Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion

[MJFlores]

How did you come to conclusion that it has to be a living being?
You haven't demonstrated that there is a creator, so until you do that, saying "nobody created the creator" is meaningless and pointless.


This is flawed. If a non being created everything already, then there wouldn't be a need for a creator. It's special pleading for you to say, "this something that doesn't require it to be created, is god." If going by your logic, we can replace "god" with anything and have the same conclusion.


By natural occurrences. Nobody created the Grand Canyon, lakes, rivers, etc. Plants can exist without having someone to plant them. Animals have offsprings without the requirement of someone creating them. Bacteria and viruses can multiply without the need for to someone create more. Fire can exist without having someone to create it, i.e. lightening.



How did you come to the conclusion that it is only god? You've given example above of other possibilities besides god, i.e. inanimate thing. Another possibility would be the previous universe/existence.


How soSo?


Why would you need specifically the bible? Or any religious text for that matter?

I'm asking you personally these questions. Why does it matter if the universe have a purpose or not? Does it change the meaning of your life if the universe did? If it does, how?

These are my replies to charlie sc

But please inform me if some scientist found a way to create matter out of nothing.
Not through mixing something which is already there but from nothing.

 

[night912]

But please inform me if some scientist found a way to create matter out of nothing.
Not through mixing something which is already there but from nothing.

And the significance of that would be........?

 

[Kilk1]

Yes. So what you've been doing is using the bible to prove god exists. The Bible already assumes the existence of god and there is no verification or falsification outside the Bible. This is akin to reading any book and believing whatever is inside is true. So, it may be better to show the Christian god exists outside the context of the Bible.

My argument for God hasn't been anything like, "The Bible says it; therefore it's true." My argument for Jesus' resurrection is based not on assumptions that the Bible is inspired but rather on what even secular scholars grant about the Bible's relevance to history. And my case for the existence of God is based on arguments from the Universe.

Yes, if we measure an observation again and again it becomes substantiated. There may be theories behind this action, which again, need to be verified, falsified and reproduced. So, only with the differentiation of biologically dead vs clinically dead can we explain the Lazarus effect.

So, if someone rises 3 days after being declared as biologically dead it would, first, have to be scientifically measures and validated. Eye witness testimony and, definitely, hearsay are not good ways to measure a phenomenon. They're bad enough in court and worse in science. So, if someone can measure someone alive, then dead for 3 days, and then alive after the 3 days, scientifically, this would require a new theory because it's gone through a reliable methodological process. Once we have evidence someone can revive after 3 days, there will be multiple theories and probably some would be supernatural. These theories will then have to be substantiated with evidence by experimentation, falsification, verification and reproducibility. There are ways to verify the supernatural indirectly and I can name many studies that have tried.

What you want to do, in science, is assume evidence exists by hearsay and then skip the substantiation of a theory. You are skipping so many processes. It's not science.

Alleged events of history aren't explained through the scientific method, as they're not repeatable. Instead, historiographers use inference to the best explanation. The evidence that Jesus was crucified and that people sincerely became convinced they saw Him risen is granted by nearly everyone, atheist and Christian alike. No serious historian would dismiss the evidence as "hearsay." As far as I've seen, the explanation that He actually rose from the dead is the best one for these facts.

However, what examples of indirectly verifying the supernatural are you referencing? It sounds interesting.

Sure.

Only Hobbits live in the Shire
Bilbo lives in the Shire
Therefore, Bilbo is a Hobbit.

The syllogism is valid (i.e., if the major and minor premise are true, the conclusion is true), but whether it's sound depends on how you look at it. Within the Hobbit universe, the syllogism is sound. Within our universe, however, there is no Bilbo living in the Shire, so the syllogism isn't sound.

Yes, I don't know what begins to exists means nor that it is possible. If you'd like to explain it to me, please do.

Let's drop the cosmological argument. Honestly, I prefer to deal with the argument from the fine-tuned Universe, which is below.

Assuming we are incredibly lucky, the universe is designed or whatever theory you want to go through, I don't see how you can go with god-did-it. Remember, the appearance of design is not design. There are numerous examples where something appears to be designed but it is not. A very intellectually dishonest argument I hear from theists is when they compare a watch or building to the universe. We actually have experience, knowledge, design, etc, and can create watches and buildings. However, this analogy falls flat with something we don't know. Philosophy, ID falls flat, because appearance is not actual design and the analogies used fail. Scientifically it fails, because there is no comparison, no methodology, no verification, falsification and no model. This is a question that's perfectly fit for, "I don't know."

