seem like your mind is pretty made-up already. Let me know if you are open to discuss ideas. That's what these forums are for.

[Possumdude0]

You missed the point entirely. Smith claims to have been visited by the resurrected Jesus. Most Christians would dispute this, while at the same time affirming the Gospels despite denying Smith's testimony. If they were going to be consistent, they'd either accept both or deny both. But they deny one and accept another. Christians doubt that god interacts with any other group besides their own, all the while vehemently defending their own divine claims with no particularly valid evidence (that isn't possessed by those sects who claim something else).

Why would someone who believes the Gospels affirm Smith's testimony? Are you saying that we should just believe anyone who claims they've been divinely inspired? I think it's better to affirm the testimonies that evidence says are likely to be true, and reject testimonies that contradict those that evidence says are true.

This of it this way; you listen to Charles Darwin's testimony about evolution, and you believe it to be true. Should you automatically believe Lamark's testimony, simply because his ideas are also called evolution? Can I call you out on not believing in Lamark's ideas when you do believe in Darwin's (I don't know what you actually believe, this is just an example), in the way that you're calling people out on not believing Smith's testimony when they do believe the testimonies in the New Testament?

If you want to claim that god exists, then show some of this grand evidence. I'm talking about direct evidence about god.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefor, the universe has a cause.

Anything capable of causing the universe would surely be called a god by humans. The precise nature of this theoretical god is up for debate. It's probably not Zeus (he's just not powerful enough). It might be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Other arguments have led me to the Christian God, but this one argument really only points to some kind of higher being.

Also, you're in severe need of a science book to claim that evolution is as well evidenced as god's existence is.

Indeed. I'm aware of much more evidence for God than for evolution.

That was just a cheap shot. Go ahead and ignore it.

So, above all, the Bible is a "shit book" because of the "shit" people that claim it as divine inspiration. I hope I've made my point clear.

Very clear. I won't bother trying to argue against the points you made there, you've obviously already made up your mind.

If Christians agreed with Mormons or Muslims, there wouldn't be different groups.

That does nothing to explain why they don't agree with each other.

The wost elements in society can be found everywhere. I'm sure there are a few of those who have visited this site, but that doesn't mean this site is trash. This is a great website.

This is a very good point. I want to make it clear that Christians are no better than any other group of people. We do bad things, we screw up, we make mistakes, we break laws. We're just as human as anyone else. It really bothers me when a Christian takes on that "I'm better than you" attitude, because we aren't better than anyone.

[Vulpine]

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefor, the universe has a cause.

You're close... If the universe began, it is reasonable to assume that it must have a cause. Correct. But, what caused the cause? Et cetera ad infinitum... If we choose to claim that "god" need not have a cause, then, logically, the universe need not have a cause, either.

Anything capable of causing the universe would surely be called a god by humans. The precise nature of this theoretical god is up for debate. It's probably not Zeus (he's just not powerful enough). It might be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Other arguments have led me to the Christian God, but this one argument really only points to some kind of higher being.

I'm pretty certain that you're begging the question here. Perhaps you would consider the cause of the universe to be a deity, but there are hundreds of millions of people that would not. History is filled with cultures worshiping various natural elements of the world, but this trend recedes in the wake of increased understanding of the natural world i.e. we don't worship the Sun, sea, storms, et cetera anymore. Please refrain from speaking for me, or the rest of the intelligentsia of the planet.

Indeed. I'm aware of much more evidence for God than for evolution.

That was just a cheap shot. Go ahead and ignore it.

So I shall. By the way, when was the last time you had a flu shot?

This is a very good point. I want to make it clear that Christians are no better than any other group of people. We do bad things, we screw up, we make mistakes, we break laws. We're just as human as anyone else. It really bothers me when a Christian takes on that "I'm better than you" attitude, because we aren't better than anyone.

Cheers to having a healthy attitude about it. I wish that more members of organized religion felt the same way.

