Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

[unknown soldier]

If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:

1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.

I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.

Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."

I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!

Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.

Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?

Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?

[The Tanager]

To keep this initial post as brief as I can, I’m not showing the support for every premise. I do believe each premise can be supported. So, I’m not assuming any of these premises are true. I am more than willing to share the support of any and all premises you want to ask me about.

…

Right, what we really have here is:

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to design.

This also assumes that there is fine-tuning at play and that the universe is temporal. Neither have been established just as the rejection of physical necessity or chance hasn't been.

Perhaps you missed the above part of my post. Perhaps I should have written the post with all the various supports spelled out.


1A. Kalam

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

From what comes God?

P1 states that “everything that begins to exist” has a cause. P5 states that the cause of the spatio-temporal universe must be eternal (i.e., it didn’t begin to exist, thus (if we rightly call that ‘God’), there is no contradiction in the argument and God doesn’t come from anything.

So, logically, you either need to (1) ask for the argument for the eternal nature of the cause if you doubt it, (2) present an argument that the cause is not eternal, (3) argue why it’s not right to use the term “God” for the being described in P5, or (4) make an additional argument for “everything that exists” has a cause. At least those are the only relevant critiques I can see.


1B. Fine-tuning

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
P3. Therefore, it is due to design
P4. Design necessitates a designer
P5. Therefore, there is a designer

Puddles must leave you mesmerized.

They don’t. I’m not sure of the critique here.

This also assumes that there is fine-tuning at play and that the universe is temporal. Neither have been established just as the rejection of physical necessity or chance hasn't been.

I’m not sure this one argument relies on the universe being temporal, we could take out “spatio-temporal” in the argument to avoid that possible confusion. I had it in there because of the previous argument. As to the others, of course more could be said, but I’m trying to be concise with the following:

When the laws of nature are expressed in mathematical equations certain constants and quantities (not determined by the laws of nature) must fall into a very narrow range of life-permitting values. Physicists like Davies have calculated that a change in gravity’s strength or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10 to the 100th power would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant driving the inflation of the universe to one part in 10 to the 120th power. Roger Penrose calculated the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance as one of out 10 to the 10th power to the 123rd power. There are many more such constants and quantities. Then we also need to account for the ratios between each other in some cases. Improbability multiplied by improbability by improbability, etc. gets us incomprehensible numbers. This seems to be the scientific consensus, as far as I can tell, as well.

Stumbling at the first hurdle.
Please demonstrate the validity of P2.

There is no physical reason why the constants and quantities should have the values they do (i.e., physical necessity). Why think it could not have been otherwise? Every attempt at a “theory of everything” (such as super-string theory or M theory) fails to predict uniquely our universe. String theory supposedly allows for 10,500 different universes governed by our present laws of nature, while physical necessity would mean there is only 1 possible universe that could have been.

The odds of fine-tuning are so great that to appeal to chance is just not reasonable. I think there are many problems with the various models of infinite world ensembles to make the odds “work” (and we can get into specific models, if you want), but this fails for other reasons, too.

One, There is no independent evidence for such a thing (thus, it seems brought in ad hoc simply to avoid the conclusion as being most reasonable), while there are other arguments for the existence of a personal creator of the world, if one is simply saying all else is equal here.

Two, if our universe is a random member of an infinite world ensemble, it’s overwhelmingly more probable that we would be observing a much different universe than the one we do.


1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Please present just one objective moral value.

Torturing a person for not believing in your worldview is wrong. Do you think such an action is not wrong?


1D. Math

P1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
P2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Where there's stuff, and someone has fingers, mathematics is a simple matter of finding out what to call each number.

I think this is a critique of P1. We are talking about how people can pour over equations, predict the existence of a fundamental particle which experiments prove exist decades later. How is it that mathematics is the language of nature, so that kind of thing can occur? If mathematical objects were abstract entities causally isolated from the universe, we’d have a happy coincidence. If mathematical objects were useful fictions, why would nature be written in this language?


1E. Consciousness

P1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.
P2. Intentional states of consciousness do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Did you, a conscious entity, intentionally decide to exist, or did your mother make that decision for you?

Do you think her decision was an intentional or unintentional state of consciousness?


2A. Resurrection

P1. There are 3 established facts concerning the fate of Jesus: discovery of an empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection
P2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
P3. This hypothesis entails that the God revealed by Jesus exists
P4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus exists.