Science has shown that "The Universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply,shockingly unlikely" (Why is There Life? | DiscoverMagazine.com). Since the probability of the Universe arriving by chance is basically next to zero, as science has shown, can't we rule chance out, then?

 

[charlie sc]

My argument for God hasn't been anything like, "The Bible says it; therefore it's true." My argument for Jesus' resurrection is based not on assumptions that the Bible is inspired but rather on what even secular scholars grant about the Bible's relevance to history. And my case for the existence of God is based on arguments from the Universe.


Alleged events of history aren't explained through the scientific method, as they're not repeatable. Instead, historiographers use inference to the best explanation. The evidence that Jesus was crucified and that people sincerely became convinced they saw Him risen is granted by nearly everyone, atheist and Christian alike. No serious historian would dismiss the evidence as "hearsay." As far as I've seen, the explanation that He actually rose from the dead is the best one for these facts.

First, by definition, it is hearsay, because Paul is relaying what the witnesses saw. Second, historians are writing what people claim to have happened. I don't think many historians will say the resurrection did happen, some would rather paraphrase what the claims are. Third, none of this is scientifically shown. I don't mind saying these people existed, because people exist. Nor do I mind consenting to the Romans torturing others, etc, because torture and empires are a common place and not supernatural. However, to say someone rose from the dead by god is a supernatural claim. In recent history, apart from the charlatans(like the video I linked to you), these things just don't happen. For science to accept even mundane hypothesis, it needs to be tested, let alone supernatural. There are tons of mundane experiments that have been done and still being done to test hypothesis. This cannot, and will not, get special privilege. So, if you want to consider eye witnesses testimony, from the Bible, as evidence for resurrection(not just claims), then can you also consider eye witness testimony that Elvis resurrected as evidence also?

However, what examples of indirectly verifying the supernatural are you referencing? It sounds interesting.

So, by definition, the supernatural is not verifiable. I'm not saying it's not but according to the definition it is. What can be tested is how the supernatural interacts with the natural world. For instance, there have been numerous studies on intercessory prayer. This is where they verify the effect of a supposed supernatural being or thing by using prayer; they aren't directly testing the supernatural. These studies don't come back fruitful.

The syllogism is valid (i.e., if the major and minor premise are true, the conclusion is true), but whether it's sound depends on how you look at it. Within the Hobbit universe, the syllogism is sound. Within our universe, however, there is no Bilbo living in the Shire, so the syllogism isn't sound.

Yep. Though, I didn’t add this was about our universe, nor can I make that claim as a premise. This syllogism is sound by itself, as it should be.

Science has shown that "The Universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply,shockingly unlikely" (Why is There Life? | DiscoverMagazine.com). Since the probability of the Universe arriving by chance is basically next to zero, as science has shown, can't we rule chance out, then?

The article gives numerous other explanations. My question to you is, why should we rule out chance?

Here's one of the explanations in the article ""The analogy here is of a ready-made clothes shop," says Rees, peeling his dessert, a banana. "If there is a large stock of clothing, you're not surprised to find a suit that fits. If there are many universes, each governed by a differing set of numbers, there will be one where there is a particular set of numbers suitable to life. We are in that one.""

I'm perfectly content saying, "I don't know."

 

[Kilk1]

First, by definition, it is hearsay, because Paul is relaying what the witnesses saw. Second, historians are writing what people claim to have happened. I don't think many historians will say the resurrection did happen, some would rather paraphrase what the claims are. Third, none of this is scientifically shown. I don't mind saying these people existed, because people exist. Nor do I mind consenting to the Romans torturing others, etc, because torture and empires are a common place and not supernatural. However, to say someone rose from the dead by god is a supernatural claim. In recent history, apart from the charlatans(like the video I linked to you), these things just don't happen. For science to accept even mundane hypothesis, it needs to be tested, let alone supernatural. There are tons of mundane experiments that have been done and still being done to test hypothesis. This cannot, and will not, get special privilege. So, if you want to consider eye witnesses testimony, from the Bible, as evidence for resurrection(not just claims), then can you also consider eye witness testimony that Elvis resurrected as evidence also?

