Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

As other have pointed out unguided but not random - indeed the very opposite of random as they are driven by fundamental energetics.

So of course you can develop complexity and 'order' in this manner. Here is a simple example - mix 2 simple molecules - water and an amphiphilic lipid. In your understanding that order and complexity cannot happen without some kind of supernatural guidance, you'd predict a random mix of the molecules. But that's not what happens - they naturally self-order into the most ordered structures, including perfect water filled lipid spheres each of which has a coating exactly two molecules thick - no more and no less. Astonishing complexity that occurs naturally. Why does it occur - because it is the lowest energy state.

The notion that complexity can only arise via the guiding hand of something more complex is a route to nowhere as that complex guiding hand must have been generated by a more complex guiding hand and or on ad infenitum. Nope - the only credible argument is that complexity (as we see it) arises from lower levels of complexity - bottom up, self assembled so to speak. And this is exactly what we see in the complexity of our world, driven by fundamental energetic principles.
Yup, that's right - and I can show the process in the lab to you any day you want. It is standard practice when genetically modifying a micro-organism for research purposes to also include an antibiotic resistance. To select just those with the mutation you want you challenge the cells with the antibiotic in question and only the modified microorganisms survive. Evolutionary principles demonstrated in a dish in a couple of days.
It is theoretically limited by the number of genes we possess and therefore the combinations of genes turned on and off and their individual structure (where mutations come in) - humans have about 20,000 genes. Add to that the fact that some genes code for proteins that modify other proteins and you add to that complexity. Throw in the notion that we are dealing with interacting networks of proteins etc and you have an astonishingly complex set of possibilities generated by evolution.

Now some other species have more genes again, and therefore greater propensity for complexity. To understand this we need to recognise that while we may consider 'complexity' in terms of brain function and higher consciousness, this is a fairly human-centric approach. In some respects we are relatively simply organisms with a pretty linear lifecycle and we perhaps don't need so many genes. Compare humans with some species whose life cycles go through distinct phases, distinct sets of genes that generate the larval and adult stages, and further ones that are required for the metamorphosis between those stages. Sure those organisms don't have the neural complexity we have (but that doesn't necessarily require huge numbers of genes, but adaptive neural networks), but in other respects their lifecycles are way more complex than humans.

Thanks or this detailed and informative response, and I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject, professor.  However the more detail I see about how things work, the more I marvel at God's creativity.  I know that you presume it all happens from unguided, naturally occurring events which generate unintended consequences to bring life into existence.  I see things as quite the opposite in that it all works as God intended in order to bring life into existence.  I believe that our human ability to consciously manipulate the natural forces of this universe and bring about intended human creations is a reflection of God's amazing creativity.

[Stranger]

Thanks or this detailed and informative response, and I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject, professor.  However the more detail I see about how things work, the more I marvel at God's creativity.  I know that you presume it all happens from unguided, naturally occurring events which generate unintended consequences to bring life into existence.  I see things as quite the opposite in that it all works as God intended in order to bring life into existence.  I believe that our human ability to consciously manipulate the natural forces of this universe and bring about intended human creations is a reflection of God's amazing creativity.

Yet another statement of your evidence- and reasoning-free faith. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to do much for your honesty. You said you had "sound logic", are you ready yet to either produce it or admit you don't have any?

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh good grief, we're questioning evolution now?

It is quite astonishing that AB is somehow challenging the notion of evolution (i.e. random mutations producing major impacts on survival and advantage for an organism) - particularly so right now when we are smack in the middle of a prime example of such evolutionary change and advantage - the coronavirus.

The coronovirus is closely related to other viruses that are not know to be able to be transmissible to humans - the key point here is that a mutation to generate the current 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) permits infection of humans and for humans, therefore to act as a host for pathogen replication, ultimately to allow human to human infection. So this mutation provides the virus with evolutionary advantage - firstly a new ecosystem to survive and replicate (humans) but also the ability to be transmitted geographically across the world, due to human movement.

There is no 'guiding' nor does the virus think it is better in evolutionary terms - it is a virus, it cannot think. Yet that simple mutation has provided huge evolutionary advantage, allowing spreading to a new species and spreading to parts of the world where it wouldn't otherwise be found.

And this has happened not over millions of years, as some people suggest evolution progresses, but literally over a few weeks.

Now it is likely that the evolutionary advantage will be short lived, because either the virus will kill off its new host (unlikely) or the new host (humans) will develop immunity which renders the temporary evolutionary advantage redundant.