[msbachman]

EDIT: I was being overly mean.

[Possumdude0]

You're close... If the universe began, it is reasonable to assume that it must have a cause. Correct. But, what caused the cause? Et cetera ad infinitum... If we choose to claim that "god" need not have a cause, then, logically, the universe need not have a cause, either.

The universe did have a beginning. The Big Bang theory tells us that the universe began around 13.7 billion years ago in an explosion of space, time, and energy. So, as you say, it is reasonable to assume that it must have a cause.

But then you get into the infinite regression: what caused the cause? The only way out of that regression is to suggest an uncaused first cause. By the nature of the argument, this first cause could not have a beginning (otherwise it would need a cause of it's own). So any uncaused first cause must be eternal and without beginning.

I'm pretty certain that you're begging the question here. Perhaps you would consider the cause of the universe to be a deity, but there are hundreds of millions of people that would not.

I'll admit I skipped a few steps of the argument there. But most people will throw at least one of the two basic premises out of the window before I can even get into discussing what a cause of the universe would look like.

Think about what it means to be a cause of the universe. As I said above, the cause would have to be eternal and without beginning. If you find the fine-tuning argument convincing (I do) then the cause is also intelligent. A number of other attributes can be argued for, the cause must be powerful, the cause must exist outside of the universe, and so on, but for the sake of brevity I won't go into them all. An important thing to note is that the more of these attributes you find that are needed to cause our universe, the more that cause looks like the classic image of God.

By the way, when was the last time you had a flu shot?

Nevar!

I wish that more members of organized religion felt the same way.

A lot of us feel that way. It's just that the ones who don't are more vocal about it publicly.

[msbachman]

You're close... If the universe began, it is reasonable to assume that it must have a cause. Correct. But, what caused the cause? Et cetera ad infinitum... If we choose to claim that "god" need not have a cause, then, logically, the universe need not have a cause, either.

The universe did have a beginning. The Big Bang theory tells us that the universe began around 13.7 billion years ago in an explosion of space, time, and energy. So, as you say, it is reasonable to assume that it must have a cause.

But then you get into the infinite regression: what caused the cause? The only way out of that regression is to suggest an uncaused first cause. By the nature of the argument, this first cause could not have a beginning (otherwise it would need a cause of it's own). So any uncaused first cause must be eternal and without beginning.

And why can't the universe's beginning be this uncaused first cause? I've read up a bit on this subject some (though probably not enough) to know that it's conjectured that time and space were created at the same instant with the big bang.

The bottom line about the Big Bang is that we don't know what preceded it; neither I nor you can claim to know. What you're doing is making an appeal to ignorance, claiming that although science has figured out the approximate age of the universe, it can't (or hasn't) yet found out what caused the universe, or even whether our understanding is correct that it needs a cause.

Not too long ago, god was the one who created the earth 6,000 years ago. Here you are now claiming that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (fyi likely a very general approximation), and that it's impossible for the universe to have formed without god. You wouldn't have even known the age of the earth were it not for science, yet here you go claiming god to be in the undiscovered realm of what science has yet to illuminate.

Think about what it means to be a cause of the universe. As I said above, the cause would have to be eternal and without beginning. If you find the fine-tuning argument convincing (I do) then the cause is also intelligent.

The fine tuning argument goes to show just how vague the arguments for God have become. Once upon a time, people did miracles, Saint Genovese was a slayer of a talking tree that released a noxious gas that knocked out town residents for a good period of time. Thomas Aquinas flew around Notre Dame, etc. People wised up to the fact that a great many scams were perpetrated under the guise of religion, and today people by and large demand a modicum of proof for miraculous claims. It is not a coincidence that during this transition 'miracles' rapidly dissipated.

That was what arguments for god once were. Now, what do we have? We have arguments claiming that the general design of the universe could not be explained excepting a designer of some kind.

Actually, I half-agree with you, in that life needs a designer to form. The only designer scientifically evidenced, though, is evolution, not a deity. There's your designer.

