God created the universe

If you ask a question about the universe you won"t get anywhere with armchair philosophy, as we have seen demonstrated throughout history. You need evidence from the universe itself to give you the questions that are useful and answer them as well. Else you don"t ask about this universe but the one you think has to be there and we know that we can"t make demands of our universe to be in a certain way. As we have no evidence of the "why" questions in the universe they have no meaning whether in a scientific or philosophical way as they just don"t apply to our universe. Yes we agree that objective morality is only possible with god, but the main point is that morality is not objective or universal as I have demonstrated, therefore giving no evidence of god. Again I have explained that this doesn"t make any sense. If every causation needs a material cause (the thing being caused to result in the effect) it is just logically impossible to have an actual cause with such a material cause at the beginning, as because it was the beginning there was nothing that could be a material cause or could be caused to become the universe. Now we know that an actual beginning has nothing to do with causation. Therefore we can"t say that the universe has been caused as causation doesn"t apply. It follows that we do not need god. Also an argument from first cause is not valid as this first cause is exactly a beginning of existence making causation again not a fitting description. Firstly to the multiverse. The important point is that we don"t know and even more important is that you don"t know either. You have no evidence supporting your claim that god build the universe. You have no evidence of god at all. Science has no direct evidence of the multiverse which is true, but the main point is that it is a prediction starting from the things we know about the universe and looking where they lead us. They lead us to the multiverse. You on the other side have no Idea and no evidence and conclude from this that it has to be a god. The fundamental difference between the naturalistic and the religious worldview in this case is that in science you admit that you don"t know certain things and then you can say that you have certain models that could be a possibility. In theism you say that you don"t and can"t know something and therefore it is god. Your hypothesis that it is a god that has to create the universe could be a valid point and could be considered if it were based upon evidence inside our universe similar to the evidence on which the multiverse is based. Therefore the lack of evidence is not on the side of science but on the side of theism claiming that everywhere hole in science, has to be god. This is called the god of the gaps. I am sorry to say that your opinion on the research of a noble price laureate as not acceptable is no argument. Again I would like to see your evidence as it is again the assumption that science is not able to do it because it hasn"t reached its goal. Again a god of the gaps argument. Therefore all in all your arguments about both design and fine-tuning have no basis in evidence and can therefore be dismissed. To conclude we can say that science can explain the universe. It can only answer the questions about the universe that make sense and which are based upon the things we see in the universe and not the common sense hope what we want to see in the universe. You have presented no evidence of either design or fine-tuning while not seeing the obvious scores of evidence that the universe is not designed for us. I also have shown that we don"t need a first cause for the universe and that morality in fact is not objective. Therefore none of your arguments are valid and none of them even imply a god. I will also shortly reply to your comment. The video you added was pretty much self explanatory and I would like to know at which point you think this hints at design. The thing it beautifully shows is a core part of evolution: natural selection. It is the part of it that makes it non random. The appearance is an adaption to the environment. As it looks more similar to the leaf there will be less predators able to see it and therefore more will be able to survive. Those surviving organisms are then able to give their genes over to the next generation which is the core part of evolution. We can see that evolution as a whole is a two part process. First you have random mutations. Some god, many bad. And then you have natural selection which kills all those with negative mutations and lets all of those live with positive ones. The ones with positive mutations are able to reproduce more efficiently increasing their population and surviving. As evolution is a really fascinating subject and it seems obvious from your choice of example that you don"t fully understand the mechanism I can just encourage you to study it more thoroughly.