The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[honorentheos]

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.

This is an example of the "science of the gaps" argument I pointed out earlier where you argue that both belief in God and belief in abiogenesis require faith and faith in god is preferable. The issue isn't that abiogenesis requires explanation or else "God did it".

The way this needs framed is to examine the results and ask if they appear most like what should happen it there was an intentional, directing God behind the formation and evolution of life? Or if life looks more like what it does? That being, a house that's been through decades of remodeling with illogical plumbing, abandoned wiring and obsolete utilities, wallpaper over paint over lathe and plaster?

You say it takes faith to believe in abiogensis or God. But I would argue it take an impossible amount of faith to imagine a God that set things in motion with intention and then the car went immediately into the rails, rolled down the hill, caught fire, but landed tires down so "INTENTION!"

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.

This is the tedious part of this discussion. We aren't agreeing that there is fine tuning. We are in agreement that the universe in which we exist includes parameters that allow for our existence that could just as easily have turned out otherwise. To you, this implies fine tuning, intentional manipulation to create that narrow range. To me, what happened is what happened and the fact we are able to be aware of this and discuss it is due to those parameters aligning to allow for it.

You believe a cosmic blocker ran in front of the sperm that became you to ensure you could be the person you are. I believe you are the result of the sperm that happened to be the one out of millions that fertilized the egg that is also you. There's a huge divide between those two positions even if they both agree that you as you became are the result of a one-in-a-million chance that the single sperm that made it to the egg first turned out to be the one that did.

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

I've replaced God with the only viable alternative since it is the one that we can observe. That being, we exist and life is a miracle. This question of God is just hubris, shouting out into the universe that you matter too much to just be, so you invent something bigger than the universe and demand all bow to it or be guilty of pride because...yeah. That makes all kinds of sense.

[¥akaSteelhead]

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

Actually I am not a multiverse aficionado. I am aware however, that a large number of physicists and cosmologists who publish about fine tuning are proponents of the multiverse hypothesis. They (those who publish on this) state that the "universe appears to be fine tuned" and the majority then proceed to the multiverse to explain the tuning that they see.

"Appears to be" ≠ "IS"

The problem as I see it with fine tuning is the converse is just as likely - "Life is fine tuned for the conditions of the universe".

Talking about the probabilities of tuning is rank conjecture. We have no evidence that the constants can be tuned, no idea the range, no idea the granularity.

Until it is demonstrated that the constants are tunable, and either have been tuned, or we find ourselves in one of the near infinite set of possible universes where life is possible - fine tuning arguments for god remains nothing but interesting conjecture.

You are engaged in a god of the gaps argument around tuning and first causes. Science has answered a lot of questions and made the gaps into which you can stuff god increasingly small. I well suspect that sooner or later abiogenesis will be achieved in a lab setting.

Evolution is one of the strongest evidenced facts we have. Abiogenesis - not to date. I tend to support the natural cause theory as the majority of phenomena of the past with were ascribed to god have been shown to have perfectly natural explanations, and I don't see any compelling reason to see why abiogenesis would differ.

When it comes to arguments vs actual evidence; I think "IF" the conditions of the universe could have been something else, god is not the logical conclusion necessitated by this argument, when the multiverse theory is sufficient. Again when we engage in plausibility God is always less plausible an answer than whatever however implausible natural solution is being proposed.

The problem with your arguments is they are based on conjecture and built upon logical fallacies. First cause. We have a universe that emerges from a singularity, it has emergent properties: space time being one. To speak about causes before space time is incoherent. There is no "before". No way to establish what is "cause" and what is "effect" sans time so arguments about first causes become incoherent. Also, when talking about the premise of cosmological arguments "all things that begin have a cause" - then you need show that the singularity from which the universe emerged has a beginning.

Arguments are not evidence.

If the only evidence you have for your god is "arguments" and those being tuning and causality - you have no evidence indeed.

You want to say "god did it" fine - provide actual evidence instead of arguments.

[malkie]

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

[My bolding in your quote]

So it appears that the best you have is Pascal's Wager.

And you have chosen one out of - I don't know how many - gods to bet on.

Why did you choose that one? Have you investigated all the others and rejected them? Why?

Even for the one you have chosen, how do you know that he is not usurping the status of his progenitor - the next-one-above god - who will be mightily displeased with you as a result.

And so ad infinitum.

