The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Res Ipsa]

The other arguments I made above also require no special scientific knowledge.

Understood.

The first is your inconsistent treatment of three untestable theories: treating the one that gives you the answer you like and sneering at the other two.

The second is objecting to the obvious special pleading that, when examining intention, [human] life is all that matters. But that's just special pleading based on your desire to have a creator that intended to create you.

I do believe that human life is the crown jewel of God's creation, yes. If we ARE His children why would one think otherwise? And it's not whether or not I "desire" that there is a creator, it's whether or not there is a creator. What is, is or isn't. I have no control over that.

When 99.999999999% of the universe is hostile to the existence of human life, it's irrational to claim that the universe was "designed" for human life to occur. Again, no special scientific knowledge required.

I don't think your premise is justified at all. What does the largeness of space and the universe have to do with the magnificence and awesomeness of sentient creatures that exercise free will and can progress indefinitely?

Underlying it all is a rat's nest of fallacious thinking. Jumping from "I don't know" to "God diddit" is always fallacious thinking. I don't care how many variations on SAP one can invent. It's the equivalent of saying "Since I don't have the evidence to figure out the answer today, I can make up whatever I want." Sure, you can do that. But you can't pass it off as rational.

One man's fallacious thinking is another guy's 'make sense' thinking. I mean really, isn't it a bit cocky on your part to be the final arbitrator between large groups of people that believe and think one way vs. another?

Now, if it was just me...

And spare me the quotes from smart guys. Smart guys are just as susceptible to irrational thinking as anyone else.

You are of course free to ignore the writing of others that may actually be smarter than you. They could accuse YOU of irrational thinking in a debate. You see that all the time in the Harvard Debates and other forums.

Don't get to caught up in your own pride Res Ipsa.

Regards,
MG

LOL! I see what you did there. Or, rather, what you didn’t do: respond to the substance of my arguments. You just went with the always weak ad hominem. Funny how you only invoke “smart guys” when you like what they say. Go on, defend the merits of the argument “I don’t have sufficient evidence to explain X. Therefore, X is evidence for magic. Explain how that argument is rational.

[MG 2.0]

Funny how you only invoke “smart guys” when you like what they say.

Says the guy who said:

And spare me the quotes from smart guys. Smart guys are just as susceptible to irrational thinking as anyone else.

Ad hominem? If I disagree with you? C’mon.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Still no substantive response.

[MG 2.0]

Still no substantive response.

I think I’ve made a whole bunch of substantiative responses on this thread.

Just like others, I don’t answer and/or tackle every question, or answer each one in a way that is going to please everybody. Some questions I have no opinion on. Some questions are beyond my pay grade. Some questions are just repeats of questions that I’ve in one way or another already given my input on.

I’ve said pretty much all I have to say on Fine Tuning and Abiogenesis. Atheists obviously are going to do everything in their power and use every tool in their toolbox to push this argument off to the side or try and lessen its impact. After all, if there is no God, there can’t be anything to it, right?

Atheists ask for direct evidence for a creator and then when it is sitting right in front of their eyes they look for every reason in the book to discard it out of hand.

I think that an honest disbeliever would at the very least say, “Hmm…this argument for God might be the best one out there.”

Anyway, from where I sit I find it somewhat amusing and almost ludicrous that folks can be SO entrenched in their agnosticism and/or atheism that they can’t give ANY place for evidence that points towards an intelligence greater than they are.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Still no substantive response.

I think I’ve made a whole bunch of substantiative responses on this thread.

no, and you don't seem to have a clear grasp of what 'evidence' is

...Atheists ask for direct evidence for a creator and then when it is sitting right in front of their eyes they look for every reason in the book to discard it out of hand.....

Anyway, from where I sit I find it somewhat amusing and almost ludicrous that folks can be SO entrenched in their agnosticism and/or atheism that they can’t give ANY place for evidence that points towards an intelligence greater than they are.

Huh. You haven't yet provided any "evidence" based on, you know, what "evidence" is based on.

