12. Conclusion My argument has been that the following combination of attitudes is misguided: (i) Even if we do yet have an adequate explanation of life’s emergence, knowledge of the physical, chemical, and biological conditions that life requires makes it extremely implausible that life simply arose by chance. Rather, we have reason to think that there is something about the relevant physical properties, forces, laws, and other conditions (having nothing to do with the purposes of any agent) which make it rather likely that life should come into being. Read things you post properly .
exactly.... my point... do you get what you wrote? Let me restate that for you.. Its implausible that life simply arose by chance but we have faith we will find an explanation that had nothing to do with a Creator... Now I will break it down for you in a manner that must penetrate into your thoughts... since... I am not changing what you just wrote... just giving you that nudge into actual thought... --- Fact: (seems impossible for life to have come from non life by random chance) Even if we do yet have an adequate explanation of life’s emergence, knowledge of the physical, chemical, and biological conditions that life requires makes it extremely implausible that life simply arose by chance Faith: (we have reason to hope or "think") Rather, we have reason to think that there is something about the relevant physical properties, forces, laws, and other conditions (having nothing to do with the purposes of any agent) which make it rather likely that life should come into being. -- You see if you it was not a hope or speculation... then it would not be implausible that life came about by random chance. Either things happened randomly or things happened by design. Either the laws functioned to create life by random chance or the physical lwas and building blocks were there by design. There is really no other option.. When the bang happened did everything come about by chance... or was there some drive for life put into the building blocks of the universe. Summary.. Your 1950s arguments for random chance are implausible.
You have been the one saying random chance. You're the dick accusing others of believing in it. Faith doesn't have reason That's why its called faith Yeah reason. Chemicals, environment, evolution. "(having nothing to do with the purposes of any agent)" Do you really not understand how you're directly contradicting yourself? That is apart from the idiot you are being
Let me take it one step further for those following at home. Stu... right now is spinning. he wants to argue that there is an alternative between chance and design. But anything he will say is bullshit because if you take back to the big bang its either random chance or designed from the beginning... except multiverse. Making him realize he has been a a proven troll or idiot for pages and pages once again. Nitro may have understood but he was rooting for Stu... the other lefties on this site can't believe it... once again their side has been smoked by real science. So... now someone will come along and argue multiverse. (which I have already discussed) I will say fine. Mulitiverse is not really a new answer because in a multiverse anything can and will happen. A multiverse is essentially omnipotent and omniscient. Faith in a multiverse given today's scientific understanding is the same as faith in God. Stu's... last play will be to cite hawking. But... hawking's quote as I have pointed out before is that within an inflationary scenario of mulitverses top down cosmology could say that gravity designed our particular universe. its faith in a multiverse..
what your wrote is a non sequitor. its the logical consequence of what you have been arguing. 1950s random chance did it argumentation is what you argue for whether you understand that or not. Its just seems to bother you when I point it out. you either believe the universe got the way is by chance or you believe it was designed. (or multiverse)... if you have not figured that out yet... you are not smart.
You're rambling again. The lack of resourcefulness of thought you apply to the issue by limiting everything to either blind faith that god did it, or random chance, or multiverse, in order to exclude the obvious, is pitiful. Not faith but science, math, physics, knowledge of the physical universe, suggest the idea of multiverse. Faith only, no science, no math, and dismissal of knowledge of the physical universe, allow illusions of a grand designer. Science doesn't take side and it's simply the case there is no science that confirms, or is there a need for, what you are saying is random chance or is 'design'. There is a great deal of science however that describes how life comes about by chemical evolution and natural forces. There is no reason to assume it will turn out to be any different for life's origin. 'Complete pathway' or not, doesn't change the fact chemical reaction is what's doing it, is what's science, and actually and naturally, the only thing making any rational sense. That much is obvious for anyone thinking seriously about the subject. In the 21st century especially, life by the design of some great imaginary Wizard King is nothing but bizarre and absurd. Have your mystery maker by all means if it makes you feel better, but stop pretending it has anything sensible to do with science. It's makes an idiot out of you. creator/ tuner/ designer..whatever ...long ago.
What a troll response... I have been telling you for years science does not support your 1950s random chance atheism... Now you are attempting to flip the script. I am not telling you science says there was a creator I am saying that due to the incredible fine tuning of our universe science does not rule out a creator... but it does seem to rule out your 1950s random chance atheism. 1. I don't care how you wish to define faith... the point is that your 1950s random chance atheism is not supported by today's science. You are the one with the out of step belief system. Now if you wish to step up to our century and you don't want a Creator... argue for a multiverse.
Its seems odd that you would try and change this up with a Jesus argument right now? What was the motivation? Are you not aware that the fine tuning of our universe is a Scientific argument and question science is researching right now... It is not about belief in the bible? We are not talking about a specific creator... We are talking science and the extreme fine tuning evidence by the incredible precision shown by the standard model of the universe. We have constants tuned to 20 decimal places and tuned to over 100 decimal places. Do you get that precision it took to know where to look for the Higgs Boson? If you do understand that incredible and unlikely precision... you would not be bring erhman and butt into this..