The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Marcus]

Your schtick is to pack up an run from hard questions. You would like nice, comfortable conversations where you can sing tenor in a choir singing the same song. Guess we won’t be friends. I don’t sing in that choir. You joined in until you didn’t want to anymore. Tough questions aren’t comfortable. I get that. I’ve had a few thrown my way. I would think you’d want to tackle my question. It would then be a slam dunk for your atheism, if that is where you’re coming from. Otherwise, as it appears, you might just be one of those silly folks that don’t believe in God.

Lol. That’s quite a technique. Third time today, I think? But, I see someone has decided to humor you so I’m just lumping your ineffectual “so are you but what am I” into one tiny little run-on paragraph so I don’t take away from that:

Here is my question: What are the arguments that you have in opposition to each of these examples which point to Fine Tuning?

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

There may be other examples in the Wiki article. Please have the balls to give some explanatory power behind your reasoning for rejecting the evidence for Fine Tuning.

Balls?

The idea here is the conditions of the universe we exist in appears specifically made for human life to have evolved and/or be created depending on how much science a person is willing to accept.

In other words, results prove intention.

So the question arises, do we see conditions supporting a given outcome outside of intention where the result is a product of conditions without intention first creating those conditions?

The answer is of course, yes. We see it all the time. Emergent properties of natural and human systems exist everywhere from the function of your own brain to the behavior of markets. The very difference between the quantum and relative scales of physics exist in the universe in ways we don't comprehend but the the qualities of the one emerge from the other.

We have had this conversation. I know you are convinced of fine tuning with intent just as the sentient puddle is sure the earth was contoured specifically so it could exist. Yeah, sure. If you want to call it "fine tuning" that the conditions we find ourselves in are the conditions we need to be able to exist to be able to observe them then have at it.

But that's silly. Don't take my word for it. Here is your own quote:

Now it can't be due to physical necessity because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. In fact, string theory predicts that there are around 10 to the 500th power different possible universes consistent with nature's laws.

The puddle as it exists is exactly the puddle - and the only puddle - that would exist in the conditions it finds itself in. Arguing that the conditions are uniquely the ones needed for us to be here isn't an argument. It's acknowledging a tautology.

What we need to determine is of any of your arguments demand intent? Or are things the way they are because preconditions define the limits of what is possible for outcomes? And our being able to recognize our good fortune of existing at all is just one of those outcomes?

Your source seems bewildered by mathematical models predicting infinite numbers of dimensions, telling us it's impossible for there to be a multiverse...but it's practically a given there is a superior intelligence that happens to really favor humans to the point they set all of creation into motion just so we could exist to do...?

And this intelligence favors the use of culturally evolving and emergent myth making to occur across many, many different cultures that all say different things but at one moment they came into focus and have us the right picture of said "God" in the borrowed mythology of a semitic tribe that kept getting conquered by bigger, stronger tribes.

And it just so happened that the myth-making of this tribe struggled with the question if why, if they were so special, did things not really work out for them most of the time? And this model became the model of myth for a limited population of a species that came into existence a blink ago in the timescale of the universe that collectively is capable of wondering why, if humans are so special, does the universe seem so indifferent to them? This being, of course, a population of the species that largely ignores their own views aren't universal to the species as a whole but don't really acknowledge the other populations because their mythology doesn't conform to the one moment of clarity. Anywho.

And in that struggle humanity finds out the puddle is shaped like humans and declares, "See! The universe was finely tuned just for us after all!" And we can be assured of our own special being until the conditions favoring our existence shift and we evaporate...just like the puddle.

[MG 2.0]

Your schtick is to pack up an run from hard questions. You would like nice, comfortable conversations where you can sing tenor in a choir singing the same song. Guess we won’t be friends. I don’t sing in that choir. You joined in until you didn’t want to anymore. Tough questions aren’t comfortable. I get that. I’ve had a few thrown my way. I would think you’d want to tackle my question. It would then be a slam dunk for your atheism, if that is where you’re coming from. Otherwise, as it appears, you might just be one of those silly folks that don’t believe in God.

