Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

I wasn't aware that QQ was claiming that the god he posits is the same one that you swear allegiance to. I thought we were talking about a god from a "realistic" sense, not one of the ones invented by desert illiterates.

Why would that make you ask that? It has no bearing on my comment whatsoever. And no, I don't feel burdened.

Apparently making a coherent post is too difficult for you. At what point did we lose you?

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, this is really one of my arguments against YEC: Of course an omnipotent god could have created Earth in 7 days, 6,000 years ago, with marsipuals, sediment shelves, fossils, old starlight and all. In fact he/she/it could have done it in 7 seconds, 5 minutes ago.

The few YECs who actually understand this are usually thrown a bit off by it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hans

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, you're assuming that the creation and management of the universe would be akin to the creation and maintenance of, I dunno, a UPS hub. For all you know, this deity could have no choice but to micro-manage. The point is that your argument relies on this deity being essentially a big human. I say that this assumption lacks creativity, and renders the discussion useless.

Case in point. To you, a god is like a postal worker. You don't have the capacity to imagine that a deity would have a nature beyond your ken?

...what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Cris,

...if random chance is not involved, then how did these processes naturally form into the complexity we observe in the cell?

What was the point of the linking the video?

jan.

 

Indeed the almighty could be putting us through a simulation. Or this: there really was a Creator God fitting the Yahweh model. He, truly a fatherly male type, got a wild hare one "day" to have a Big Bang. However, upon simulating in His own infinite mind the outcome, and arriving at the predictable result--that the creation of evil would invariably ensue--discovered a paradox of His own simulated making. "I can not make a world that has both free will and also remains perfectly devoid of evil. I therefore am limited." At which time God melts down, explodes, goes singular, initiating the Big Bang, plus that fuzzy pseudo virtual realm we call consciousness, which mysteriously inhabits animal brain stems and spreads into the cortex and takes over--by both Godly and ungodly mechanisms that are utterly unknowable to us. Thus, here we are, figments of His imagination, His last vestiges, so to speak. And it is through some primal hard-wired memory of this that ancient myth makers have constructed stories of the god who became the universe, and the others who came up with the notion that we are created in His image and likeness.

And 7 seven days was amenable to the boys down at the Elks lodge who wanted Saturdays off for fishing, so God, in His infinite goodness saw this and wished it true and it became true, so the goatherds out in the wasteland of central Canaan became magically aware of this, which we call divine inspiration, and so they spun it into the rest of their yarn, and all was good and proper and just, and this is why we get Saturdays off.

But really all of this took place within one Planck time (5.4 x 10[sup]-44[/sup] sec), which is another story.

I might settle for this if I were and Elk or a Moose or a Caribou or even a Reindeer, but it would be no different for me to do so than it is for anyone else to settle for any other invention of how things actually work.

I would like to see a YEC or anyone else who might rise to the challenge to come here and and address the following:"Prove God existed within the first Planck time of the Big Bang." Then we can move on to discover how goo turned into prokaryotes and a billion years or so of stuff like that until the Great Oxygenation Event, the Pre-Camrian Explosion, Porifera, and everything up until ungulates, and finally cave-people, painting bison on their walls because either they were tired of the mauvre decor or else they were trying to remember some primal hard-wired memory of what was really some guys God saw sitting in a rickety fishing boat on a lazy Saturday afternoon passing around cans of Schlitz.

So that's my challenge. Let's get over some of the hangups and go from goo to man in, say, the next 100 posts, or whatever. No holds barred. And I will ante up with the following: Darwin was on top of his game WAY more than the authors of Genesis, simply because his ideas didn't come to him in a dream.

 

The concept of omnipotence/omniscience doesn't make much sense if it's only used once.

 

I would point out that DNA and RNA may not have been required of the first life forms. It's unreasonable to expect these complex molecules to form by chance and there is no reason they had to, they weren't the first.

 

but why only once... don't you think he woud have a little bit of rself restraint and be able to do what he damn well pleases?

 

says who...you?

 

this God doesn't believe in the bible...pht! thats for you humans to play around with all you like...

 

There's only one universe that we know of.

No, I would say that omnipotence and restraint are more likely to be mutually exclusive.

 

A little thing called evolution, maybe you've heard of it?

 

There is only one universe that we know of, and it is perfect for sustaining organic life. In fact, it is designed very well. The gravitational constant is just right; it's not too weak that stars never form; it's not too strong that stars burn out too quickly, before life can form.

 

The vast, vast, vast majority of the universe is extremely inhospitable to organic life. It's like a "design" for a house in which only the broom closet is habitable.

For life to form, we only need one star and one planet.

 

Really? Ascend 100 miles straight up and tell me how hospitable the universe is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It takes sunlight to sustain life. If the sun burns out too fast, no more sun. No more sun means no more life. Elements like carbon (for organic life to exist), iron, copper, zinc, etc., all come from the fusion of stars.
If gravity is too weak, then heavier elements won't form. Life cannot be sustained. Obviously, organic life requires carbon. Cellular life requires phosphorous for its phospholipid membranes. The liquid iron core of the earth is necessary to generate the Van Allen belts. Without the Van Allen belts, we would be flooded with dangerous gamma rays and cosmic rays that would destroy cellular life on earth.

Our universe supports life. However, life only exists on earth. Hopefully, we'll find that life exists elsewhere in the universe as well.

 

Is the universe fine-tuned for us?

 

So you're arguing against God? God wouldn't need stars to create heavy elements. He'd just poof them into existence. The existence of huge natural element-factories is evidence that no God is needed.

 

on the contrary, having a god that is unknowable is clearly the business of desert illiterates ....

because by your maths, god + personality = inferior

then why play god as necessarily inferior to yourself (aside from shortcomings in abstract thinking ... )

at the point where you proceed like a stubborn donkey when attributing notions of personhood with god it seems ....

 

Personally, I like the idea that God exists. The pursuit for God is like the pursuit for happiness; it's just something that some people do to find joy in their lives. I like to see people who are experiencing joy in their lives.

From a mechanistic point of view, the sun has to shine long enough for life to evolve. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any living creatures arguing about it over the internet. But the sun shines, and we do argue about it.