Creationists

[ima]

When you see possessed people or walk in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or you here voices and no one is there.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.

The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.

What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?

You should see a doctor.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence of the precision in nature. You PRESUME that it was done by a god, with no actual proof of said god. Somewhat delusional, I'd say.

So the bible is an attempt at fortune telling?
Anyways, you still haven't proven that the world was made in 6 days. I'm still waiting...

The purpose of life and the why of the big bang are unknown. Get over it. You can philosophize all you want about why there could be a creator, but you still have no proof, only a theory. Sorry, please try again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

When you see possessed people or walk in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or you here voices and no one is there.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.

The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.

What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?

You should see a doctor.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence of the precision in nature. You PRESUME that it was done by a god, with no actual proof of said god. Somewhat delusional, I'd say.

So the bible is an attempt at fortune telling?
Anyways, you still haven't proven that the world was made in 6 days. I'm still waiting...

The purpose of life and the why of the big bang are unknown. Get over it. You can philosophize all you want about why there could be a creator, but you still have no proof, only a theory. Sorry, please try again.

I have been seeing several doctors since the stroke and I am fine thank you though.

One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not.

Precision in nature question. Can you give one example and prove that chaos can produce order or precision seen in nature ?

Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago.

Maybe to you it's not proof.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

I think that there is a criterion to distinguish science from myth. Individuals who hold competing scientific views in physics attempt to resolve the conflict via experimental observations using telescopes, particle accelerators, and other apparatus. I realize that theoretical physicists are considered the glamour boys of science, but their speculations are considered to be of little value to experimentalists if they don't yield testable hypothesis.

We know with certainty that parents reproduce after there own kind. We know organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.

 

[ima]

When you see possessed people or walk in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or you here voices and no one is there.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.

The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.

What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?

You should see a doctor.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence of the precision in nature. You PRESUME that it was done by a god, with no actual proof of said god. Somewhat delusional, I'd say.

So the bible is an attempt at fortune telling?
Anyways, you still haven't proven that the world was made in 6 days. I'm still waiting...

The purpose of life and the why of the big bang are unknown. Get over it. You can philosophize all you want about why there could be a creator, but you still have no proof, only a theory. Sorry, please try again.

I have been seeing several doctors since the stroke and I am fine thank you though.

One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not.

Precision in nature question. Can you give one example and prove that chaos can produce order or precision seen in nature ?

Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago.

Maybe to you it's not proof.

...since the stroke. That explains a lot!

"One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not."

- Thing is that a man made object can actually be traced back to its creator and he's an actual person that you can touch. I'm still waiting for you to show me the creator of nature...

And I never mentioned chaos ever, so I don't even know what you're talking about.

"Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago."

- So you're admitting that you really have no idea how long it took the earth to form, so you don't believe the opening passage of the bible. Ok. So how about Noah, who said he was 600 years old?

 

[Bill Angel]

When you see possessed people or walk in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or you here voices and no one is there.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.

The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.

What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?

Here is a section from a video, devoted to explaining the importance of the discovery of the Higgs boson, in which a physicist discusses why there is no life after death and also no validity to such assertions as biblical prophecy
TubeChop - Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality - Sean Carroll - Skepticon 5 (01:51)

 

[Youwerecreated]

You should see a doctor.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence of the precision in nature. You PRESUME that it was done by a god, with no actual proof of said god. Somewhat delusional, I'd say.

So the bible is an attempt at fortune telling?
Anyways, you still haven't proven that the world was made in 6 days. I'm still waiting...

The purpose of life and the why of the big bang are unknown. Get over it. You can philosophize all you want about why there could be a creator, but you still have no proof, only a theory. Sorry, please try again.

I have been seeing several doctors since the stroke and I am fine thank you though.

One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not.

Precision in nature question. Can you give one example and prove that chaos can produce order or precision seen in nature ?

Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago.

Maybe to you it's not proof.

...since the stroke. That explains a lot!

"One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not."

- Thing is that a man made object can actually be traced back to its creator and he's an actual person that you can touch. I'm still waiting for you to show me the creator of nature...

