The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[MG 2.0]

Really?

Intention is not required for emergent properties to occur in nature.

Your position requires intention, yet you want others to explain it for you?

Really?

Ok. You’re talking about straightforward and simple intent.

Abiogenesis. First cell. Intention not required? What WAS required. Step by step. Can’t explain it?

Or is nothing required, except faith that it just happened.

Well, then explain the emergent properties that would be evident from non-life to life. I guess that’s just another way of saying it.

Shouldn’t be that hard. After all, it’s all just emergent properties that shouldn’t defy description. Sheesh, those two words roll off the tongue easily.

Yes, the Fine Tuning Argument does require intention. I’ll hand you that. And yet you agree that the universe is fine tuned for life. But without intent. If that floats your boat, fine.

Are you a multiple universes guy or a silly string theory kind of guy? How DID it all happen? You have replaced God’s creation with a viable alternative, right?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Given the opportunity to correct your error you double down on your lie. Wow. You are quite the piece of work.

Ok. This is fun. I had already gone back and made clarification.

Looks like we have Lemmie. 2.0, except you’re a guy, right? As in biological male.

You are wasting my time just as she often does. Making mountains out of molehills.

Can’t we just be friends? Seems like that’s what you would want to do here being new and all.

I’m not going to go the rounds with you on ‘he said, she said’ crap. It isn’t productive.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

it is extremely significant that this fine-tuning approach, at least as used here, also requires some pretty serious, non-universal assumptions about supernatural events. By non-universal, I mean that of course they just so happen to correspond to the religion one grew up in.

Not necessarily.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Given the opportunity to correct your error you double down on your lie. Wow. You are quite the piece of work.

Ok. This is fun. I had already gone back and made clarification.

Looks like we have Lemmie. 2.0, except you’re a guy, right? As in biological male.

You are wasting my time just as she often does. Making mountains out of molehills.

Can’t we just be friends? Seems like that’s what you would want to do here being new and all.

I’m not going to go the rounds with you on ‘he said, she said’ crap. It isn’t productive.

Regards,
MG

your reputation precedes you, even for you? That explains a lot.

You missed their point, by the way,

Exactly. This is the problem with fine tuning. It starts with assumptions that are based on outcomes (human evolution, the cultural evolution of modern Judeo-Christian religion) and inserts them into the intention of what came before. It's reverse engineering reality and, seeing the steps that allowed both human evolution to occur and Christianity to arise, and declares the universe must have been set in motion to achieve those results.

It demands the question of intention be addressed, else it's just a bad interpretation of what we observe about the universe being a pre-condition of our being able to observe it.

Universes that do not develop to support life don't contain life to observe this absence.

It's not that difficult to understand but it demands you move past the way things are as argument to examining why things are the way they are demanding intention.

in my opinion, it's not only a bad interpretation but also an unnecessary complication. If people want to argue it is their faith, fine, the discussion can end. But presenting it as a logical argument where belief in god requires the fewest assumptions, in the context of a scientific discussion, is not supported.

[MG 2.0]

If people want to argue it is their faith, fine, the discussion can end.

But it doesn’t. Non believers on a board such as this one will continue pestering believers because they just can’t accept that people with an IQ above 100 can choose, on reasonable grounds, to believe in God.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

If people want to argue it is their faith, fine, the discussion can end. But presenting it as a logical argument where belief in god requires the fewest assumptions, in the context of a scientific discussion, is not supported.

Abiogenesis. Which requires fewer assumptions:

God engineered it.

Chance.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Abiogenesis. Which requires fewer assumptions:

God engineered it.

Chance.

Chance.

[Marcus]

If people want to argue it is their faith, fine, the discussion can end.

But it doesn’t. Non believers on a board such as this one will continue pestering believers because they just can’t accept that people with an IQ above 100 can choose, on reasonable grounds, to believe in God.

Regards,
MG

Huh. I haven't seen that at all. Is there an example of a thread where that has happened?

If people want to argue it is their faith, fine, the discussion can end. But presenting it as a logical argument where belief in god requires the fewest assumptions, in the context of a scientific discussion, is not supported.

Abiogenesis. Which requires fewer assumptions:

God engineered it.

Chance.

Regards,
MG

That's a question. Are you making a specific argument?

[Canadiandude2]

If people want to argue it is their faith, fine, the discussion can end.

But it doesn’t. Non believers on a board such as this one will continue pestering believers because they just can’t accept that people with an IQ above 100 can choose, on reasonable grounds, to believe in God.

Regards,
MG

Honestly, I’ve seen it quite the other way around on the other boards-

Oddly enough alongside philosophical traditions at odds with the church’s own existence claims.

[¥akaSteelhead]

Oh yeah the fine tuning argument.

Show - that the constants can be tuned.

Probability discussion regarding fine tuning is meaningless as we have no idea the range of possible values nor the granularity.


IF, and this is the big if - the constants can "be tuned", then the multiverse hypothesis makes god un needed.


But yah - take that argument and run with it. Oh, arguments are not evidence.