The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Marcus]

Irony.

+10!!!!!!! Again, wins the internet for today.

no kidding. What a funny thread this has devolved into.

[honorentheos]

Says the poster known only as MG 2.0.

That’s the thing. In reference to honor’s degradation of Metaxas without knowing the full scoop, story, and background of EVERYTHING, we have an example of the ‘righteous warrior’ taking down the OBVIOUS enemy of truth and the American way, so to speak. Honor acts in righteous indignation while at the same time he may be, well, who knows? A scumbag of some sort? A pervert? An anarchist? A wife beater?

Albeit one that can come across on a message board such as this with ‘moral authority’ and absolute knowledge and inherent trustworthiness.

I’m not making any ACTUAL judgement on Honor. I’m speaking hypothetically. But for any one of us to give the moral high ground to ANYONE on this board is risky business.

What gives Honor the inherent right or responsibility to judge Metaxas? All he’s really doing is dissing him so as to avoid having to look at and read his book and any arguments he’s making and trying to steer others to do the same. Honor already KNOWS he is in the right and has the moral authority to pass judgment.

Again, what moral authority does an anonymous poster have to pass judgment on another? Metaxas may be right. Honor may be right. And they ARE, within their own sphere of influence. Now, who is ABSOLUTELY right?

Time will tell.

But in my own humble opinion I think a creator God will come out on top after all is said and done. I truly have a difficult time, at least nowadays, wrapping my mind around how someone can STAY an atheist. Not that someone might go through a period of being one, however. I flirted with that philosophical’bent’ for a period of time myself.

Now it sounds silly to me.

But for others, that’s where they are…so, there you go.

Regards,
MG

Humble or otherwise, this post helps illuminate why we would do well to debate topics on the merits of the evidence supporting them. Moral high ground? Whose morality do we follow to define which ground is above that if the other?

I take issue with your approach to board participation being largely devoid of discussion over the evidence for or against a particular position. If his book has merit, share the information you imagine makes the best case for the position he takes and you support.

I've read too many bad books, and a few on your recommendation, to meet someone's challenge only to find they had no interest in actual discussion of the content when push came to shove. You fall in this category. After reading that garbage fire that is the Grant Hardy book and challenging your claim of it's value it turned out you had no actual thoughts on the content beyond what one could have gained reading the back cover page. We've discussed webpages and online resources over the last few years, and time and time again you can't manage a paragraph synthesizing your takeaways from the sources that rises above you find it compelling as a believer so it's no surprise to you if non-believers don't. It's silly to imagine you keep walking in here throwing the same counterfeit currency on the counter and expect people to accept it.

I've read books like this one appears to be in the past under similar circumstances. The Case for Christ comes most readily to mind as I read it when I was still close to Christianity in my worldview though I'd left the LDS faith by then. It was presented by a poster on a message board as something I should read that made the best case against atheism imaginable because Smolin claimed to have been an atheist converted to Christianity. And it was garbage. Once I began to discuss it with that person it turned out they just seemed impressed with Smolin's conversion and hadn't really evaluated the logic or arguments presented in an attempt to see how they'd read if one didn't ready agree with them. I was about as disappointed in the bad argument and obvious strawmen arguments as I was the first time I read the FARMS review article on In Sacred Loneliness and realized there wasn't a equitable debate of facts taking place.

Reasonable apologetic works exist. But they don't frame the debate around "science of the gaps" and "Biblical Archaeology Proves the Bible, Literally'. Your short chapter list isn't making a case for this book.

So, surprise me, MG. Synthesize your take aways into the strongest argument you can compose and give me a reason to read the book.

Moral pervert and all-around horrible person that I am, apparently, I'd read a book in exchange for genuine and rewarding discussion of the contents.

But that hasn't been your forté to date, has it?

[MG 2.0]

Synthesize your take aways into the strongest argument you can compose and give me a reason to read the book.

I listed five categories which Metaxas covers in his book. The first three are, to me, the most powerful because they deal directly with science. And I’m a science kind of guy.

Let’s make this simple. Rather than me going through the book and outlining in detail the arguments for Fine Tuning, let’s link to them first:

https://www.discovery.org/a/fine-tuning-parameters/

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

Now, does Metaxas’s book dovetail exactly with these two sources? Maybe not. But close enough. Enough, for the sake of my question to you. You may even avoid having to shill out the coins for the book if you would rather not.

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.

Number 23. Abiogenesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Moving on.

The Teleological Argument

In recent decades, scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a precision and delicacy that literally defy human comprehension. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate; for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe.

Now, all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair's breadth, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist. To give just one example, the atomic weak force, if it were altered by as little as one part out of 10100, would not have permitted a life-permitting universe.

Now, there are three possible explanations of this remarkable fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance or design. 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. So could the fine-tuning be due to chance? Well, the problem with this alternative is that the odds against the fine-tunings occurring by accident are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. The probability that all the constants and quantities would fall by chance alone into the infinitesimal life-permitting range is vanishingly small. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe. So if the universe were the product of chance, the odds are overwhelming that it would be life prohibiting.