If you want to fall back on belief or faith, then do it, but to keep saying you provided evidence to support your faith based conclusion when you didn't provide evidence is silly.

Underlying it all is a rat's nest of fallacious thinking. Jumping from "I don't know" to "God diddit" is always fallacious thinking. I don't care how many variations on SAP one can invent. It's the equivalent of saying "Since I don't have the evidence to figure out the answer today, I can make up whatever I want." Sure, you can do that. But you can't pass it off as rational.

Exactly.

[Morley]

I’ve said pretty much all I have to say on Fine Tuning and Abiogenesis. Atheists obviously are going to do everything in their power and use every tool in their toolbox to push this argument off to the side or try and lessen its impact. After all, if there is no God, there can’t be anything to it, right?

A concept of god doesn't have to include intelligent design. The god of rocks, neutrons, and empty spaces trumps your god of life where humans are the crown jewels.

[dastardly stem]

I think I’ve made a whole bunch of substantiative responses on this thread.

Just like others, I don’t answer and/or tackle every question, or answer each one in a way that is going to please everybody. Some questions I have no opinion on. Some questions are beyond my pay grade. Some questions are just repeats of questions that I’ve in one way or another already given my input on.

I’ve said pretty much all I have to say on Fine Tuning and Abiogenesis. Atheists obviously are going to do everything in their power and use every tool in their toolbox to push this argument off to the side or try and lessen its impact. After all, if there is no God, there can’t be anything to it, right?

Atheists ask for direct evidence for a creator and then when it is sitting right in front of their eyes they look for every reason in the book to discard it out of hand.

There is no evidence given by the arguments from fine tuning. They are bad arguments. They argue from ignorance, or begging the question for the most part.

I think that an honest disbeliever would at the very least say, “Hmm…this argument for God might be the best one out there.”

I'll say it. Fine tuning is the best argument out there for God's existence. But that hardly says much of anything because as has been said by others and as I pointed out earlier in the thread the argument itself is really really bad.

Anyway, from where I sit I find it somewhat amusing and almost ludicrous that folks can be SO entrenched in their agnosticism and/or atheism that they can’t give ANY place for evidence that points towards an intelligence greater than they are.

Regards,
MG

The only evidence I'm aware of is personal testimony type of stuff. I can't figure out how anyone sees personal internal witness as sufficient evidence for the claim. But some do. But it can't possibly be seen as evidence that can convince others.

[MG 2.0]

The god of rocks, neutrons, and empty spaces trumps your god of life where humans are the crown jewels.

Ok. If you say so.

Re,
MG

[dastardly stem]

LOL! I see what you did there. Or, rather, what you didn’t do: respond to the substance of my arguments. You just went with the always weak ad hominem. Funny how you only invoke “smart guys” when you like what they say. Go on, defend the merits of the argument “I don’t have sufficient evidence to explain X. Therefore, X is evidence for magic. Explain how that argument is rational.

Always enjoy your comments, Res Ipsa. he says:

One man's fallacious thinking is another guy's 'make sense' thinking. I mean really, isn't it a bit cocky on your part to be the final arbitrator between large groups of people that believe and think one way vs. another?

"A bit cocky"? Let's see, MG has a belief, makes a positive claim "My religion is true" or "My god exists". He offers in order to defend his claim arguments from other "smart guys" and when those arguments get challenged its cocky for those who challenge the arguments because there are large groups of people who believe?

This thread gives, yet another, good demonstration of irrational thinking and how it can't be reasoned with. He would rather appeal to authority, argue from silence or ignorance, beg questions and then claim "well other really smart people do it, so it must be reasonable to do". And yet everyone else sins, is cocky, or being difficult. Go figure.

[MG 2.0]

I'll say it. Fine tuning is the best argument out there for God's existence. But that hardly says much of anything because as has been said by others and as I pointed out earlier in the thread the argument itself is really really bad.

You have an opinion on the reasonableness of the argument. That’s fine. I’m happy to know you are honest enough to say Fine Tuning Argument is the best argument out there for the existence of God.

I think so to.

Regards,
MG