First off, Paul is one of the witnesses, and the others are those he knew. Second, while historians aren't all agreeing that Jesus was actually there to be seen (as I've said, secular theories like hallucinations are offered in addition to God raising Jesus from the dead), everyone does agree not only that they claimed to have seen Jesus risen but that their belief was sincere. Again, sincerity doesn't automatically equal truth, but since historians of all strides agree that individual disciples, groups of disciples, and even skeptics had experiences of seeing Jesus risen, these need to be explained, subjectively or otherwise. I don't know if we can prove that the eyewitnesses of Elvis are sincere in the way we can with Jesus' witnesses, but even if we could, there's a secular theory that does work for Elvis sightings—the many impersonators running around.

As for your third point, yes, the resurrection theory can't be proved by science, as it's a one-time event; I just said that. But correctly interpreting an event in A.D. 33 can't be done through science alone. The scientific method relies on inductive reasoning to show us what does happen under general circumstances; determining a historical explanation, on the other hand, requires abductive reasoning (i.e., inference to the best explanation) to determine what did happen at a specific time and place. While science can be a tool to evaluate some of the posited theories, we're doing historiography right now, and that needs to be remembered.

So, by definition, the supernatural is not verifiable. I'm not saying it's not but according to the definition it is. What can be tested is how the supernatural interacts with the natural world. For instance, there have been numerous studies on intercessory prayer. This is where they verify the effect of a supposed supernatural being or thing by using prayer; they aren't directly testing the supernatural. These studies don't come back fruitful.

They don't? I get what you're saying; even my natural inclination would be that God doesn't want to be put in a test tube, so it wouldn't surprise me if God would see prayers for a science experiment as ingenuine. However, when I heard about those studies in the past, it actually made me reconsider, because they have suggested that prayer brings results: Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer. I'm open to this being wrong if you find any problems in these studies, though.

Yep. Though, I didn’t add this was about our universe, nor can I make that claim as a premise. This syllogism is sound by itself, as it should be.

Well, without stipulations about being in the Hobbit universe, I'm not sure the syllogism is sound. How do you prove its premises without resorting to a fictional Universe?

The article gives numerous other explanations. My question to you is, why should we rule out chance?

Here's one of the explanations in the article ""The analogy here is of a ready-made clothes shop," says Rees, peeling his dessert, a banana. "If there is a large stock of clothing, you're not surprised to find a suit that fits. If there are many universes, each governed by a differing set of numbers, there will be one where there is a particular set of numbers suitable to life. We are in that one.""

I'm perfectly content saying, "I don't know."

Okay, I see what you're saying here. This is the main thing I'd like to discuss at this point. I'm glad you read the article and heard about Rees's view. I like to compare the chance of us living in this Universe to flipping coins. The chance of flipping 20 coins and all them landing heads is about one in a million. However, similar to what Rees is discussing, if all 330 Americans each flipped 20 coins, a lot of them actually would get all heads.

The problem with this multiverse theory, however, is that we make one probability problem solvable at the expense of another. Using the coin example again, even if, hypothetically, all 330 Americans flipped 20 coins each and some got all heads, it doesn't make it likely that you would. In the same way, even if, hypothetically, there were so many universes that ours became likely, there would be so many other universes that the chance of you landing in one this complex is still inconceivably unlikely. Consider this:

[Atheist] Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10¹²³, an inconceivable number. If our cosmos were indeed but one member of a much vaster multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. The probability of our solar system forming randomly is about 1:¹⁰⁶⁰, a vast number but inconceivably smaller than 10¹²³.

It's solving one probability problem at the expense of another.

 

[charlie sc]

First off, Paul is one of the witnesses, and the others are those he knew.

Yeah, and he's still relaying what other people saw, so it's hearsay. A double whammy of hearsay is that no one knows who the the author is in the Bible for Paul. Coolz Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia

everyone does agree not only that they claimed to have seen Jesus risen but that their belief was sincere. Again, sincerity doesn't automatically equal truth, but since historians of all strides agree that individual disciples, groups of disciples, and even skeptics had experiences of seeing Jesus risen, these need to be explained, subjectively or otherwise.

Yes, eye witness testimony does not equal the truth. Phew Equally, there are numerous studies around showing that alien abductees completely believe they were abducted. Are you willing to accept their version of reality, that's vastly different from others and has no scientific evidence(it's mostly eye witness testimony), as truth?

I don't see why it needs to be explained, as if it's a requirement. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. If you think hearsay from eye witness testimony from 2000+ years old scripture is enough to convince you, fine. However, I'd expect, then, you to be logically consistent and also think alien abduction is also real, since we have eye witness testimony and even some photos.

I don't know if we can prove that the eyewitnesses of Elvis are sincere in the way we can with Jesus' witnesses, but even if we could, there's a secular theory that does work for Elvis sightings—the many impersonators running around.