None can show Jesus ever existed, much less that human-god hybrids create viable offspring.

The virgin birth could be false and this argument would still seem to go through, as far as I can tell.

[Clownboat]

2A. Resurrection

P1. There are 3 established facts concerning the fate of Jesus: discovery of an empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection
P2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
P3. This hypothesis entails that the God revealed by Jesus exists
P4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus exists.

It seems you are missing a great opportunity!
What is the best explanation for the dead bodies that got out of their graves and walk Jerusalem and for why it went unnoticed?

Matthew 27:52 ►
New International Version
and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

What really gets me is the arrogance it would take for me to use your other arguments only to land at a specific god concept. Even if they were good arguments (they are not), they do not get us any closer to any specific god concept and I'm not arrogant enough to just pick one and consider all other believers to be mistaken when the very same arguments can be used to support the version of a god they believe in.

The fact of the matter is, people don't believe in the Christian god for any other reason other than the belief in a book. The irony is that the book has become the idol and the said god concept would not approve.

You shall not make for yourselves an idol comes to mind.
But how else would we know our God!
Seems we are done here...

[brunumb]

Stumbling at the first hurdle.
Please demonstrate the validity of P2.

There is no physical reason why the constants and quantities should have the values they do (i.e., physical necessity). Why think it could not have been otherwise? Every attempt at a “theory of everything” (such as super-string theory or M theory) fails to predict uniquely our universe. String theory supposedly allows for 10,500 different universes governed by our present laws of nature, while physical necessity would mean there is only 1 possible universe that could have been.

The odds of fine-tuning are so great that to appeal to chance is just not reasonable. I think there are many problems with the various models of infinite world ensembles to make the odds “work” (and we can get into specific models, if you want), but this fails for other reasons, too.

One, There is no independent evidence for such a thing (thus, it seems brought in ad hoc simply to avoid the conclusion as being most reasonable), while there are other arguments for the existence of a personal creator of the world, if one is simply saying all else is equal here.

Two, if our universe is a random member of an infinite world ensemble, it’s overwhelmingly more probable that we would be observing a much different universe than the one we do.

Restating the claims does not amount to validating those claims.

[Miles]

To keep this initial post as brief as I can, I’m not showing the support for every premise. I do believe each premise can be supported. So, I’m not assuming any of these premises are true. I am more than willing to share the support of any and all premises you want to ask me about.

…

Right, what we really have here is:

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to design.

This also assumes that there is fine-tuning at play and that the universe is temporal. Neither have been established just as the rejection of physical necessity or chance hasn't been.

Perhaps you missed the above part of my post. Perhaps I should have written the post with all the various supports spelled out.


1A. Kalam

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

"The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following syllogism:" [please note the Kalam is presented as a syllogism: that is, two premises plus one conclusion. No more no less]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist.
___________________________________
Therefore, the universe has a cause

Note: there is NO mention of "eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal," or any attributes of god in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

P4. If the l universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.

Why? Why would the cause of the universe necessarily have to be

1. eternal?
2. non-spatial?
3. immaterial?
4. atemporal
5. personal?

Gotta show your work Tanager.

Moreover, a conditional premise, one using the term "IF," as with your P4 here, invalidates any absolute conclusion such as P5.

P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

At the very most one could conclude that "the cause of the spatio-temporal universe may be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal," BUT certainly not necessarily so.

________________

1B. Fine-tuning

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
P3. Therefore, it is due to design
P4. Design necessitates a designer
P5. Therefore, there is a designer

But if P2. read: It is not due to design or chance.
Then P3 could read: therefore it is due to physical necessity


Point being, in order to state: "P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance." you first have to show your evidence that this is true. IOW, show your proof.


BOTH YOUR PREMISES AND CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE IN ORDER TO HAVE A SOUND ARGUMENT. And to be accepted as true you have to present convincing evidence

_________________

Same goes for 1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Gotta show that P1 is indeed true. Need your proof, Tanager. PLUS, as I pointed out, conditional premises, those using the term "IF," cannot lead to an absolute conclusion. At most, all you can say from your argument about god is that he may exist.

ETC.

ETC..

ETC.


.

[JoeyKnothead]

From what comes God?

P1 states that “everything that begins to exist” has a cause. P5 states that the cause of the spatio-temporal universe must be eternal (i.e., it didn’t begin to exist, thus (if we rightly call that ‘God’), there is no contradiction in the argument and God doesn’t come from anything.