But nonetheless what we are seeing playing out across our 24 hour news channels is the most obvious example of evolution driven by mutations that you could possible imagine.

[ProfessorDavey]

However the more detail I see about how things work, the more I marvel at God's creativity.

Classic god of the gaps - maybe you, like me, might want to take up a career studying these processes and 'details' - maybe you'd learn something.

The more detail I see about how things work the more I marvel at the complexity of nature. And the more we learn the more things which had previously been ascribed to 'god' become understood as natural processes. I've been engaged in professional biological research for over 30 years and I've never felt the need to ascribe 'god' to any of the processes I study - yet I suspect I am just as in awe of the complexity and 'detail' of those processes as you - probably more so as much professional engagement means that I recognise layer after layer of further complexity within those processes that are well beyond those that study biology to GCSE or A level for example will ever come across.

[Nearly Sane]

It is quite astonishing that AB is somehow challenging the notion of evolution (i.e. random mutations producing major impacts on survival and advantage for an organism) - particularly so right now when we are smack in the middle of a prime example of such evolutionary change and advantage - the coronavirus.

The coronovirus is closely related to other viruses that are not know to be able to be transmissible to humans - the key point here is that a mutation to generate the current 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) permits infection of humans and for humans, therefore to act as a host for pathogen replication, ultimately to allow human to human infection. So this mutation provides the virus with evolutionary advantage - firstly a new ecosystem to survive and replicate (humans) but also the ability to be transmitted geographically across the world, due to human movement.

There is no 'guiding' nor does the virus think it is better in evolutionary terms - it is a virus, it cannot think. Yet that simple mutation has provided huge evolutionary advantage, allowing spreading to a new species and spreading to parts of the world where it wouldn't otherwise be found.

And this has happened not over millions of years, as some people suggest evolution progresses, but literally over a few weeks.

Now it is likely that the evolutionary advantage will be short lived, because either the virus will kill off its new host (unlikely) or the new host (humans) will develop immunity which renders the temporary evolutionary advantage redundant.

But nonetheless what we are seeing playing out across our 24 hour news channels is the most obvious example of evolution driven by mutations that you could possible imagine.

And worse for Alan, is that in his set of beliefs either his god has chosen this mutation, or has allowed it to happen so Alan worships a god that has chosen for people to die by coronavirus.

[ippy]

It is the force fields of the two objects which touch.  The force fields are just as much a part of the objects as are the electrons, neutrons and protons.  An observer does not need knowledge of the intricate differences between electrons, force fields, protons etc to know that the two objects are touching.  It is no illusion.

Incidentally, if the atoms of two objects were to make contact, there would be colliding electrons and subsequent nuclear chaos.  Thankfully it all works as God intended. 

I can hear your voice in my mind Alan and it sounds just like Peter Cook's voice in one of his well known sketches where the sketch opens with him saying "Did you know", it's as though it were you speaking in an exactly similar vocal tone to Peter.

Yes Alan go to YouTube, 'Peter Cook-John Cleese (good quality)', he Pete always sounds a bit train spotterish to me and just as daft, just as daft as theobabble sounds.

Again about this post of yours it wouldn't need that much of a polishing and it could then be used somewhere in a 'Star Wars' script, another work of fiction. 

Commiserations Alan, ippy. 

[Alan Burns]

And worse for Alan, is that in his set of beliefs either his god has chosen this mutation, or has allowed it to happen so Alan worships a god that has chosen for people to die by coronavirus.

It is an inevitable fact that every human body in this world will die.  There are many different means by which our bodies will die.  The means by which we die is insignificant in importance when compared to the state of our human soul.

[Alan Burns]

Classic god of the gaps - maybe you, like me, might want to take up a career studying these processes and 'details' - maybe you'd learn something.

The more detail I see about how things work the more I marvel at the complexity of nature. And the more we learn the more things which had previously been ascribed to 'god' become understood as natural processes. I've been engaged in professional biological research for over 30 years and I've never felt the need to ascribe 'god' to any of the processes I study - yet I suspect I am just as in awe of the complexity and 'detail' of those processes as you - probably more so as much professional engagement means that I recognise layer after layer of further complexity within those processes that are well beyond those that study biology to GCSE or A level for example will ever come across.

I wonder if you would have the same views if it was found that the apparent natural complexity of biological life on this planet was not replicated elsewhere in this universe.  I know we may never have the means to verify this hypothesis, but my own belief is that if life does exist elsewhere, it will be because God intended it.

