Secular folks should worry.

[malkie]

In the bigger picture, the question remains why it matters if there is a creator involved or not? I don't think the answer to that is universal to everyone. But in the context of this thread it comes down to power. The assertion there is a creator god actively involved in the universe isn't a conclusion being drawn from evidence, but an assertion being made. And that assertion is tied to other assertions about morality, about authority, and about superiority.

The assertion is not just that he is actively involved in the universe, but that he is concerned with every living thing, down to the level of the hairs on your head (not that that causes him a lot of work on my behalf).

Yet at the same time knowing about but either ignoring or unable to intervene in the horrors that occur every second here on earth.

[MG 2.0]

In the bigger picture, the question remains why it matters if there is a creator involved or not?

Purpose and meaning being both intrinsic AND connected/related to something/someone outside of ourselves in whom we find our source code and continued purpose/meaning after we die.

I don't think the answer to that is universal to everyone. But in the context of this thread it comes down to power. The assertion there is a creator god actively involved in the universe isn't a conclusion being drawn from evidence, but an assertion being made. And that assertion is tied to other assertions about morality, about authority, and about superiority.

Morality and authority, yes. Superiority? That’s not what Jesus teaches us in the scriptures and through modern apostles and prophets. According to LDS thought/teachings anyway.

Those that take that position do so at their own peril.

And power? Yes, in the sense that God has all power and is willing to share a small portion of that power with mankind.

Evidence? It goes both ways. Eyes to see, ears to hear and all that.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I can imagine God creating by setting it all up like a trick pool shot from the beginning. But I do not see any reason God would have to do it that way. Perhaps it is more practical to make adjustments along the way. In fact I could wonder if perhaps adjustments along the way were unavoidable.

Those were some of my thoughts as I read Gadianton’s post.

A universe fine tuned for abiogenesis and evolution. With a bit of guidance/direction along the way where necessary as a result of the natural ‘chaos’ and mutation that ensues in a LONG chain of events set in motion with ‘nature’ taking its own winding course.

How much God intervenes and provided(s) guidance/direction? There’s the rub. We don’t know. For all appearances we are left with ‘faith’ and hope that there was a ‘divine directive’ at play. Or not.

But I don’t think it’s a total crapshoot.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

In the bigger picture, the question remains why it matters if there is a creator involved or not? I don't think the answer to that is universal to everyone. But in the context of this thread it comes down to power. The assertion there is a creator god actively involved in the universe isn't a conclusion being drawn from evidence, but an assertion being made. And that assertion is tied to other assertions about morality, about authority, and about superiority.

The assertion is not just that he is actively involved in the universe, but that he is concerned with every living thing, down to the level of the hairs on your head (not that that causes him a lot of work on my behalf).

Yet at the same time knowing about but either ignoring or unable to intervene in the horrors that occur every second here on earth.

The question could be asked as to whether or not constant intervention might foul things up in the long run.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

In the bigger picture, the question remains why it matters if there is a creator involved or not? I don't think the answer to that is universal to everyone. But in the context of this thread it comes down to power. The assertion there is a creator god actively involved in the universe isn't a conclusion being drawn from evidence, but an assertion being made. And that assertion is tied to other assertions about morality, about authority, and about superiority.

The assertion is not just that he is actively involved in the universe, but that he is concerned with every living thing, down to the level of the hairs on your head (not that that causes him a lot of work on my behalf).

Yet at the same time knowing about but either ignoring or unable to intervene in the horrors that occur every second here on earth.

Yes. Not a lot of logic in that. I am always reminded of the day some missionaries coincidentally survived a bombing in Europe and the LDS news sources reported that LDS leaders trumpeted this as evidence that god protects righteous Mormons.

The reason this story has always stuck with me is that the same day, another missionary was killed in a stupid accident caused by the LDS refusal to adequately house and care for their missionaries. An image was seared into my mind of the mother of the dead missionary reading that, on the same day her son died, her LDS leaders were triumphantly announcing that god protects and spares the lives of those who are righteous.

[Gadianton]

Perhaps it is more practical to make adjustments along the way.

Sure, that's possible. With God, anything is possible, right? What ever way that it is must be that way because that's how God must have done it. Just ask Dan.

My issue isn't whether God can make the final call on Waterfall vs. Agile coding practice, to me, the deeper issue is that the two hypotheses work against each other: the more impressive one is, the less impressive the other must be. Suppose you lived in Rome*, and I brought you 5 perfectly identical horseshoes of a quality that surpasses anything you'd ever seen. You say, "Surely God must've created them wondrous shoes!*" If I argue, "no, just a very careful and methodical mechanical process created them", you'd laugh, as you imagine a blacksmith with a hammer and a slab of iron in a clay oven. You've got a decent argument for God, until I show you a state-of-the-art 3d printer. After watching it in action for a while, you say, "Surely God must've created that machine!"