I see, and why could there NOT have been impersonators of Jesus back then? Hmmm ?

They don't? I get what you're saying; even my natural inclination would be that God doesn't want to be put in a test tube, so it wouldn't surprise me if God would see prayers for a science experiment as ingenuine. However, when I heard about those studies in the past, it actually made me reconsider, because they have suggested that prayer brings results: Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer. I'm open to this being wrong if you find any problems in these studies, though.

Well, that site is using a lot of confirmation bias. I always find these sites, with so much conflict of interest, dubious. They gave a quote from a systematic review in the top right part of the website, "New Prayer Study The newest prayer study is a meta-analysis that takes into account the entire body of empirical research on intercessory prayer (17 major studies). The new study showed that according to American Psychological Association Division 12 criteria, intercessory prayer is classified as an experimental intervention that, overall, shows a small, but significant, positive effect.1 Rich Deem"
Eh, ok, but straight after that he says, and this is the complete rest of the conclusion, "Most practitioners, however, are likely to affirm the broader understanding of evidence-based practice articulated in the APA’s Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based Practice (2006). Such practitioners may believe that the best available evidence currently supports the use of intercessory prayer as an intervention. Thus, at this junction in time, the results might be considered inconclusive. Indeed, perhaps the most certain result stemming from this study is the following: The findings are unlikely to satisfy either proponents or opponents of intercessory prayer."

I mean, it's just nonsense. They're cherry picking what they want to hear. I read the rest of that systematic review and let me tell you, it's grim. Lol, and this is the one they supplied. Some of the studies found that people who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse. The main bunch of studies that showed some effect with prayer were ones where the participants knew they were being prayed for and it was done in person. This is easily explainable by the placebo affect. There was another I checked out, but there were numerous methodological flaws. Most of the studies are concerned with feeling good after being prayed for. No studies that I've seen have actually cured people, regrown limbs or anything like that. Most studies come back with negligible results. Mindfulness studies have far greater effects and consistent results than this and it's an actual teachable method and practice. The literature on intercessory prayer is weak, sparce and inconsistent. This is the latest study on the topic concerning healing: Therapeutic Effects of Islamic Intercessory Prayer on Warts. Lol warts. They found nothing and I think I'd rather run in the street naked that read that study. I fairly well versed on this topic and it's quite sad to see this kind of misinformation. If you want I can copy/paste some of that literature review so you can see yourself.

Well, without stipulations about being in the Hobbit universe, I'm not sure the syllogism is sound. How do you prove its premises without resorting to a fictional Universe?

Well, this is problematic. I've never seen a Hobbit in real life, but, what I know of Hobbits. I know that they live in the shire. Similarly, I've never seen the universe began to exist nor have I seen everything having a cause. Though, from my empirical experience, it kinda makes sense. Similarly, Hobbits kinda make sense. So, I don't know what to do.

Okay, I see what you're saying here. This is the main thing I'd like to discuss at this point. I'm glad you read the article and heard about Rees's view. I like to compare the chance of us living in this Universe to flipping coins. The chance of flipping 20 coins and all them landing heads is about one in a million. However, similar to what Rees is discussing, if all 330 Americans each flipped 20 coins, a lot of them actually would get all heads.

The problem with this multiverse theory, however, is that we make one probability problem solvable at the expense of another. Using the coin example again, even if, hypothetically, all 330 Americans flipped 20 coins each and some got all heads, it doesn't make it likely that you would. In the same way, even if, hypothetically, there were so many universes that ours became likely, there would be so many other universes that the chance of you landing in one this complex is still inconceivably unlikely. Consider this:

[Atheist] Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10¹²³, an inconceivable number. If our cosmos were indeed but one member of a much vaster multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. The probability of our solar system forming randomly is about 1:¹⁰⁶⁰, a vast number but inconceivably smaller than 10¹²³.

It's solving one probability problem at the expense of another.

Assuming I go with the by chance scenario, how is it any different from yours concerning one problem at the expense of another. You want to say god-did-it, though, what did god?
I'm not going to go with by chance anyway, nor do I know these theories well enough to make an informed decision. And I have to ask you the same question. Why are you solving one problem at the expensive of another? I'll add this too: If I were to go with chance, I'd have no ties to this theory. Consider, however, you have a few ties to your solution. You not only believe a god caused the universe, but the god is also your personal god.

 

[osgart]

Unconditional Love always does what is best for the other and not just give them what they want. With this in mind, is protecting everyone really a bad choice? Of course not.