Special pleading. You have no reason to declare the universe must have a cause, being that it may have always existed in a prior form.

So, logically, you either need to (1) ask for the argument for the eternal nature of the cause if you doubt it,

I merely have to question your reasoning. I make no claims about the origin of the universe.

(2) present an argument that the cause is not eternal,

Per site rules, I'm under no obligation to present arguments regarding claims I ain't making.

(3) argue why it’s not right to use the term “God” for the being described in P5, or

Per site rules, I'm under no obligation to argue claims I ain't making.

I assume folks call that thing there "God", cause they think it's the thing they worship.

(4) make an additional argument for “everything that exists” has a cause. At least those are the only relevant critiques I can see.

Per site rules, I'm under no obligation to present arguments for claims I ain't making.

The relevant critique here is your declaring or implying the universe hasn't always existed, so God.

Puddles must leave you mesmerized.

They don’t. I’m not sure of the critique here.

The puddle refers to how that hole was magically designed to contain just enough water to fill it.

The argument from design's no different. In a world where things act according to their properties, well there we go.

Please present just one objective moral value.

Torturing a person for not believing in your worldview is wrong. Do you think such an action is not wrong?

I have no problem torturing holy hell out of anyone who'd harm one of mine. Where it's reasonably assumed their worldview has em on the side of hurting one of mine.

Where there's stuff, and someone has fingers, mathematics is a simple matter of finding out what to call each number.

I think this is a critique of P1. We are talking about how people can pour over equations, predict the existence of a fundamental particle which experiments prove exist decades later. How is it that mathematics is the language of nature, so that kind of thing can occur? If mathematical objects were abstract entities causally isolated from the universe, we’d have a happy coincidence. If mathematical objects were useful fictions, why would nature be written in this language?

Mathematics, as a language, is a human construct.

We've devised symbols and such to help explain observations or ideas.

A herd of cows ain't sitting there counting off, a fretting a what critical number'd come and have some of em culled.

Did you, a conscious entity, intentionally decide to exist, or did your mother make that decision for you?

Do you think her decision was an intentional or unintentional state of consciousness?

Answer my question first...

Did you, a conscious entity, intentionally decide to exist, or did your mother make that decision for you?

None can show Jesus ever existed, much less that human-god hybrids create viable offspring.

The virgin birth could be false and this argument would still seem to go through, as far as I can tell.

Okay then, show us all how we may confirm Jesus existed.

I note the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site.

[Goat]

Right, what we really have here is:

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to design.

This also assumes that there is fine-tuning at play and that the universe is temporal. Neither have been established just as the rejection of physical necessity or chance hasn't been.

Perhaps you missed the above part of my post. Perhaps I should have written the post with all the various supports spelled out.
[/quote]
This is the sharp shooters fallacy. You take what happened, and draw a target around it. There is no evidence of a 'fined tuned' universe.
https://nautil.us/the-not-so-fine-tunin ... rse-10220/

1A. Kalam

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

Please show that the argument P1 is true.
Please show that P2 is true.

2A. Resurrection

P1. There are 3 established facts concerning the fate of Jesus: discovery of an empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection
P2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
P3. This hypothesis entails that the God revealed by Jesus exists
P4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus exists.

None can show Jesus ever existed, much less that human-god hybrids create viable offspring.

The virgin birth could be false and this argument would still seem to go through, as far as I can tell.

Please show that P1 is true. Show those are facts, and not claims.

[The Tanager]

Again, I’ve left a lot of the supporting arguments out. One, for space and time reasons. Two, I didn’t want to assume no one had heard of these well-known arguments. That way everyone gets to question or seek more info and support on what they haven’t heard of before or that you have and you just want to focus more on. Even in these latest posts, I’m simplifying, so ask for more support or clarification in places.

What really gets me is the arrogance it would take for me to use your other arguments only to land at a specific god concept. Even if they were good arguments (they are not), they do not get us any closer to any specific god concept and I'm not arrogant enough to just pick one and consider all other believers to be mistaken when the very same arguments can be used to support the version of a god they believe in.

As I said, it’s the argument for Jesus’ resurrection that I believe points to a specific god concept, narrowing theism to Christian theism.

The fact of the matter is, people don't believe in the Christian god for any other reason other than the belief in a book. The irony is that the book has become the idol and the said god concept would not approve.