And I never mentioned chaos ever, so I don't even know what you're talking about.

"Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago."

- So you're admitting that you really have no idea how long it took the earth to form, so you don't believe the opening passage of the bible. Ok. So how about Noah, who said he was 600 years old?

Not really,the stroke only affected balance and eyes. Biologoical design can be traced back to it's designer as well.

What do you think the enviornment was like if the big bang put everything in to motion ? that's right chaos.

I have given my reason for not being sure if things were created by 24 hour periods or what a day is to God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

When you see possessed people or walk in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or you here voices and no one is there.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.

The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.

What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?

Here is a section from a video, devoted to explaining the importance of the discovery of the Higgs boson, in which a physicist discusses why there is no life after death and also no validity to such assertions as biblical prophecy
TubeChop - Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality - Sean Carroll - Skepticon 5 (01:51)

I don't believe in life after death unless through resurrection and that takes place in the future.

 

[Hollie]

I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.

Indeed you do not, since dogma is like that.

Meanwhile, evolution does require evidence / proof, since it's a postulate derived of scientific study.

And to all not blinded by dogma, the proof of evolution is overwhelming.

Which it lacks and can be considered dogma as well. Design is clearly seen in the cell,with God we don't need to believe in miracles but a naturalist believing in naturalism by chance you do need to believe in miracles.

You see "design" as the result of supermagical gawds in the same way you see spirits, spooks, etc. haunting a fantasy world you want to exist.

The creationist canard of "design" (as defined by complex code) in cells is a term coined by William Dembski, another of the frauds representing the Disco 'tute.

The "design" canard repeated by creationists has been refuted thoroughly and frequently.

Here, for example:

A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"

A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"

by Wesley R. Elsberry

Dembski's analysis fails to be even-handed. Dembski explores how evolutionary computation approaches a solution, but does not show that an intelligent agent can approach any particular problem in a supposedly different manner and escape the problems that Dembski asserts for EC. Specifically, if the probability of producing a solution becomes the relevant CSI metric, the probability of an intelligent agent achieving a solution looks to be just as much a "probability amplifier" as an algorithm.

What this means is that even though with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space the target has exceedingly small probability, the probability for the evolutionary algorithm E to get into the target in m steps is no longer small. And since complexity and improbability are for the purposes of specified complexity parallel notions, this means that even though the target is complex and specified with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space, it remains specified but is no longer complex with respect to the probability induced by evolutionary algorithm E.

[End Quote - WA Dembski, "Specified Complexity", MetaViews 152]

The above shows the kind of bait-and-switch tactic necessary to maintain the illusion that the products of algorithms or natural processes can in principle be distinguished from the products of intelligent agency. When one examines Dembski's technical discussion of "specification", one finds that the complexity is determined from the likelihood of a solution occurring due to the *chance* hypothesis. Here, Dembski swaps that out for the likelihood that the non-chance hypothesis finds the solution. Were this a pinball game, the machine would lock up and flash "TILT!".

The relative probability for assessing the complexity of some solution is given by Dembski on page 145 of TDI as P(E|H), where H is a *chance* hypothesis.

Essentially, what Dembski proves with his analysis of evolutionary computation is not that it cannot produce actual specified complexity, but rather that the bounded complexity measure discussed on page 144 of TDI will show that a problem is solvable by evolutionary computation given a certain limited m steps.

But the problem is even worse. It follows by a combinatorial argument that for any partition of the phase space into pieces none of which has probability more than the probability of the target (which by assumption is less than 1 in 10^150), for the vast majority of these partition elements the probability of the evolutionary algorithm E entering them is going to be no better than pure random sampling. It follows that the vast majority of fitness functions on the phase space that coincide with our original fitness function on the target but reshuffle the function on the partition elements outside the target will not land the evolutionary algorithm in the target (this result is essentially a corollary of the No Free Lunch theorems by Wolpert and Macready). Simply put, the vast majority of fitness functions will not guide E into the target even if they coincide with our original fitness function on the target (see Appendix 8).