Lol. That’s quite a technique. Third time today, I think? But, I see someone has decided to humor you so I’m just lumping your ineffectual “so are you but what am I” into one tiny little run-on paragraph so I don’t take away from that:

Balls?

The idea here is the conditions of the universe we exist in appears specifically made for human life to have evolved and/or be created depending on how much science a person is willing to accept.

In other words, results prove intention.

So the question arises, do we see conditions supporting a given outcome outside of intention where the result is a product of conditions without intention first creating those conditions?

The answer is of course, yes. We see it all the time. Emergent properties of natural and human systems exist everywhere from the function of your own brain to the behavior of markets. The very difference between the quantum and relative scales of physics exist in the universe in ways we don't comprehend but the the qualities of the one emerge from the other.

We have had this conversation. I know you are convinced of fine tuning with intent just as the sentient puddle is sure the earth was contoured specifically so it could exist. Yeah, sure. If you want to call it "fine tuning" that the conditions we find ourselves in are the conditions we need to be able to exist to be able to observe them then have at it.

But that's silly. Don't take my word for it. Here is your own quote:

The puddle as it exists is exactly the puddle - and the only puddle - that would exist in the conditions it finds itself in. Arguing that the conditions are uniquely the ones needed for us to be here isn't an argument. It's acknowledging a tautology.

What we need to determine is of any of your arguments demand intent? Or are things the way they are because preconditions define the limits of what is possible for outcomes? And our being able to recognize our good fortune of existing at all is just one of those outcomes?

Your source seems bewildered by mathematical models predicting infinite numbers of dimensions, telling us it's impossible for there to be a multiverse...but it's practically a given there is a superior intelligence that happens to really favor humans to the point they set all of creation into motion just so we could exist to do...?

And this intelligence favors the use of culturally evolving and emergent myth making to occur across many, many different cultures that all say different things but at one moment they came into focus and have us the right picture of said "God" in the borrowed mythology of a semitic tribe that kept getting conquered by bigger, stronger tribes.

And it just so happened that the myth-making of this tribe struggled with the question if why, if they were so special, did things not really work out for them most of the time? And this model became the model of myth for a limited population of a species that came into existence a blink ago in the timescale of the universe that collectively is capable of wondering why, if humans are so special, does the universe seem so indifferent to them? This being, of course, a population of the species that largely ignores their own views aren't universal to the species as a whole but don't really acknowledge the other populations because their mythology doesn't conform to the one moment of clarity. Anywho.

And in that struggle humanity finds out the puddle is shaped like humans and declares, "See! The universe was finely tuned just for us after all!" And we can be assured of our own special being until the conditions favoring our existence shift and we evaporate...just like the puddle.

Yeah, we have been down this road before. It can go both ways. And does. I don’t think you’ll gain anything by buying Metaxas’s book.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

Yeah, we have been down this road before. It can go both ways. And does. I don’t think you’ll gain anything by buying Metaxas’s book.

Regards,
MG

What goes both ways? I pointed out that your argument brings us to the question of demonstrating intention through means other than the circular reasoning of our existing in a universe where we can exist.

So, whatcha got to share in regards to that issue? Or is there not a wiki for that?

[Bret Ripley]

Or is there not a wiki for that?

Oh ye of little faith.

[MG 2.0]

Yeah, we have been down this road before. It can go both ways. And does. I don’t think you’ll gain anything by buying Metaxas’s book.

Regards,
MG

What goes both ways? I pointed out that your argument brings us to the question of demonstrating intention through means other than the circular reasoning of our existing in a universe where we can exist.

So, whatcha got to share in regards to that issue? Or is there not a wiki for that?

You and I both know that there are a bunch of places one can go online to find arguments pro and con having to do with Fine Tuning, Abiogenesis, the Teleological Argument, Intelligent Design, and the like. I’ve read and considered arguments pro and con, but admittedly more in support of those views that allow for creative processes by a designer.