You shall not make for yourselves an idol comes to mind.
But how else would we know our God!
Seems we are done here...

Even if you were right that people only believe in the Christian god because of a belief in the book, faulting a truth claim because of why one believes or how they came to that belief is the genetic fallacy. The arguments for any worldview depend on the soundness of the arguments.


1A. Kalam

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

"The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following syllogism:" [please note the Kalam is presented as a syllogism: that is, two premises plus one conclusion. No more no less]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist.
___________________________________
Therefore, the universe has a cause

Note: there is NO mention of "eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal," or any attributes of god in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

You are noting a distinction often made between the Kalam proper and the conclusions we can draw from the Kalam about the cause of the universe. Anyone familiar with Craig’s writings knows he will always bring up what the cause of the universe must be like, sometimes formalized into premises, sometimes not. Call what I gave something other than the Kalam, if you want. An argument doesn’t fail because of its name.

P1 states that “everything that begins to exist” has a cause. P5 states that the cause of the spatio-temporal universe must be eternal (i.e., it didn’t begin to exist, thus (if we rightly call that ‘God’), there is no contradiction in the argument and God doesn’t come from anything.

Special pleading.

Perhaps you think it’s special pleading because of the term “God”, but “God” is just a placeholder for those characteristics in P5. The idea is then getting rounded out by the other arguments. What constitutes “God” is empty until the conclusions of the arguments begin to fill that idea. I’m not starting with any characteristic in that term.

You have no reason to declare the universe must have a cause, being that it may have always existed in a prior form.

P1-P3 are logically valid. The support for premise 1 is rooted in the necessary truth that something cannot come into being uncaused from nothing. Things can’t just pop into existence uncaused is worse than magic for there is no magician performing the magic. If things could pop into existence out of nothing, why doesn’t just anything and everything? On top of that, every single experience we have ever experienced in our history of things beginning to exist (even if that is changing one’s state) comes from a prior cause.

Regardless of what one thinks scientifically (although the strongest scientific theories posit beginnings to the spatio-temporal universe), I think the best evidence is through philosophical arguments.

One, I think it’s absurd to think an actually infinite number of things (like the past momentsof an eternal universe) could exist. From things like Hilbert’s Hotel, this leads to things like every room being full, an infinity of new guests arriving, and the full hotel being able to accommodate them, each with their own room.

Two, even if that’s not absurd, it’s impossible to form an actual infinite via successive addition (which is what happens with our temporal universe). To say otherwise would be like saying one can count to infinity.

Either you must disagree with P1 or P2, or accept (to remain rational) the truth of P3, that the universe has a cause.

Per site rules, I'm under no obligation to present arguments for claims I ain't making.

Sure. My point was that I defended my claim. If you want to rationally disagree with that defense, then I gave you the points where you could rationally disagree. Below I give the reasoning for the cause being eternal. Above I talked about what “God” means. And you still have the option of presenting an argument that “everything that exists has a cause”. If you want to further the discussion in those ways, then go for it. If you don’t, that’s fine.

Why? Why would the cause of the universe necessarily have to be

1. eternal?
2. non-spatial?
3. immaterial?
4. atemporal
5. personal?

Gotta show your work Tanager.

Moreover, a conditional premise, one using the term "IF," as with your P4 here, invalidates any absolute conclusion such as P5.

Of course. As I said, I didn’t want to give every single support in an opening post as that would make that post unbearably long. We can then focus in on what you all want to focus in on.

As for the logical validity of P5, it follows from P3 and P4. The if statement of P4 was established as true in P3 (from P1 and P2).

1. Eternal? Everything that begins to exist has a cause. There must be an ultimate cause that has always existed. That ultimate cause is what we are talking about here.

2. Non-spatial? The cause, as the creator of space, could not, itself, be spatial. Otherwise we would have something spatial existing before anything spatial existed, which is absurd.

3. Immaterial? The cause, as the creator of matter, could not, itself, be material. Otherwise we would have something material existing before anything material existed, which is absurd.

4. Atemporal? The cause, as the creator of time, could not, itself, be temporal. Otherwise we would have something temporal existing before anything temporal existed, which is absurd.

5. Personal?

Argument 1

There are two types of causal explanation: scientific (in terms of laws and initial conditions) and personal (agents and their volitions). A first state of spatio-temporal matter cannot have a scientific explanation because there is nothing physical before it, i.e, It cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. Therefore, it can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation.