[End Quote - WA Dembski, "Specified Complexity", MetaViews 152]

 

[ima]

I have been seeing several doctors since the stroke and I am fine thank you though.

One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not.

Precision in nature question. Can you give one example and prove that chaos can produce order or precision seen in nature ?

Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago.

Maybe to you it's not proof.

...since the stroke. That explains a lot!

"One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not."

- Thing is that a man made object can actually be traced back to its creator and he's an actual person that you can touch. I'm still waiting for you to show me the creator of nature...

And I never mentioned chaos ever, so I don't even know what you're talking about.

"Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago."

- So you're admitting that you really have no idea how long it took the earth to form, so you don't believe the opening passage of the bible. Ok. So how about Noah, who said he was 600 years old?

Not really,the stroke only affected balance and eyes. Biologoical design can be traced back to it's designer as well.

What do you think the enviornment was like if the big bang put everything in to motion ? that's right chaos.

I have given my reason for not being sure if things were created by 24 hour periods or what a day is to God.

So you should be able to prove to me who and where nature's creator is.
As for the BB, it's possible that the previous universe ended up contracting to a point that re-exploded, or it could any number of other theories why it happened, maybe the nature of elements make it clump up into what we see today? Was that a purposeful design? Maybe, maybe not. No one's proved it either way yet (I'm agnostic, not atheist).
And you don't believe the word "day" at the bible's start. Ok.

 

[Koios]

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

 

[Bill Angel]

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

I think that there is a criterion to distinguish science from myth. Individuals who hold competing scientific views in physics attempt to resolve the conflict via experimental observations using telescopes, particle accelerators, and other apparatus. I realize that theoretical physicists are considered the glamour boys of science, but their speculations are considered to be of little value to experimentalists if they don't yield testable hypothesis.

We know with certainty that parents reproduce after there own kind. We know organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are.

That would create a problem in terms of the fossil record. For example, the species of plants and animals that existed 65 million years ago (when the dinosaurs went extinct) are just so much different than what exists today.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Indeed you do not, since dogma is like that.

Meanwhile, evolution does require evidence / proof, since it's a postulate derived of scientific study.

And to all not blinded by dogma, the proof of evolution is overwhelming.

Which it lacks and can be considered dogma as well. Design is clearly seen in the cell,with God we don't need to believe in miracles but a naturalist believing in naturalism by chance you do need to believe in miracles.

You see "design" as the result of supermagical gawds in the same way you see spirits, spooks, etc. haunting a fantasy world you want to exist.

The creationist canard of "design" (as defined by complex code) in cells is a term coined by William Dembski, another of the frauds representing the Disco 'tute.

The "design" canard repeated by creationists has been refuted thoroughly and frequently.

Here, for example:

A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"

A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"

by Wesley R. Elsberry

Dembski's analysis fails to be even-handed. Dembski explores how evolutionary computation approaches a solution, but does not show that an intelligent agent can approach any particular problem in a supposedly different manner and escape the problems that Dembski asserts for EC. Specifically, if the probability of producing a solution becomes the relevant CSI metric, the probability of an intelligent agent achieving a solution looks to be just as much a "probability amplifier" as an algorithm.

What this means is that even though with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space the target has exceedingly small probability, the probability for the evolutionary algorithm E to get into the target in m steps is no longer small. And since complexity and improbability are for the purposes of specified complexity parallel notions, this means that even though the target is complex and specified with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space, it remains specified but is no longer complex with respect to the probability induced by evolutionary algorithm E.

[End Quote - WA Dembski, "Specified Complexity", MetaViews 152]

The above shows the kind of bait-and-switch tactic necessary to maintain the illusion that the products of algorithms or natural processes can in principle be distinguished from the products of intelligent agency. When one examines Dembski's technical discussion of "specification", one finds that the complexity is determined from the likelihood of a solution occurring due to the *chance* hypothesis. Here, Dembski swaps that out for the likelihood that the non-chance hypothesis finds the solution. Were this a pinball game, the machine would lock up and flash "TILT!".

