I'm not "assuming" that at all, son -- look closely, and you'll see that all the "some god must exist because the universe is finely tuned" horse crap *IS* based on anthropomorphic presumptions, like "the fact that life is possible here means that a god exists who cares about things like 'life'". OOPS! Depending on how you slice that, it's either rank anthropomorphism, or circular reasoning, or both.
Nice try.
I'm just showing how the claims of "god likes XYZ" are goofy even on their own terms. If god "finely tuned" this universe for life, he sure did a crappy job of it. At the very least, the fact that the overwhelming percentage of the universe is *NOT* "tuned for life" (and in fact is outright deadly to life) demonstrates that whatever the universe might be allegedly "tuned" for, life was nowhere near the highest priority, if it was even a priority at all (and the percentages call that into question). So there goes *that* silly argument.
It's not creationists, I.Ders, or people who started out trying to support "deities" who came up with the arguments about the fundamental physical constants being very critical for life. It's physicists, astrophysicists, cosmologists, etc. Maybe you think all theoretical physics is "philosophical masturbation?"
No I don't. But apparently you think that there can't be physicicsts who aren't also creationists, and who engage in mental masturbation when they stray into the area of theology and philosophy. Wrong.
Come back and try again when you learn enough about the world to be able to hold up your end of the conversation, I have better things to do than correct all of your elementary misconceptions.
"Come back and try again when you learn enough about the world to be able to hold up your end of the conversation, I have better things to do than correct all of your elementary misconception"
Never fails. Atheists get back to their old standby, personal insults, when they can't respond logically. You have completely evaded my argument that there is no reason at all to believe that quantity of life, rather than its existence, would be important to God, or any "mythical" creator-being. Maybe the existence of life requires that it NOT be found in many places. Maybe the rest of space is reserved for development of stars, then for exploding supernovas to manufacture heavy elements. You did know that those "goofy" cosmologists think that's necessary for life to exist, don't you. Please name who the "goofy" ones are, and the "non-goofy" ones who agree with you.
You think God is "wasting" space. What is space "worth?" Why should it be "conserved," when there is so much of it?
Are you in fact aware of physicists who are creationists, especially literal Biblical fundamentalists? Name them, and demonstrate that they are the ones who argue for the anthropic principle. You implied that people who believe in "fine-tuning" are a bunch of creationists. Now prove it. I'm calling your bluff. Let's go.
You've gone into insult mode, so I know you're in trouble. You're wounded.