Also, if you have five minutes check out this video on how stupid it is to assume that god designed us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNiTsYCkyI8

And ask yourself, does it make sense for an intelligent designer to have designed bodies with human attributes? Look at the eye...the eye is far from perfect, and many creatures have far better eyes than humans: eagles, owls, etc. The nose isn't the greatest either: dogs have us beat for instance. Our backs and teeth are prone to wear out far earlier than the rest of our bodies, and we're prone to random mutations that give us cancer and birth defects. Our hearts fail us frequently, with the number one cause of death being sudden heart attacks (in the US at least). Our necks (one of our most vulnerable regions for several reasons) is left totally exposed: the windpipe is easily crushed, the arteries and veins severed, the vertebre too, from a blow of either a sharp or dull object.

It's easy to see then that the designer must not have been that good at what he was doing. This neglects the design of the atmosphere too: earthquakes, storms, tsunamis, tornados, volcanos. Each of which has probably claimed thousands or even millions (in the case of tsunamis).

How about the planets? We're on the only detectable one suitable for life within the huge distance that we're able to detect now (thanks again to science for that). So we've got a gigantic universe but only one life-bearing planet...what's the deal with that?

So no, the fine-tuning and/or design arguments of either the universe or biological objects aren't good arguments...at all. We possess functioning (but not ideal) bodies and a life-supporting (but not ideal) planet in which to live...in the only observable planet in the entire universe, likely 1/100000000000 of the number of total planets (random guess), and no direct evidence whatsoever of this god you speak of. Everything you're arguing is indirect; it's a poor argument. The facts that I've stated make much more sense in light of a universe without an intelligent designer than one with one.

A number of other attributes can be argued for, the cause must be powerful, the cause must exist outside of the universe, and so on, but for the sake of brevity I won't go into them all. An important thing to note is that the more of these attributes you find that are needed to cause our universe, the more that cause looks like the classic image of God.

Even were I to give you everything until this point, all your work is ahead of you. All you've proven is that there had to be some uncaused cause for the universe, perhaps a designing force to it. You might label that god but now you have to demonstrate that Deism is in err and such a being intersects with the universe from time to time.

By the way, when was the last time you had a flu shot?

Nevar!

You understand what he was insinuating though, correct?

[Possumdude0]

And why can't the universe's beginning be this uncaused first cause? I've read up a bit on this subject some (though probably not enough) to know that it's conjectured that time and space were created at the same instant with the big bang.

Because, according to the argument, anything with a beginning must have a cause. If the universe had a beginning, then it must have a cause. The first cause can not have a beginning, because anything with a beginning will have a cause. That's how we know that the universe itself can't be the first cause.

You're right about the Big Bang, though. It is commonly held that time and space began at the Big Bang. Whatever caused the universe must exist outside of time and space.

The bottom line about the Big Bang is that we don't know what preceded it; neither I nor you can claim to know. What you're doing is making an appeal to ignorance, claiming that although science has figured out the approximate age of the universe, it can't (or hasn't) yet found out what caused the universe, or even whether our understanding is correct that it needs a cause.

Completely the opposite. I'm saying that science can find out what caused the universe, and that the evidence we have now points to some sort of deity.

You wouldn't have even known the age of the earth were it not for science, yet here you go claiming god to be in the undiscovered realm of what science has yet to illuminate.

Of course I wouldn't know the age of the Earth without science. How would I? God hasn't popped down to chat about geology lately.

You're right that we have no direct evidence about what went on before the universe began. But we can drawn reasonable assumptions based on the evidence we do have. We know that the universe had a beginning, and therefore should probably have a cause. We know that this cause needs to be powerful, it must have at least as much energy as the universe in order to create it. We know about the other attributes I mentioned above. The evidence we do have draws a picture that looks more and more like God.

The fine tuning argument goes to show just how vague the arguments for God have become.

It doesn't seem very vague to me.