The relative probability for assessing the complexity of some solution is given by Dembski on page 145 of TDI as P(E|H), where H is a *chance* hypothesis.

Essentially, what Dembski proves with his analysis of evolutionary computation is not that it cannot produce actual specified complexity, but rather that the bounded complexity measure discussed on page 144 of TDI will show that a problem is solvable by evolutionary computation given a certain limited m steps.

But the problem is even worse. It follows by a combinatorial argument that for any partition of the phase space into pieces none of which has probability more than the probability of the target (which by assumption is less than 1 in 10^150), for the vast majority of these partition elements the probability of the evolutionary algorithm E entering them is going to be no better than pure random sampling. It follows that the vast majority of fitness functions on the phase space that coincide with our original fitness function on the target but reshuffle the function on the partition elements outside the target will not land the evolutionary algorithm in the target (this result is essentially a corollary of the No Free Lunch theorems by Wolpert and Macready). Simply put, the vast majority of fitness functions will not guide E into the target even if they coincide with our original fitness function on the target (see Appendix 8).

[End Quote - WA Dembski, "Specified Complexity", MetaViews 152]

A dose of reality. I'm sure you will not watch these videos but many will that want to see the real arguments.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S55Vn4rVPfY]1 of 10 - Intelligent Design of the Universe - Billy Crone - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg]Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEnJYdakou4]Atheists Humbled by Order in Universe - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuB7KMfVems]Hitchens vs Craig The existence of God part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lIEhLwONgw]Putting The Fear of God Into Atheists - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXKttcbhM4]Hitchens vs Craig The existence of God part 2 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM9-F57i6aQ]Hitchens vs Craig The existence of God part 3 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTzOJNHGqNg]Hitchens vs Craig The existence of God part 4 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81SRgFvCi7M]Hitchens vs Craig The existence of God part 5 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?

 

[Koios]

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Okay, allow me, insofar as it's in keeping with the OP.

We had the age of enlightment in the 17 century, and into the 18th century. Thus we began to understand that natural and not divine forces, per se, may account for much of the world around us, which more primitive peoples conveniently imagined was merely an intelligence with powers vastly greater than our own who created it all by power of sheer will. So obviously they guessed wrong, and during the enlightment, flaws in religious dogma, driven largely by astrology, became more apparent / likely; and thus was born astronomy, displacing astrology, because the truth of the sun and planets around it began discrediting astrology's many wrong guesses.

So in light of that, in the 18th century, believers in God began attempting to resolve the conflicts with what was being discovered, with the avent of Creacionismo. (English: Creationism). So it's not a science. It's dogma trying to preserve beliefs despite science, which proves, more so by the year, that creation scenarios / ancient myths simply got it wrong.

 

[Koios]

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?

Nature is the opposite of precise. In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today. The other 99% were failures.

 

[Koios]

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?

Nature is the opposite of precise. In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today. The other 99% were failures.

In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances. Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out. And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise. Many are miscarried or still-born. Others have defects. Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs. Others die young of childhood diseases. It's entirely random, and all over the map.

 

[UltimateReality]

The inventions of rocket ships are purely incidental, and in no way guaranteed indirectly by an evolutionary process, so you can't say that evolution "indirectly produces computers and rocket ships." We only have one example of evolution to draw from: our own. Here again, you are using an argument from induction, combined with the fallacy of hasty generalization. You attempt to make a general statement about any evolutionary processes by observing our own, yet based on no other examples of evolutionary lineages. Therefore, you are attempting to make a general statement about evolution from a particular example of evolution (inductive reasoning) and using a very small sample size (one sample of evolution) to make a generalization about all evolutionary processes. This implies that there are extra-terrestrials out there under going evolution, and you are claiming that they too, have "computers and rocket ships." Yet, I thought as a theist, you don't believe in extra-terrestrials, because god made the universe for us? We have no idea what other evolutionary processes produce, because we have never directly observed them. Until we do, your statement is highly unsubstantiated. In all likelihood, evolution would mostly produce bacteria and algae and things of this nature and likely constitute most of the life in the universe. There may be a few instances of evolution producing life which produces computers in the cosmos, but at best, this sort of induction could only grant probabilities to your conclusion.