Mankind can be a stubborn lot. That is why God set it up for us all to Live our lessons.

Since, people can be very stubborn to change, you must be very very patient. Move a grain of sand every time to see them. In time, they will learn. I have found that when they do finally change they almost always think it was their idea. That is perfectly OK since the glory of changing them means absolutely nothing.

If they do not change for you, keep moving the sand for there might be another who will make the final difference after you are gone. Never Give Up!!

I know this works. By now, I can't count how many I have pointed in the right direction. Remember, the glory of having changed another means absolutely nothing. We are here but to serve.

I keep agreeing with you in this thread, and that is highly unusual.

It affirms my own experiences and thoughts on God. And the waywardness of many religions.

 

[osgart]

As a hunter/gatherer i would have from the first have a God reaction. The idea that the universe is intelligible would spring from that God reaction. Then of course i would try to aspire to the Supreme. That aspiration would start me on a quest for knowledge. So the conception of God would naturally lead me on a quest for knowledge. From knowledge and experience i would gather a sense of conscience. Civilization springs from conscience. Trustworthiness is the foundation of peace and civilization. Once trust is established i can build a relationship with God. If something horrific happened to me along the way then two paths would emerge from that. One is the road of doubt and disbelief, two is that i deserve to be contested this way, and i must learn to be a better person.

From the conviction that i need to learn better ways and rectify my needful separation from God I would learn prayer and self reflection, and God reflection. All events from the worst to best possible occurences would be seen as a trial, and test. By way of love, and experience through tragedy, and good times i would come to the peace that death is not an end, but a beginning.

Whether one doubts God or is an atheist is of no significance to God nor the atheist. God does not have to be known of to make atheists closer to God's will. The only way to know of God is by experiencing God. No amount of proof nor evidence will establish conclusively that God is real. Each individual is a unique road that eventually leads to God.

Thats my most recent conviction.

And of course all kinds of religions would spring up, again, and again, and again.

 

[Kilk1]

Yeah, and he's still relaying what other people saw, so it's hearsay. A double whammy of hearsay is that no one knows who the the author is in the Bible for Paul. Coolz Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia

Did you just reference the authorship of Hebrews to determine the authorship of 1 Corinthians? Few scholars believe Paul wrote Hebrews (and I agree with them), but virtually everyone agrees he wrote 1 Corinthians.

It would be nice to have more passages from undisputed eyewitnesses, but the information we do have is enough for even atheistic scholars to say, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ” (What Really Happened to Jesus, Gerd Lüdemann, pg. 80, emphasis mine).

The debate in scholarship isn't about whether those in 1 Corinthians 15 had experiences where Jesus appeared to them risen. Rather, it's about interpreting the experiences, whether they were objective (i.e., based in reality, as I believe) or subjective (i.e., not based in reality, the position held by Lüdemann).

Yes, eye witness testimony does not equal the truth. Phew Equally, there are numerous studies around showing that alien abductees completely believe they were abducted. Are you willing to accept their version of reality, that's vastly different from others and has no scientific evidence(it's mostly eye witness testimony), as truth?

I don't see why it needs to be explained, as if it's a requirement. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. If you think hearsay from eye witness testimony from 2000+ years old scripture is enough to convince you, fine. However, I'd expect, then, you to be logically consistent and also think alien abduction is also real, since we have eye witness testimony and even some photos.

I confess that saying the experiences "need to be explained" isn't the most precise wording I could use. What I mean is that the facts about Jesus' alleged resurrection must have some explanation, and in order to claim it's a natural one, there needs to be a workable naturalistic interpretation that doesn't go against our general knowledge of the world.

With alien abductions, there are many workable naturalistic explanations that vary depending on which case you're examining. Regarding Jesus' resurrection, however, things are different. What we know about the world indicates that experiences of Jesus being risen were objective, not subjective, since hallucinations don't happen to groups and wouldn't be expected to occur to skeptics.

I see, and why could there NOT have been impersonators of Jesus back then? Hmmm ?

Because close associates could tell the difference, and most of the eyewitnesses were close associates. Now, Paul wasn't a close associate, true, but he was a skeptic--a hater and persecutor of Christianity, in fact. He wouldn't be convinced by a random person pretending to be Jesus. In all the debates I've seen on Jesus' resurrection, no scholar has advocated this as a workable theory.

