Actually I'm not. Though I would like to know what you have seen being brought into existence and what caused it. I'll bet you've never seen "something come from something". We have only observed change rather than creation. So we are ignorant of what causes creation.
So just as I expected, you are obviously falling victim to the infinity absurdity as most people do that want to reject the notion of a first cause. I will leave you to your absurdities.
By all means present the modal ontological argument and explain how it is except from the points that I presented.
Dont mind if I do.
1. The Judeo-Christian God is typically defined as an ominscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenveolent being. God is also defined as a supernatural first cause, a cause that is eternal and necessary it his existence. We will call this being a maximally great being (MGB)
2. There is a possible world at which a MGB exists
3. If a MGB exists in one possible world, a MGB exists in all possible worlds
4. If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, a MGB exist in this world
5. If a MGB exists in this world, a MGB exists in reality.
6. Therefore, a MGB exist in reality. God exists in reality.
And you have to make the argument that it is NOT physical. And that our experiences and such are non-physical. This is required to claim truth. You don't "know". You have no evidence supporting your statements. Ergo it is an argument from ignorance. So I don't have to prove you wrong.
So if your brain and your mind are the same thing...when you are happy, are you happy, or is your brain happy? When you are sad...are you sad, or is your brain sad? If you woke up and you found yourself in the body of your dog, yet your human body is still in the bed; are you the dog, or are you the body in the bed??? If something is true for your brain, but not true for your mind, then they can't be the same thing, can they? Please answer these questions.
You've set up a false premis. Your using an engineered item specifically to front you cause. Its far better to use another analogy such as a waterfall or a river. The exact course of the river is astronomically rare. However in shape or another a river will form if water is introduced. Would you say the river is "finely tuned" no matter which shape it takes? And I don't mean the water content but the shape of the river specifically. Do you think that the shape of the Mississippi River was fine tuned?
How the river is shaped would be dependent upon pre-causal factors. The shaped is determined by pre-causal factors. On naturalism, there WERE no pre-causal factors that would have "determined" the parameters for human life. And if you think there were, then you are falling right back in to the problem of infinity. If the universe started as a singularity (or whatever), you wouldn't get the kind of low entropy that is needed to make life permissible.
It is not faulty logic. You made the claim that the universe is finely tuned for life. I have made the case it isn't. In fact it is so demonstrably false that it is "fine tuned" for life that it is nearly infinitely more dangerous than it it supportive. If someone were to "fine tune" the universe to support life then it why is the majority of it not?
So If I have 500 acres of land, and build a house on that land which covers only 250 acres of land...the other 250 acres is just flat out land, right? So based on your logic, that would mean that my house on the first 250 acres is not fine tuned just because the other half of the land is vacant? Faulty logic.
Why is such an astronomically (litteral usage of the word) small amount of it livable? Hell even this tiny spec of dust we call the earth has scant few places that are livable.
I don't know. On judgement day, ask God "why was only a small amount of the universe livable".
the amount of brainwashing you went through must have been one hell of a process.
Yeah, birds came from reptiles, but I am the one that is brain washed lol.
I am uniquely familiar with the concept and I am uniquely familiar with the reason why its total bull. But if any of those 30 were different how do we know that a different kind of life couldn't exist? Or that the chances of it happening is almost guranteed in the sheer vastness of the universe?
Once again, we could of built the space shuttle in different ways, I am sure. But that does not change the fact that the space shuttle that we actually built itself is fine tuned.
If we needed a machine to print out the exact sequence of 11000222001100111110001000112002002020020030020120101200202020101020230300003230232334556345245663465123622342626361134236256457452252234234523636 to support life then the odds would be crazy to get that exact sequence. HOWEVER if we had the machine print out enough sequences then it would in fact eventually happen.
No because you don't get that many rolls of the dice. That is what you fail to realize. There was only one chance, and it had to be right the first time. I understand that you would love to have an infinite amount of rolls of the dice to help increase your chances of getting a fine tuned universe, but that just simply isn't the case. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but you only had one shot to get it right.
What part of that don't you understand?
The part that people think that intelligence can come from nonintelligence.