[malkie]

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

You still haven't demonstrated this god to the satisfaction of anyone. Yes, I know that about 6,000,000 other Mormons agree with you, but I'm not aware of any of them having a better rationale than you have, and that seems to be "because", nothing more.

[malkie]

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

I'm satisfied with the idea that there are lots of possibilities with varying degrees of evidence for and against.

In my mind it's a bit like the state of pre-QED subatomic physics, and I'm not sure if I could be certain that any of the current theories is correct.

Even by the time I die I may not have an answer, except to say that I'm as sure as I need to be that I don't need an invisible and undetectable being to decide, or to be given the credit.

And I'm OK with that - none of the theories demands my faith and obedience; none of them expects me to send my children on proselyting missions for them; none of them bars me from my children's weddings, because of my unworthiness in not adhering to their "rules"; none of them divides my family.

I kind of like that.

[MG 2.0]

We are in agreement that the universe in which we exist includes parameters that allow for our existence that could just as easily have turned out otherwise. To you, this implies fine tuning, intentional manipulation to create that narrow range. To me, what happened is what happened and the fact we are able to be aware of this and discuss it is due to those parameters aligning to allow for it.

I suppose this is it in a nutshell.

I've replaced God with the only viable alternative since it is the one that we can observe. That being, we exist and life is a miracle.

Yes it is.

Thanks for the discussion, honor, malkie, ¥akaSteelhead, and others. This is a topic that I have a lot of interest in, thus my continued participation in this thread. I think I’ve reached the point where I’m ready to move on. So many humans. So many ideas worth exploring. I appreciate going along for the ride on this thread. Best wishes to all in your pursuit of understanding as it relates to beginnings and purpose.

I’ll check in to see if there is anything ‘new under the sun’, but as it is I think I’ll exit this discussion.

Thanks again for your reasoned participation and thoughts.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

There's always the possibility that life, especially human life, is just the the toxic sludge that was left over after the magnificent concept that is the universe. Perhaps we're not the ultimate end MG thinks we are, but an unfortunate by-product of a larger schemata.

[Marcus]

I think I’ve reached the point where I’m ready to move on.

Gee, I wonder why. Can’t think of any other insults?

Continuing

There's always the possibility that life, especially human life, is just the the toxic sludge that was left over after the magnificent concept that is the universe. Perhaps we're not the ultimate end MG thinks we are, but an unfortunate by-product of a larger schemata.

That makes more sense, realistically, than arguing that the universe was tweaked just for the benefit of us puny humans. The universe in all its magnificence was here long before we were.

[malkie]

There's always the possibility that life, especially human life, is just the the toxic sludge that was left over after the magnificent concept that is the universe. Perhaps we're not the ultimate end MG thinks we are, but an unfortunate by-product of a larger schemata.

That makes more sense, realistically, than arguing that the universe was tweaked just for the benefit of us puny humans. The universe in all its magnificence was here long before we were.

I'm reading The Gods Themselves, by Isaac Asimov.

The thought occurred to me that for all the talk about the fine-tuning of the universe, the discussion often seems to centre on the existence or not of humans who can reason about the situation.

I don't recall anyone discussing whether the universe is actually optimized for life, much less for intelligent life. (Perhaps I have simply not read widely enough - any suggestions would be most welcome.)

Do we know that there are not parameters (within or outside of the set we are aware of) that, if tweaked would not make the universe much more hospitable? If there is a god (or a recursive set of gods), is it possible that we, as human biological life, are actually being short-changed, held back from our potential?

Of course, religions that see a potential for godhood for the really special and obedient people among us claim that that is a solution. But they still have the problem of showing that their god(s) actually exist, and that we can become them. And they still don't address the super-duper parameters of the universe that the gods are holding back on.

Also, believe it or not, we are not done with Daisy - she is about to make another appearance in this thread.

[Bret Ripley]

There's always the possibility that life, especially human life, is just the the toxic sludge that was left over after the magnificent concept that is the universe. Perhaps we're not the ultimate end MG thinks we are, but an unfortunate by-product of a larger schemata.

That makes more sense, realistically, than arguing that the universe was tweaked just for the benefit of us puny humans. The universe in all its magnificence was here long before we were.

Once upon a time, the universe was finely-tuned for trilobites. The universe was finely-tuned for trilobites for 270 million years, and then one of them sinned. Stupid bloody trilobites.