But suppose I don't produce the machine. I just argue based on other mechanical things known to you that there is a machine out there somewhere that can make those shoes. The more convincing I am about the machine, the less impressive the operator of the machine must be, and vice versa. Now if MG were in the room, he'd say, "what you folks aren't seeing is that it doesn't matter if God is twenty percent tweaking the machine and eighty percent designing and producing the machine, it's still God at the helm!"

It's mind-bending. As Res Ipsa has said many times in this thread, all "God must've done it!" arguments are arguments from ignorance. We can't imagine how nature produced it so it must be God. So what happens when the ignorance that powers one level of reality hypothetically closes the gaps in our knowledge that otherwise would power another level of reality? We can just slide the ignorance dial to 50% to both levels and problem solved, our combined ignorance is still the proof?

c'mon physics guy, help me out here. What am I trying to get at?

(If PG can't rescue me, I'll try to put my finger on it in the morning)

*no idea if there were horseshoes in Rome
*no idea if that's how Romans talked

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean, does God get credit for unintelligent design? Seriously, how bad does a design found in nature have to be for an ID’er to stop for a hot second, and reconsider their position? There are thousands of examples of poor design found all over the place that should make it obvious to anyone with half a brain that an intelligent entity wouldn’t actually design something like that.

- Doc

[malkie]

I can imagine God creating by setting it all up like a trick pool shot from the beginning. But I do not see any reason God would have to do it that way. Perhaps it is more practical to make adjustments along the way. In fact I could wonder if perhaps adjustments along the way were unavoidable.

Those were some of my thoughts as I read Gadianton’s post.

A universe fine tuned for abiogenesis and evolution. With a bit of guidance/direction along the way where necessary as a result of the natural ‘chaos’ and mutation that ensues in a LONG chain of events set in motion with ‘nature’ taking its own winding course.

How much God intervenes and provided(s) guidance/direction? There’s the rub. We don’t know. For all appearances we are left with ‘faith’ and hope that there was a ‘divine directive’ at play. Or not.

But I don’t think it’s a total crapshoot.

Regards,
MG

What you're suggesting, especially the "We don't know." part, is indistinguishable from a god who does not intervene at all, or who simply doesn't exist.

There is just no real evidence of fine tuning - it's all supposition.

[malkie]

The assertion is not just that he is actively involved in the universe, but that he is concerned with every living thing, down to the level of the hairs on your head (not that that causes him a lot of work on my behalf).

Yet at the same time knowing about but either ignoring or unable to intervene in the horrors that occur every second here on earth.

The question could be asked as to whether or not constant intervention might foul things up in the long run.

Regards,
MG

And since we cannot possibly know the answer to that question, I don't think we need to consider the idea of any intervention at all. That's the simplest solution to the "whether or not".

[malkie]

I mean, does God get credit for unintelligent design? Seriously, how bad does a design found in nature have to be for an ID’er to stop for a hot second, and reconsider their position? There are thousands of examples of poor design found all over the place that should make it obvious to anyone with half a brain that an intelligent entity wouldn’t actually design something like that.

- Doc

The situation is at least as bad as that for an interventionist god.

Just one example to illustrate.

Suppose for a second that the recurrent laryngeal nerve issue happened due to random mutation at a point in time when god's attention was elsewhere. When he had a quick peek later and noticed what had happened, he could have got out his handy-dandy CRISPR tool and fixed it up before it got out of hand, right? I mean, he's god, after all.

Or he could have said "OK, we're going to let that one go, but we'll just let that evolutionary line die out, and encourage the survival of another line just before that one branched off. Now we're back on track! Now if we want to give giraffes the ability to talk at some future time, the nerve that's required will have a sufficiently short run that it can be done without having to jury-rig it."

If there really were a god who was constantly tinkering to keep things on track, surely he would be able to recognise all of the "accidental" bad mechanisms when they happen, and head each of them off at the pass.

And it's not just that modern creatures show evidence of bad design (intelligent designer side of the argument) or failure to recognise and correct random mutation problems (god the tinkerer/guider/director side of the argument). The problems are allowed to propagate down the evolutionary line, and spread throughout branches in the tree of life to affect organisms that are constantly diverging, but happen to share a common ancestor in which a problem first arose.

So even if we don't credit god as the designer, but instead have evolution as the main mechanism of life, but have god tinker with it constantly along the way, I think that we have to recognise that he is totally incompetent.

Or, cut out all of the complications and simply accept that there was and is no "god" involved at all.