It is not a coincidence that during this transition 'miracles' rapidly dissipated.

I'm more inclined to believe that miracles were always rare, and that these days the ones faking it just get caught more often. It is unfortunate that true miracles are discredited.

The only designer scientifically evidenced, though, is evolution, not a deity. There's your designer.

The word "designer" implies intelligence. Evolution is a mindless process. Unless you want to say an intelligent agent guides evolution, but I'm sure that isn't what you meant.

Also, I never actually mentioned design in life. I could go on about it for hours, but this argument is based in cosmology, not biology. The fine-tuning argument is about design in the overall makeup of the universe.

Also, if you have five minutes check out this video on how stupid it is to assume that god designed us

The whole first minute of that video was interesting, because I've seen the same evidence used to support the idea that Earth itself is designed for life. The rest of it was pretty interesting, too. But it doesn't really effect anything I said. The fine-tuning argument is about the mathematical improbability of a number of constants (gravitational constant, for example) all being at just the right values to allow life to exist in our universe. It says nothing about how well designed anything in the universe is.

And ask yourself, does it make sense for an intelligent designer to have designed bodies with human attributes?

Yeah, it makes pretty good sense. After all, what are our bodies supposed to do? They let us run around living a life for a century or so (or less). And they do a decent job. I'm happy with mine, although I wish it were about thirty pounds lighter.

How about the planets? We're on the only detectable one suitable for life within the huge distance that we're able to detect now (thanks again to science for that). So we've got a gigantic universe but only one life-bearing planet...what's the deal with that?

Well, if you were designing a universe, and you had one specific species in mind to live in it, would you waste time building millions of planets that were capable of holding life but didn't have any?

Anyway, I'm still not convinced this is the only planet suitable for life. We've only detected about four hundred exoplanets so far, out of the trillions that must exist. Not a very good sample size. Also, our detection methods are skewed. The main way we find exoplanets is by looking for stars that wobble. The wobbling means something is in orbit around the star. Of course, bigger planets will cause a more noticeable wobble. And so will planets close to their parent stars. So it isn't surprising that most of the planets we've discovered are large and close to their parent stars.

The video you posted above has some relevance here. The first minute goes over the fact that a vast majority of the universe will kill you dead. And it's true (that's always a bonus). In a majority of the universe, even if you have an Earth-like planet orbiting a sun-like star at just the right distance, life just can't work. Our solar system sits in a part of the Milky Way that is well suited to life. But there are similar places in this and other spiral galaxies, so I still hold out hope that there is more life out there.

By the way, that bit in the video about Andromeda colliding with us is stupid. By the time Andromeda collides with the Milky Way our sun will have already exploded.

You might label that god but now you have to demonstrate that Deism is in err and such a being intersects with the universe from time to time.

Ah, well, this argument can't do that. All it can do is show that some sort of deity exists, and tell us a few things about that deity. It's interesting that the attributes we can derive from this argument have all been attributed to deities in ancient beliefs, though. How did the ancients happen to hit on this combination of attributes? It might count as circumstantial evidence that the deity has interacted with humans at some point, at least in a "truth behind the legend" sort of way.

[msbachman]

The bottom line about the Big Bang is that we don't know what preceded it; neither I nor you can claim to know. What you're doing is making an appeal to ignorance, claiming that although science has figured out the approximate age of the universe, it can't (or hasn't) yet found out what caused the universe, or even whether our understanding is correct that it needs a cause.

Completely the opposite. I'm saying that science can find out what caused the universe, and that the evidence we have now points to some sort of deity.

Not at all. At no point has science demonstrated one iota of evidence for the notion that god created the universe.

Your entire argument presumes that the universe can't be eternal and that it needed to be caused in the first place. Reread what I said on the topic, if the universe needn't have a cause then your entire argument is shot. Even if it did all it proves is an uncaused cause...god's still not in the picture.