Argument 2

The personhood of the First Cause is powerfully suggested by the other properties argued for (which we could go over, if you wish). The seemingly only two candidate concepts that can be described as immaterial, eternal, timeless, and spaceless are abstract objects and an unembodied mind. But abstract objects are not involved in causal relations. Therefore, the cause of spatio-temporal matter must be an unembodied mind.

Argument 3

Only personal, free agency can account for a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then the effect would be eternal. How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How could the cause exist without the effect? [For instance, if the temperature has always been below freezing, then any H2O that existed would have been eternally ice. There wouldn’t have been a point where it changed from water to ice.] The best way out of this dilemma is agent causation. In this, the agent freely brings about some event in the absence of prior determining conditions, initiating new effects by choice. In agent causation, the agent-cause could be eternal and the effect temporal.

[The Tanager]

1B. Fine-tuning

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
P3. Therefore, it is due to design
P4. Design necessitates a designer
P5. Therefore, there is a designer

There is no physical reason why the constants and quantities should have the values they do (i.e., physical necessity). Why think it could not have been otherwise? Every attempt at a “theory of everything” (such as super-string theory or M theory) fails to predict uniquely our universe. String theory supposedly allows for 10,500 different universes governed by our present laws of nature, while physical necessity would mean there is only 1 possible universe that could have been.

The odds of fine-tuning are so great that to appeal to chance is just not reasonable. I think there are many problems with the various models of infinite world ensembles to make the odds “work” (and we can get into specific models, if you want), but this fails for other reasons, too.

One, There is no independent evidence for such a thing (thus, it seems brought in ad hoc simply to avoid the conclusion as being most reasonable), while there are other arguments for the existence of a personal creator of the world, if one is simply saying all else is equal here.

Two, if our universe is a random member of an infinite world ensemble, it’s overwhelmingly more probable that we would be observing a much different universe than the one we do.

Restating the claims does not amount to validating those claims.

Let me rephrase to show this wasn’t the case:

(1) I believe it’s most reasonable to think it’s not via physical necessity because (a) there is no logical reason for it being so and (b) all scientific theories point towards no physical necessity.

(2) I believe it’s most reasonable to think it’s not via chance because (a) the odds of it are too astronomical, requiring a near infinite world ensemble to exist, (b) this world ensemble type of alternative is ad hoc and (c) even if this world ensemble existed it is much more probable that our world would be different than what it is.

The puddle refers to how that hole was magically designed to contain just enough water to fill it.

The argument from design's no different. In a world where things act according to their properties, well there we go.

I fail to see how my argument is like that at all. Can you support that claim more clearly?

[The Tanager]

1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Gotta show that P1 is indeed true. Need your proof, Tanager. PLUS, as I pointed out, conditional premises, those using the term "IF," cannot lead to an absolute conclusion. At most, all you can say from your argument about god is that he may exist.

But, again, it’s about establishing the if (or it’s opposite). This is the form of the moral argument. It’s a textbook modus tollens.
If A (i.e., God does not exist), then B (i.e., objective…do not exist)
Not-B (i.e., objective…do exist)
Therefore not-A (i.e., God does exist)

Now the support. On unguided evolution, ‘morality’ is simply a biological adaptation like teeth are. It’s about survival and reproduction, not about some objective truth that we must adhere to even if it goes against survival and reproduction. Things like rape, on this view, are perhaps not socially advantageous because they are socially taboo, but that’s far different than rape being called objectively wrong.

Torturing a person for not believing in your worldview is wrong. Do you think such an action is not wrong?

I have no problem torturing holy hell out of anyone who'd harm one of mine. Where it's reasonably assumed their worldview has em on the side of hurting one of mine.

I didn’t say anything about them harming one of yours and I don’t see how that’s reasonably assumed. We can update it, though. “Torturing a person, who will not harm one of your own, for not believing in your worldview is wrong.” Do you think such a torture is not wrong?

[The Tanager]

1D. Math

P1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
P2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Mathematics, as a language, is a human construct.

We've devised symbols and such to help explain observations or ideas.

A herd of cows ain't sitting there counting off, a fretting a what critical number'd come and have some of em culled.

I’m not talking about math as a language, but the concepts our mathematical language pick out. Again, things like mathematical equations spurning one on and leading to scientific discoveries.