All you are left with, is the ability to say "this particular evolutionary process produced a species which produced computers and rocket ships." We already know this to be true, so you haven't gotten anywhere, logically.

You're attempt to sound smart with all you WRONG flowery speech has EPICALLY FAILED again. The fact of the matter is that my argument is not an argument from induction, because if evolution is true, then evolution produced computers and rocket ships via the human race. We are not talking about some random evolutionary process. We are talking about evolution of humans. Your arguments about other instances of evolution than our own are irrelevant and ludicrous. If evolution is true, then you cannot deny it has produced computers and rocket ships. Of course we know evolution is pseudoscience, and such a claim is totally ridiculous.

Oh and while we are on the topic of your fallacious arguments, you wrongly claim that ID is an appeal to ignorance. That would be the case if we exhausted other origin of life possibilities and were saying we don't know how it happened so an intelligence must have done it. But that is not the argument of ID. The thing you continually ignore, and to your own detriment, is that we have evidence of "causes now in operation" [Lyell, Darwin]. We aren't arguing from ignorance because we have evidence that complex, functional information ONLY comes from an intelligent agent. So please knock it off with your fallacious claims of argument from ignorance.

So your refutation of my counter-argument is to talk about evolution? The flaw that I claimed exists, is contained in your argument, which isn't about evolution since you don't believe in it, so why are you talking about evolution? You are evading the topic, and you haven't refuted my point that you are using an argument from induction in this evolution example. By the way, why are you bringing up this point? It is plainly obvious that evolution produced humans, and humans produced rocket ships. Are you simply trying to mock evolution because it has the ability to create a species that creates rocket ships? The entire attempt is just childish, if this is the case.

My arguments about other evolutions are not irrelevant when you are claiming, based on one evolutionary timeline, that "all evolutionary timelines will indirectly produce rocket ships." You are actually the one who brought up other evolutionary timelines, because it is implicit when you say "evolution creates rocket ships." We only have witnessed one evolution, so all you can say is, "this evolutionary timeline created a species which was able to create rocket ships." Wow... big deal. This is plainly observable. You are trying to extract something profound out of something very menial, as far as information goes. Again, this is basic inductive reasoning, and is completely flawed, because the conclusion does not follow at all from the premises.

I don't think I ever said that ID is an argument from ignorance. Certain parts of it certainly are, but not the entire thing. Namely, I said that Meyer's attempt at discrediting abiogenesis with pure probability calculations constitutes an argument from ignorance, because he is ignorant to the precise conditions that would have caused it. Therefore, he can't have the numbers to adequately describe what went on, even probabilistically. I wish you would admit this. He basically has a cult with this ID thing. His numbers are non-descriptive of anything that actually happened. They serve only to make his followers feel better. What I claimed was that ID was built on inductive reasoning, and as such, can not make the conclusions it tries to, and still call itself science. So, you are either mistaken or being dishonest.

Meyer's theory is not built on inductive reasoning. Sorry. If you had actually read the book, you would have seen he has anticipated and refuted all the cut and paste Panda's Thumb arguments.

 

[Hollie]

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?

Your fascination with harmful cell mutations contradicts the notion of "precision in nature", which obviously doesn't exist.

I know you have insisted previously that harmful cell mutations are the gawds way of punishing sinners (culling the herd, so to speak), but you never addressed such culling as it applies to children and others who have not committed such an egregious affront to your gawds.

 

[UltimateReality]

I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

Haha. You actually think that the multi-verse theory was created in order to deal with fine tuning? It wasn't. Multi-verse theory is a natural byproduct of the math in string theory, which itself is an attempt at a unified field theory. It has nothing to do with your silly argument. It just so happens to make sense of it of these cosmological values. The values themselves do not demonstrate a god.

Ah, yeah they do. Or whatever you are calling the cause of the universe. Whatever or whoever caused the universe fine tuned it for life.