That doesn't make sense either. Because if its eternal, then it would require time, so these two things are incoherent if time was created at the same time as the universe.

Wrong.

Fine tuning bad.

Fine tuning comes from what we have observed, we cannot conclude that life would not exist outside such tuning since we have not observed this..

God is not forcing you to believe in him but when you see that we are a perfect distance from the sun and how we have surived on this earth through diverse environment you can't possibly refute that God even exists as a Bias answer.

I agree that it is finely tuned, but the telelogical argument is trash.

Wrong we are not a perfect distance.

We have shifted orbit.

Also God != fine tuning

I can refute it, since we evolved.

We also had a human bottleneck.

If we were to have a debate about UFO's in the past. you would literally say its not true or proven when just recently the governemnt and scientific community proves its real.

So technically, we were nearly extinct at one point.

Wrong.

I don't think denying God exist is even bad

Why do you deny God?

Because I am a naturalist, I deny the existence of a metaphysical being. I think the abundance of philosophical arguments and evidence from science has refuted the existence of such a God in the theistic sense.

The latter for a theistic one and the former for any type of metaphysical being.

The people who advanced science did it with purpose, they didnt simply use it against their own ability to realise that there even was an higher entity that had to of created everything.

You are a half truer

Wrong.

Majority of philosophers and scientists are atheists.

By the way.

Appeal to authority anyways.

You do understand the universe works via a form of laws of nature.

Yes.

Those laws didnt magically exist without there being a "God" to place them there

Wrong.

They were simply constants of the universe..

If you destroy all the worlds in the universe. You think that life will still exist?

“There’s a famous example that theists like to give – or even cosmologists who haven’t thought about it enough – that the expansion rate of the early universe is tuned to within one part in ten to the 60th. That’s the naïve estimate, back of the envelope, pencil and paper you would do. But in this case, you can do better. You can go into the equations of general relativity, and there is a correct, rigorous derivation of the probability. And when you ask the same question using the correct equations, you find that the probability is one. All but a set of measure zero of early universe cosmologies have the right expansion rate to live for a long time and allow life to exist.” - Sean Carroll

Debunked again.

Sean Carroll is a physicist and a cosmologist by the way.

He has a phd.

You are debunking Gods existence through an individual that has never reasoned with nor questioned how it wouldnt exist.

Wrong.

You can literally do math and prove God exists

I am simply projecting his refutation to the misinterpretation of fine tuning.

Wrong.

Please show an argument which use mathematics to prove God exists. Because I just used one to show God doesn't exist.

Throttle you are autistic god does exist you stupid fucking idiot

@PapaPog Meet your burden of proof.