Well, that site is using a lot of confirmation bias. I always find these sites, with so much conflict of interest, dubious. They gave a quote from a systematic review in the top right part of the website, "New Prayer Study The newest prayer study is a meta-analysis that takes into account the entire body of empirical research on intercessory prayer (17 major studies). The new study showed that according to American Psychological Association Division 12 criteria, intercessory prayer is classified as an experimental intervention that, overall, shows a small, but significant, positive effect.1 Rich Deem"
Eh, ok, but straight after that he says, and this is the complete rest of the conclusion, "Most practitioners, however, are likely to affirm the broader understanding of evidence-based practice articulated in the APA’s Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based Practice (2006). Such practitioners may believe that the best available evidence currently supports the use of intercessory prayer as an intervention. Thus, at this junction in time, the results might be considered inconclusive. Indeed, perhaps the most certain result stemming from this study is the following: The findings are unlikely to satisfy either proponents or opponents of intercessory prayer."

I mean, it's just nonsense. They're cherry picking what they want to hear. I read the rest of that systematic review and let me tell you, it's grim. Lol, and this is the one they supplied. Some of the studies found that people who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse. The main bunch of studies that showed some effect with prayer were ones where the participants knew they were being prayed for and it was done in person. This is easily explainable by the placebo affect. There was another I checked out, but there were numerous methodological flaws. Most of the studies are concerned with feeling good after being prayed for. No studies that I've seen have actually cured people, regrown limbs or anything like that. Most studies come back with negligible results. Mindfulness studies have far greater effects and consistent results than this and it's an actual teachable method and practice. The literature on intercessory prayer is weak, sparce and inconsistent. This is the latest study on the topic concerning healing: Therapeutic Effects of Islamic Intercessory Prayer on Warts. Lol warts. They found nothing and I think I'd rather run in the street naked that read that study. I fairly well versed on this topic and it's quite sad to see this kind of misinformation. If you want I can copy/paste some of that literature review so you can see yourself.

The first two studies in the article I referenced did show positive results for those being prayed for. The third one, however, didn't show results. In fact, like you mentioned, those who knew they were being prayed for did worse. However, the third study had a problem: "Unlike in previous studies, the intercessors were not allowed to pray their own prayers. The prayers were given to them by the study coordinators to 'standardize' the prayers." Since Jesus condemned using "vain repetitions as the heathen do" (Matt. 6:7, NKJV), it makes sense that "assigned prayers" wouldn't have come across as sincere to God.

However, I confess that I'm not educated on prayer studies. In fact, as I explained in my last post, my natural inclination is against God going along with studies like these. In other words, I'm not pressing this as evidence for God.

Well, this is problematic. I've never seen a Hobbit in real life, but, what I know of Hobbits. I know that they live in the shire. Similarly, I've never seen the universe began to exist nor have I seen everything having a cause. Though, from my empirical experience, it kinda makes sense. Similarly, Hobbits kinda make sense. So, I don't know what to do.

Sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean here.

Assuming I go with the by chance scenario, how is it any different from yours concerning one problem at the expense of another. You want to say god-did-it, though, what did god?
I'm not going to go with by chance anyway, nor do I know these theories well enough to make an informed decision. And I have to ask you the same question. Why are you solving one problem at the expensive of another? I'll add this too: If I were to go with chance, I'd have no ties to this theory. Consider, however, you have a few ties to your solution. You not only believe a god caused the universe, but the god is also your personal god.

Since it's been a while since we began this discussion, let's back up. At first, the focus of our discussion was on Jesus's resurrection. It got to the point where you said that aliens are just as likely, if not likelier, an explanation than Jesus' explanation: that God raised Him from the dead. Therefore, I said we should move to instead discuss the existence of God. Because of this, I'd rather keep the focus here. (In fact, don't even feel a need to reply to the above paragraphs. If you do, I probably won't reply to them anyway. Now of course, if you want the last word... )

You mention that God would solve the problem but at the expense of another. The problem that allegedly arises is, "What did God"? God is eternal, so no such problem exists. You might be confusing the fine-tuning argument with the argument from first cause. I'm glad to hear you're "not going to go with by chance anyway." But if the Universe's existence isn't by chance, then by definition, wouldn't it be by design? And wouldn't a cause intelligent and powerful enough to create the Universe qualify as God?

I'm not saying from this argument that it's "my God," but you have to remember the context of our discussion. I'm trying to show that Jesus' God raised Him from the dead. You've said in effect that it's hard to know God did it if there's as much evidence for God as aliens. Therefore, I'm switching gears, focusing now on the Universe-vast evidence that there is a God. If we can establish that, we can return to the resurrection to see which God it is.