[ippy]

Classic god of the gaps - maybe you, like me, might want to take up a career studying these processes and 'details' - maybe you'd learn something.

The more detail I see about how things work the more I marvel at the complexity of nature. And the more we learn the more things which had previously been ascribed to 'god' become understood as natural processes. I've been engaged in professional biological research for over 30 years and I've never felt the need to ascribe 'god' to any of the processes I study - yet I suspect I am just as in awe of the complexity and 'detail' of those processes as you - probably more so as much professional engagement means that I recognise layer after layer of further complexity within those processes that are well beyond those that study biology to GCSE or A level for example will ever come across.

Yes Proff when I see and read how close we are, so close to chimps genetically etc, it's the switching on start now before X etc etc type directions given by that effectively, almost magical, DNA  blueprint.

I find the little I have learned alone about how DNA works makes it a jaw dropping subject for me to look on, we must at least be into about one tenth of one percent of knowing how DNA performs it's task by now?

Regards, ippy. 

[Nearly Sane]

It is an inevitable fact that every human body in this world will die.  There are many different means by which our bodies will die.  The means by which we die is insignificant in importance when compared to the state of our human soul.

You worship a god who by your logic choose to kill my friend at 28 of skin cancer. You worship a murdering thug.

[ippy]

I wonder if you would have the same views if it was found that the apparent natural complexity of biological life on this planet was not replicated elsewhere in this universe.  I know we may never have the means to verify this hypothesis, but my own belief is that if life does exist elsewhere, it will be because God intended it.

What happened to limbo Alan, I know the pope sent it to the West Indies, is purgatory (a good little earner), next, it's all made up it's a shame you can't or refuse to see it.

Commiserations.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wonder if you would have the same views if it was found that the apparent natural complexity of biological life on this planet was not replicated elsewhere in this universe.  I know we may never have the means to verify this hypothesis, but my own belief is that if life does exist elsewhere, it will be because God intended it.

Firstly you are right that it is very difficult to prove that something doesn't exist - and in this context you'd need further to prove that is never existed in the past and will never exist in the future as our current situation in the university is a snapshot in infinitesimally small time-frame in universe time context.

But lets make the assumption that complex life never arose anywhere else and will never arise - would I conclude somehow ... err ... god. Nope of course I wouldn't - I would want to understand the processes that triggered the start of what we call 'life' which is effectively merely a human defined set of self sustaining chemical processes. I'd want to understand the mechanisms by which complexity in that life develops - and we know a lot about that already. And it could be that the precise conditions required to trigger the start of that process and to develop are unique to our planet - unlikely but plausible. None of this requires god - as soon as you start down that route the implausibility kicks in.

But I note you state: the apparent natural complexity of biological life on this planet was not replicated elsewhere - well I suspect it entirely plausible that the complexity we see on earth isn't replicated elsewhere, but that life developed elsewhere but hasn't reached what we describe as 'complex' (noting that is a highly human-centric view - see my discussion on species that go through multiple life stages) or that there is life which is just as complex, but not in a 'human' type manner. And here lies the rub for your 'god' -clearly defined in human terms, a kind of super-human. Well if that god actually exists and is actually omnipresent/omnipotent - i.e. as important to all parts of the universe at all stages, and to all things and life - why on earth would it be human-like when those attributes are completely irrelevant to a chemical reaction on a far off galaxy billions of years ago, or to some other highly developed life-form that may plausibly exist which is just as complex as humans but has no human-like attribute.

So if you really want to define 'god' i.e. omnipresent/omnipotent, perhaps the only 'god' we have is energy as it is important to everything throughout all time.

[Gordon]

Thanks or this detailed and informative response, and I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject, professor.  However the more detail I see about how things work, the more I marvel at God's creativity.  I know that you presume it all happens from unguided, naturally occurring events which generate unintended consequences to bring life into existence.  I see things as quite the opposite in that it all works as God intended in order to bring life into existence.  I believe that our human ability to consciously manipulate the natural forces of this universe and bring about intended human creations is a reflection of God's amazing creativity.

This is confirmation that ignorance and incredulity are not a healthy mix.

[torridon]

I wonder if you would have the same views if it was found that the apparent natural complexity of biological life on this planet was not replicated elsewhere in this universe.  I know we may never have the means to verify this hypothesis, but my own belief is that if life does exist elsewhere, it will be because God intended it.

