The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[¥akaSteelhead]

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

Chance, because however unlikely you want to assign chance, your omnipotent, omniscient more complex god is yet more unlikely.

[MG 2.0]

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-

That happens too. Seemingly there is a rift of sorts between those that believe in a creator God and those that don’t.

No winners. A perfect scenario for choice.

Regards,
MG

[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

Abiogenesis compounds/complicates the issue, doesn’t it?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

We live a bit outside of town. On our property is a place that we call "the pond" - it's about 1m deep at the deepest, and is surrounded by a marshy area. There are lots of cattails and other vegetation, and several logs in the water.

For the past 6 months or so, Daisy the duck has been living on the pond. Other ducks have flown in, stayed for a week or two, and moved on, but Daisy has been the permanent resident.

There are lots of bugs - aerial and aquatic - and tons of frogs with the corresponding tadpoles and spawn. Several turtles also call the pond home.

Without the water, she would have nowhere to swim and bathe. Without the rushes and logs she would have nowhere to bask, and to sleep, out of the reach of foxes and other predators. Without the tadpoles and insects she would have a poor diet, and if, in addition, there were no plants with succulent roots and shoots, she might starve.

It has been a warm sunny summer, with plenty of rain to keep the water level up.

If Daisy could talk, could she be forgiven for thinking that this paradise she inhabits was built and "fine-tuned" just for her? Perhaps by a loving creator?

Is it even remotely possible that the pond/marsh, with all of its duck-friendly features, came about by natural processes that ducks evolved to take advantage of, and that mother nature did not have ducks in mind when these processes created Daisy's ideal habitat?

To get to Daisy and her ideal pond habitat you do have to wade through these waters first:

Cosmic Constants-
1.Gravitational force constant
2.Electromagnetic force constant
3.Strong nuclear force constant
4.Weak nuclear force constant
5.Cosmological constant
Initial Conditions and “Brute Facts”-
6.Initial distribution of mass energy
7.Ratio of masses for protons and electrons
8.Velocity of light
9.Mass excess of neutron over proton
“Local” Planetary Conditions-
10.Steady plate tectonics with right kind of geological interior
11.Right amount of water in crust
12.Large moon with right rotation period
13.Proper concentration of sulfur
14.Right planetary mass
15.Near inner edge of circumstellar habitable zone
16.Low-eccentricity orbit outside spin-orbit and giant planet resonances
17.A few, large Jupiter-mass planetary neighbors in large circular orbits
18.Outside spiral arm of galaxy
19.Near co-rotation circle of galaxy, in circular orbit around galactic center
20.Within the galactic habitable zone
21.During the cosmic habitable age
Effects of Primary Fine-Tuning Parameters-
22.The polarity of the water molecule

Number 23. Abiogenesis.

A long road to evolutionary processes from the Big Bang. Daisy is a miracle, isn’t she?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

....Abiogenesis compounds/complicates the issue, doesn’t it?

You brought it up, so again, please, share your thoughts on abiogenesis.

[MG 2.0]

....Abiogenesis compounds/complicates the issue, doesn’t it?

You brought it up, so again, please, share your thoughts on abiogenesis.

I think you already know. What are your thoughts?

I don’t expect to hear much from you. So far you have a very weak track record of actually adding to the discussion. Honestly, I don’t know if you’re worth the time to talk to. You do a lot of cut and pasting to no avail.

Let’s hear what you think. My thoughts obviously parallel those that I’ve expressed in regards to the Fine Tuning Argument. I’ve blabbed on quite a bit on that.

As of yet I don’t think you’ve answered one question I’ve thrown your way except to deflect. You don’t get to ask all the questions bub.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

You brought it up, so again, please, share your thoughts on abiogenesis.

I think you already know. What are your thoughts?

I don’t expect to hear much from you. So far you have a very weak track record of actually adding to the discussion. Honestly, I don’t know if you’re worth the time to talk to. You do a lot of cut and pasting to no avail.

Let’s hear what you think. My thoughts obviously parallel those that I’ve expressed in regards to the Fine Tuning Argument. I’ve blabbed on quite a bit on that.

As of yet I don’t think you’ve answered one question I’ve thrown your way except to deflect. You don’t get to ask all the questions bub.

Regards,
MG

bringing up a subject by asking a question, but unable to express an actual opinion, and then insisting others must fill it in for you, puffed out with a lot of projection, and an attempt at condescension.

That is your classic methodology. You are nothing if not consistent.

[Morley]

To get to Daisy and her ideal pond habitat you do have to wade through these waters first:

Cosmic Constants-
1.Gravitational force constant
2.Electromagnetic force constant
3.Strong nuclear force constant
4.Weak nuclear force constant
5.Cosmological constant
Initial Conditions and “Brute Facts”-
6.Initial distribution of mass energy
7.Ratio of masses for protons and electrons
8.Velocity of light
9.Mass excess of neutron over proton
“Local” Planetary Conditions-
10.Steady plate tectonics with right kind of geological interior
11.Right amount of water in crust
12.Large moon with right rotation period
13.Proper concentration of sulfur
14.Right planetary mass
15.Near inner edge of circumstellar habitable zone
16.Low-eccentricity orbit outside spin-orbit and giant planet resonances
17.A few, large Jupiter-mass planetary neighbors in large circular orbits
18.Outside spiral arm of galaxy
19.Near co-rotation circle of galaxy, in circular orbit around galactic center
20.Within the galactic habitable zone
21.During the cosmic habitable age
Effects of Primary Fine-Tuning Parameters-
22.The polarity of the water molecule

Number 23. Abiogenesis.

A long road to evolutionary processes from the Big Bang. Daisy is a miracle, isn’t she?

Regards,
MG

She is, indeed. Regardless of how it happened.

Steelhead hit on it, earlier.

MG, in your mind, which has the greatest chance of evolving: malkie's Daisy Duck or the omnipotent God who can then make Daisy Duck?

[Canadiandude2]

I actually concur with this assessment.

There’s a lot we still don’t know but what we do know still doesn’t point to the existence of any god per se.

I believe in looking at the pieces and asking what do we know so far, what can we rule out, and what can’t be ruled out but has no bearing because it can’t be evidenced either.

So far, which has more skyhooks to explain?

Abiogenesis- or the existence of the kind of a divine being as described by the Latter-Day Saint Tradition.

A god who’s magical powers authorize and organize reality, but whose verifiable existence and influence can’t seem to be verified.

Then you have to justify his priorities.

Won’t sufficiently correct doctrine re: race and racism but is all about micromanaging Smith’s sex life through angry angels.

[PseudoPaul]

The fine tuning argument has a number of problems, outlined here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9O5wXsgqrc

I posted the counterpoint arguments to Carroll earlier in this thread.

https://www.is-there-a-god.information/blog/cl ... ne-tuning/

Scroll down to: The Objections.

Regards,
MG

Mainly insufficient hand waving.