In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to resort to a radical metaphysical hypothesis; namely, that there exists an infinite number of randomly ordered, undetectable universes composing a sort of world ensemble or multiverse of which our universe is but a part. Somewhere in this infinite world ensemble, finely-tuned universes will appear by chance alone, and we happen to be one such world. Now wholly apart from the fact that there's no independent evidence that such a world ensemble even exists, the hypothesis faces a devastating objection, namely, if our universe is just a random member of an infinite world ensemble then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than what we in fact observe. Roger Penrose has calculated that it is inconceivably more probable that our solar system should suddenly form through a random collision of particles than that a finely-tuned universe should exist. Penrose calls it "utter chicken feed" [5] by comparison. So, if our universe were just a random member of a world ensemble, it is inconceivably more probable that we should be observing an orderly region no larger than our solar system. Observable universes like those are simply much more plenteous in the world ensemble than finely-tuned worlds like ours, and therefore ought to be observed by us. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On atheism, at least, then it is highly probable that there is no world ensemble.

The fine-tuning of the universe is therefore plausibly due neither to physical necessity nor to chance.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.


It therefore follows logically that the best explanation is design.


3. Therefore, it is due to design

Thus, the teleological argument gives us an intelligent designer of the cosmos.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/d ... -god-exist

The Teleological Arguments and associated Fine Tuning argument are quite convincing to me that there is a created order to the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

If you have alternative hypotheses that debunk and/or nullify the Tine Tuning examples listed above, for starters, that would be helpful.

If you do so, I may stop pestering you to buy the book.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

The Teleological Arguments and associated Fine Tuning argument are quite convincing to me that there is a created order to the universe.

* * *

Regards,
MG

Or, just simple cases of apophenia or pareidolia. Take your pick, but seems to be you have a classic case of apophenia.

[MG 2.0]

The Teleological Arguments and associated Fine Tuning argument are quite convincing to me that there is a created order to the universe.

* * *

Regards,
MG

Or, just simple cases of apophenia or pareidolia. Take your pick, but seems to be you have a classic case of apophenia.

You are free to answer the same question I posed to honor.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Synthesize your take aways into the strongest argument you can compose and give me a reason to read the book.

I listed five categories which Metaxas covers in his book. The first three are, to me, the most powerful because they deal directly with science. And I’m a science kind of guy.

Let’s make this simple. Rather than me going through the book….

<simple cut and paste of lists from discovery.org SNIPPED>

….Please have the balls to give some explanatory power behind your reasoning for rejecting the evidence for Fine Tuning.

<more cut and paste dumping from Wikipedia etc. SNIPPED>

If you have alternative hypotheses that debunk and/or nullify the Tine Tuning examples listed above, for starters, that would be helpful.

If you do so, I may stop pestering you to buy the book.

So, in response to being asked why you recommended a particular book, you want someone to provide counter-arguments to your cut and pasted stuff (including stuff from the ‘discovery institute,’ no less, ), FIRST?

The question was pretty simple. You recommended the book, and someone asked you why?

Synthesize your take aways into the strongest argument you can compose and give me a reason to read the book.

[MG 2.0]

I listed five categories which Metaxas covers in his book. The first three are, to me, the most powerful because they deal directly with science. And I’m a science kind of guy.

Let’s make this simple. Rather than me going through the book….

<simple cut and paste of lists from discovery.org SNIPPED>

….Please have the balls to give some explanatory power behind your reasoning for rejecting the evidence for Fine Tuning.

<more cut and paste dumping from Wikipedia etc. SNIPPED>

If you have alternative hypotheses that debunk and/or nullify the Tine Tuning examples listed above, for starters, that would be helpful.

If you do so, I may stop pestering you to buy the book.

So, in response to being asked why you recommended a particular book, you want someone to provide counter-arguments to your cut and pasted stuff (including stuff from the ‘discovery institute,’ no less, ), FIRST?

The question was pretty simple. You recommended the book, and someone asked you why?

Synthesize your take aways into the strongest argument you can compose and give me a reason to read the book.

Between you, sock puppet, and honor, we ought to have three unique contributions to the question I asked.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

This is your schtick, I take it. oh well.

Looping back, pre-derailing. There were some great responses to the first post, repeated here.

I came across this statement, and thought it rather insightful:

"People don't leave Christianity because they stop believing in the teachings of Jesus. People leave the Christian Church because they believe in the teachings of Jesus so much, they can't stomach being part of an institution that claims to be about that and clearly isn't." -Nadia Bolz-Weber

[MG 2.0]

This is your schtick, I take it. oh well.

Looping back, pre-derailing. There were some great responses to the first post, repeated here.

I came across this statement, and thought it rather insightful:

"People don't leave Christianity because they stop believing in the teachings of Jesus. People leave the Christian Church because they believe in the teachings of Jesus so much, they can't stomach being part of an institution that claims to be about that and clearly isn't." -Nadia Bolz-Weber

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.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

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 follows, 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.