Typical, you decide the conclusion whatever the evidence. Who'd a guessed it ?

[Alan Burns]

Firstly you are right that it is very difficult to prove that something doesn't exist - and in this context you'd need further to prove that is never existed in the past and will never exist in the future as our current situation in the university is a snapshot in infinitesimally small time-frame in universe time context.

But lets make the assumption that complex life never arose anywhere else and will never arise - would I conclude somehow ... err ... god. Nope of course I wouldn't - I would want to understand the processes that triggered the start of what we call 'life' which is effectively merely a human defined set of self sustaining chemical processes. I'd want to understand the mechanisms by which complexity in that life develops - and we know a lot about that already. And it could be that the precise conditions required to trigger the start of that process and to develop are unique to our planet - unlikely but plausible. None of this requires god - as soon as you start down that route the implausibility kicks in.

But I note you state: the apparent natural complexity of biological life on this planet was not replicated elsewhere - well I suspect it entirely plausible that the complexity we see on earth isn't replicated elsewhere, but that life developed elsewhere but hasn't reached what we describe as 'complex' (noting that is a highly human-centric view - see my discussion on species that go through multiple life stages) or that there is life which is just as complex, but not in a 'human' type manner. And here lies the rub for your 'god' -clearly defined in human terms, a kind of super-human. Well if that god actually exists and is actually omnipresent/omnipotent - i.e. as important to all parts of the universe at all stages, and to all things and life - why on earth would it be human-like when those attributes are completely irrelevant to a chemical reaction on a far off galaxy billions of years ago, or to some other highly developed life-form that may plausibly exist which is just as complex as humans but has no human-like attribute.

So if you really want to define 'god' i.e. omnipresent/omnipotent, perhaps the only 'god we have is energy as it is important to everything throughout all time.

You imply that it would seem somewhat ridiculous to consider an omnipresent/omnipotent God to be some form of super human.  And that such consideration would be evidence for the concept of God being just a human invention.  The Christian bible indicates that we are made in the image of God.  You might consider this to confirm your conjecture that God is a human invention.  However, my interpretation of this would be that it is human creativity which is the reflection of God's image.  Our human achievements indicate that intelligent design is possible in this (otherwise) physically controlled universe.

[Gordon]

You imply that it would seem somewhat ridiculous to consider an omnipresent/omnipotent God to be some form of super human.  And that such consideration would be evidence for the concept of God being just a human invention.  The Christian bible indicates that we are made in the image of God.  You might consider this to confirm your conjecture that God is a human invention.  However, my interpretation of this would be that it is human creativity which is the reflection of God's image.  Our human achievements indicate that intelligent design is possible in this (otherwise) physically controlled universe.

I'd say it is more the case that it is "somewhat ridiculous to consider an omnipresent/omnipotent God" at all.

[Stranger]

Our human achievements indicate that intelligent design is possible in this (otherwise) physically controlled universe.

Still waiting for the tiniest hint of the logic you said you had, any morsel of evidence, or the first glimmer of the basic honesty needed to admit you have none.

What is it about the human ability to intelligently design things that goes any way at all towards suggesting your contradictory notion of "freedom" and where is the reasoning that goes from that to being not "physically controlled"?

We have assertion, we have statements of blind faith, we have an impressive collection of fallacies, and we have total gibberish, where is the logic?

[ProfessorDavey]

You imply that it would seem somewhat ridiculous to consider an omnipresent/omnipotent God to be some form of super human.

Indeed it is - it is however perfectly understandable if the notion of god is created by humans. And I suspect some highly developed life-form somewhere else in the universe that is completely un-humanlike would create a god that is a bit like a super-annuated version of their life form.

And that such consideration would be evidence for the concept of God being just a human invention.

Well done - you're beginning to get it now. 

The Christian bible indicates that we are made in the image of God.

The christian bible was written by humans living in a particular place at a particular time and it is achingly obviously that is it a product of those people in that place and time. It has limited relevance even to other humans in other places at other times and most humans throughout the entirety of human existence will never have encountered the bible. Expand that to some hypothetical un-human-like advanced life for somewhere else in the universe - what relevance does the human-written bible have to them - absolutely nothing.

You might consider this to confirm your conjecture that God is a human invention.

Yup - spot on again.

However, my interpretation of this would be that it is human creativity which is the reflection of God's image.

Actually it isn't very creative of humans to create a god that is basically just a human with extra powers. Hardly very imaginative. 