To go your direction one must subscribe to this universe being a ‘one off’. A lucky roll of the dice. Astronomically lucky. We happened to win the lottery of events that just so happened to result in a world that Goldilocks would find ‘just right’.

I think you’re saying that what we find ourselves in, this universe, is just the way it is. The math, the precursors, everything…it is what it is. Don’t worry your pretty little head trying to figure it out. It’s pure chance and dumb luck that we’re here today carrying on a conversation.

That takes more faith than I think I can muster. I think it takes less faith to believe in a creator. I think that purpose is more than what WE make it. The universe is not, as you say, indifferent and cold to sentient creatures. Beauty is an outgrowth of God’s love for His creations.

That’s where I’m at. But I wish you best of luck as you make up your own rules and moral compass in a world/creation that doesn’t really care what you do.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

To go your direction one must subscribe to this universe being a ‘one off’.

Which also allows evasion from answering questions dealing with Fine Tuning. In other words, we live in the best of all possible worlds and it was bound to happen…by chance…at some point.

Anyway, another question. Why do you trust your convictions?

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/ar ... video-2027

Do you ever consider the possibility that you’re wrong? What about Pascal’s wager?

Have you spent much time reading Robin Collins? If so, where do you think he may have gone off the rails?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Or is there not a wiki for that?

Oh ye of little faith.

Priceless.

[honorentheos]

What goes both ways? I pointed out that your argument brings us to the question of demonstrating intention through means other than the circular reasoning of our existing in a universe where we can exist.

So, whatcha got to share in regards to that issue? Or is there not a wiki for that?

You and I both know that there are a bunch of places one can go online to find arguments pro and con having to do with Fine Tuning, Abiogenesis, the Teleological Argument, Intelligent Design, and the like. I’ve read and considered arguments pro and con, but admittedly more in support of those views that allow for creative processes by a designer.

To go your direction one must subscribe to this universe being a ‘one off’. A lucky roll of the dice. Astronomically lucky. We happened to win the lottery of events that just so happened to result in a world that Goldilocks would find ‘just right’.

I think you’re saying that what we find ourselves in, this universe, is just the way it is. The math, the precursors, everything…it is what it is. Don’t worry your pretty little head trying to figure it out. It’s pure chance and dumb luck that we’re here today carrying on a conversation.

That takes more faith than I think I can muster. I think it takes less faith to believe in a creator. I think that purpose is more than what WE make it. The universe is not, as you say, indifferent and cold to sentient creatures. Beauty is an outgrowth of God’s love for His creations.

That’s where I’m at. But I wish you best of luck as you make up your own rules and moral compass in a world/creation that doesn’t really care what you do.

Regards,
MG

You find the odds of our observing the universe from one where our existence would be impossible impossibly unlikely? So do I.

You find it unlikely you or I will win the lottery? So do I.

But people do win the lottery. And whatever the odds are of a universe emerging in which human life could evolve may be, we are in one.

You abandon the argument at it's most obvious, easy point. What you are obligated to demonstrate to even have an argument at all is intention.

[honorentheos]

Or is there not a wiki for that?

Oh ye of little faith.

Brilliant, you sly bastard, you.

[honorentheos]

Anyway, another question. Why do you trust your convictions?

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/ar ... video-2027

Do you ever consider the possibility that you’re wrong? What about Pascal’s wager?

Wrong about what? Wrong that the Judeo-Christian God is a myth? I spent plenty of time hung up on that question until it became clear the question itself was a trap.

If there is some organizing "something" that may be called God, whatever it is it isn't the mythological figure taught in Mormonism. Almost every ounce of knowledge, everything conceivable in ethics, would be overturned by the existence of the Mormon God and validity of Mormonism being true.

Yet that creates a paradox. This God would be a deceiver, his prophets merchants of hate and greed. The Jesus of the New Testament would have restored a gospel that ultimately proved more Pharisaical than the actual Pharisees were.

There isn't a shadow of doubt in my mind Mormonism is wrong. The destruction of reason and good that would be required for it to have things right simply isn't viable.