You're right that we have no direct evidence about what went on before the universe began. But we can drawn reasonable assumptions based on the evidence we do have. We know that the universe had a beginning, and therefore should probably have a cause. We know that this cause needs to be powerful, it must have at least as much energy as the universe in order to create it. We know about the other attributes I mentioned above. The evidence we do have draws a picture that looks more and more like God.

Argument from ignorance. We don't know how the universe came to be with the big bang so god must have done it. Typical religious argument, totally unconvincing. Keep repeating it if you want though, this will be the last time I address it.

I'm more inclined to believe that miracles were always rare, and that these days the ones faking it just get caught more often. It is unfortunate that true miracles are discredited.

More accurately, "all miracles are discredited." And rightfully so, there's little to no evidence to support any of them.

Unrelated note, are you a Juggalo by chance? Sometimes I get the strange feeling I'm talking to one.

The only designer scientifically evidenced, though, is evolution, not a deity. There's your designer.

The word "designer" implies intelligence. Evolution is a mindless process. Unless you want to say an intelligent agent guides evolution, but I'm sure that isn't what you meant.

Nope, wrong again. There's no mind behind evolution and it works fine...tromping your theory of an ephemeral mind guiding the process.

The whole first minute of that video was interesting, because I've seen the same evidence used to support the idea that Earth itself is designed for life. The rest of it was pretty interesting, too. But it doesn't really effect anything I said. The fine-tuning argument is about the mathematical improbability of a number of constants (gravitational constant, for example) all being at just the right values to allow life to exist in our universe. It says nothing about how well designed anything in the universe is.

Well creationists claim that god designed humans as well, so it's not an unrelated topic.

Here's your argument in a nutshell:

1) The universe is fine tuned to support life, therefore
2) God must have designed the universe to be this way.

Now here's my question: what have you read, specifically, to support this position?

Answer that and then read this for starters. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html There's better stuff out there but much of it is copyrighted and I don't have all day.

And ask yourself, does it make sense for an intelligent designer to have designed bodies with human attributes?

Yeah, it makes pretty good sense. After all, what are our bodies supposed to do? They let us run around living a life for a century or so (or less). And they do a decent job. I'm happy with mine, although I wish it were about thirty pounds lighter.

My point was that humans could have been designed much better. God apparently can design things but he's sort of thickheaded in the process, and as a result, he created us, with the obvious and easily addressable aforementioned weaknesses.

See this http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/52872/.

How about the planets? We're on the only detectable one suitable for life within the huge distance that we're able to detect now (thanks again to science for that). So we've got a gigantic universe but only one life-bearing planet...what's the deal with that?

Well, if you were designing a universe, and you had one specific species in mind to live in it, would you waste time building millions of planets that were capable of holding life but didn't have any?

Good question, so why are there millions of planets to begin with? Why not just six and a sun or something?

Anyway, I'm still not convinced this is the only planet suitable for life.

It'd be interesting to see if another life-bearing planet had heard of Jesus. Lol.

A lot of Christians probably hope for extraterrestrial life. They'd have more marks for preaching the gospel. They aren't doing so well here anymore.

By the way, that bit in the video about Andromeda colliding with us is stupid. By the time Andromeda collides with the Milky Way our sun will have already exploded.

Like a said, your god's a shitty designer.

Ah, well, this argument can't do that. All it can do is show that some sort of deity exists, and tell us a few things about that deity. It's interesting that the attributes we can derive from this argument have all been attributed to deities in ancient beliefs, though. How did the ancients happen to hit on this combination of attributes? It might count as circumstantial evidence that the deity has interacted with humans at some point, at least in a "truth behind the legend" sort of way.

Nope, as I said before, all your argument shows (assuming it's sound even, which I doubt) is that there needs to be an uncaused cause. No god in the equation at all.

This'll be my last response to you, I have other things to do and I think there's enough here for people reading this to see what's going on. You'll live for a while, die, and rot in the ground; my only hope is that you didn't waste too much of your one and only life on your knees, worshipping a lie.