The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[MG 2.0]

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.

That’s interesting that you would feel strongly about this. Would you care to explain?

So you think abiogenesis just happened through random mutation? Organelles, nucleus, cell walls/membrane, etc.?

Can you point to a source that shows significant understanding as to how this may have occurred? Within the time frame dictated by the Big Bang and the age of the universe?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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

So you’re a multiverse aficionado. You are the first one to step forward and admit to it, I think.

The multiverse doesn’t have same status as familiar, well-established scientific theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics. But in their public pronouncements, multiverse theorists often fail to make this clear. The public is then misled to believe that this stuff is accepted science, a situation that must surely be ultimately damaging to the public perception and acceptance of its authority. More worryingly, some multiverse theorists appear keen to redefine what science is. They want to junk the scientific method, weakening the all-important connection between theory and empirical facts, pushing the demand for evidence firmly into the background. This might suit their personal agendas, but it pushes us inexorably towards the oxymoron that is “post-empirical science.”

These are serious issues. Whilst the scientific community seems caught in two minds on what to do about them, a few voices have nevertheless been raised in protest. In an article published in the scientific journal Nature in late 2014, cosmologist George Ellis and astrophysicist Joe Silk called on the community to defend the integrity of physics against this onslaught from untestable metaphysical speculation.

Do you have your own reasons for choosing a ‘theory’ that is facing some widespread criticism?


Are you part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe crowd?

The multiverse is undoubtedly catchy. It appeals to a generation that has grown up with (among other things) the Marvel Cinematic Universe; an audience fascinated by the notion that the multiverse of Doctor Strange might actually be true. The multiverse is cool.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/scie ... Old Testament-science

Just curious, why is God ‘out’ for you?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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

As does the Big Bang supplanting the Steady State theory that was once in vogue.

Steady State Universe-
…the Universe is infinite in extent, infinitely old and, taken as a whole, it is the same in all directions and at all times in the past and at all times in the future. In other words, the Universe doesn’t evolve or change over time.

https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/2 ... te-theory/

The time and rate of speed in which life and the universe had in order to do its thing dramatically shrunk.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

You're really quoting yourself quoting yourself?

[malkie]

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

That’s interesting that you would feel strongly about this. Would you care to explain?

So you think abiogenesis just happened through random mutation? Organelles, nucleus, cell walls/membrane, etc.?

Can you point to a source that shows significant understanding as to how this may have occurred? Within the time frame dictated by the Big Bang and the age of the universe?

Regards,
MG

I'm comfortable with the natural no-god-required explanation. It's simpler than adding a god that has to do all that stuff.

Can you point to a source that shows significant understanding as to how your omnipotent, omniscient, complex god may have arisen? And how your god performed the required parameter tweaking?

[MG 2.0]

You're really quoting yourself quoting yourself?

Yeah. I usually don’t. But during this thread there have been a few times I wanted to add some additional ‘meat’ to what I’d already said that added to my original posting. If I had thought of it all at once obviously I wouldn’t have done so. This is an interesting topic for me, as you can tell, and I’ve had additional thoughts to add to existing posts that I’ve made.

Hope that’s OK and doesn’t take away from the overall conversation. If you would like to say any more in regards to Daisy, go for it.

I don’t think my adding to existing posts has in any way derailed or changed the gist of the conversation. I look forward to any additional thoughts/insights that you may have.

Are you a multiverse guy? String Theory? How do you account for a universe that is so ideally suited for life within the parameters that have to be dealt with in order to try and explain it?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

...

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

Regards,
MG

Yep - in a way, depending on how you define "miracle".

But she has no idea about your arbitrarily-chosen 23 parameters, and nor does she need to have, because if all of the required parameters were not at their correct values, she wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't be talking about her.

If I'm not mistaken, your view is that your version of god tweaked these parameters so that she and we would be here.

I suppose we could get into infinite regress on this, but who tweaked the appropriate parameters so that your god would exist? By what mechanism?
And who tweaked the appropriate parameters so that that "god" would exist? By what mechanism?

In the natural world there is no need to postulate any hierarchy of beings that need to tweak any sets of parameters, for the reasons that have already been stated. Daisy doesn't need a god - not even me.

[MG 2.0]

That’s interesting that you would feel strongly about this. Would you care to explain?

So you think abiogenesis just happened through random mutation? Organelles, nucleus, cell walls/membrane, etc.?

Can you point to a source that shows significant understanding as to how this may have occurred? Within the time frame dictated by the Big Bang and the age of the universe?

Regards,
MG

I'm comfortable with the natural no-god-required explanation. It's simpler than adding a god that has to do all that stuff.

Can you point to a source that shows significant understanding as to how your omnipotent, omniscient, complex god may have arisen? And how your god performed the required parameter tweaking?

A source. Hmmm…

You mean a book written by a human being, right? That’s going to be a tough thing to do. You understand why, right?

On the other hand, there are a whole lot of books written that try to come up with ANYTHING to try and steer away from Fine Tuning and First Cause.

Which theory do you subscribe to and why?

Really, the closest I can come to answering your question is looking at the science and the current trends leaning towards a Goldilocks universe.

So, malkie, looking at science, which theory of creation makes the most sense to you?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I suppose we could get into infinite regress on this, but who tweaked the appropriate parameters so that your god would exist? By what mechanism?
And who tweaked the appropriate parameters so that that "god" would exist? By what mechanism?@@

That’s above my pay grade. Mind bending, isn’t it? Almost enough to say, “Heck with it, it just happened (in essence)”.

In the natural world there is no need to postulate any hierarchy of beings that need to tweak any sets of parameters, for the reasons that have already been stated. Daisy doesn't need a god - not even me.

I would disagree. Only from the perspective that if we DO have a Heavenly Father I’d be dang sure I’d want to know what His plan is for His children. The song, “I Am A Child of God”. So simple…and yet so supernally powerful. Or not, depending on your point of view.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

If I'm not mistaken, your view is that your version of god tweaked these parameters so that she and we would be here.

One might safely assume that God would know the mathematical formulae and cosmological constants, etc., to put things in motion, yes.

Sometimes we may have a hard time thinking of a God that is all knowing and is at least a degree or two smarter than we are.

Regards,
MG