Our human achievements indicate that intelligent design is possible in this (otherwise) physically controlled universe.

Arrogant non-sense - for the rest of the universe over its unimaginable distance and time human existence and what you perceive as our human achievement are completely irrelevant and almost certainly completely un-noticed. You do realise that in cosmic time terms to date, that if the time since the big bang represents 1 year humans have been around for about one hour, and the bible has been around for a few seconds. And of course the universe will carry on for countless billions of years long after humans have disappeared, which will likely be long after the bible and christianity with its man-made christian god have vanished into the history of time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Thanks or this detailed and informative response, and I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject, professor.

Good. Does that mean you’ll stop making such egregious mistakes now then about evolution, about the second law of thermodynamics, about emergence etc? 

However…

Oh no, not again surely…?

…the more detail I see about how things work, the more I marvel at God's creativity.

Given that you know now (or at least should know by now) that enormous complexity can arise naturally from simple constituents following consistently non-random laws of physics, why?

I know that you presume it all happens from unguided, naturally occurring events which generate unintended consequences to bring life into existence.

This is flat out dishonest now. No-one “presumes” that at all – what they actually do is to reason their way to it with the tools and evidence available.

I see things as quite the opposite in that it all works as God intended in order to bring life into existence.  I believe that our human ability to consciously manipulate the natural forces of this universe and bring about intended human creations is a reflection of God's amazing creativity.

No doubt you do believe that, but again why and – more importantly – why should anyone take such fantastical and unqualified claims seriously when the current explanations have no evidence nor any need for such conjectures?

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if you would have the same views if it was found that the apparent natural complexity of biological life on this planet was not replicated elsewhere in this universe.  I know we may never have the means to verify this hypothesis, but my own belief is that if life does exist elsewhere, it will be because God intended it.

I'm struggling to untangle what you are trying to say here? You seem to (A) suggest that if there was no complex life elsewhere that should mean Prof D should think that's indicative of a god though that seems a non sequitur, and (b) is there is complex life elsewhere that that doesn't mean that there is any less chance of a god - also a non sequitur, and it would seem in contradiction to (A).

[Alan Burns]

Actually it isn't very creative of humans to create a god that is basically just a human with extra powers. Hardly very imaginative. 

I cannot conceive that humans are capable of creating the Christian God.  And our God is certainly not regarded as a human with extra powers.
God has made Himself known to us by taking the form of a human in the presence of Jesus Christ.
God also exists as what is commonly known as "our Father", being the ultimate source of all creation, but the true nature of the Father is beyond our human understanding.
And there is the Holy Spirit, which refers to God's continuing spiritual presence here on earth, and is certainly not regarded as any form of "super human" character.

Arrogant non-sense - for the rest of the universe over its unimaginable distance and time human existence and what you perceive as our human achievement are completely irrelevant and almost certainly completely un-noticed. You do realise that in cosmic time terms to date, that if the time since the big bang represents 1 year humans have been around for about one hour, and the bible has been around for a few seconds. And of course the universe will carry on for countless billions of years long after humans have disappeared, which will likely be long after the bible and christianity with its man-made christian god have vanished into the history of time.

I totally agree that from the perspective of our material universe, we are an insignificant, unintended blip of life which came into existence on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten star debris.  And our lifespan is infinitesimal compared to the time line of our universe.  And the forces of this universe would appear to have no remit to create or support any form of life.  Yet in this indifferent, apparently hostile material universe we have come to exist as conscious entities with the ability to contemplate our reality and interact with this material world.  We no not fit in with the deterministic nature of a material universe which is on a journey of ever increasing entropy and chaos.  We are not a natural product of this material universe, because we are the supernatural creation coming from the ultimate source of all creation - our Father in heaven.

[Roses]

I cannot conceive that humans are capable of creating the Christian God.  And our God is certainly not regarded as a human with extra powers.
God has made Himself known to us by taking the form of a human in the presence of Jesus Christ.
God also exists as what is commonly known as "our Father", being the ultimate source of all creation, but the true nature of the Father is beyond our human understanding.
And there is the Holy Spirit, which refers to God's continuing spiritual presence here on earth, and is certainly not regarded as any form of "super human" character.I totally agree that from the perspective of our material universe, we are an insignificant, unintended blip of life which came into existence on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten star debris.  And our lifespan is infinitesimal compared to the time line of our universe.  And the forces of this universe would appear to have no remit to create or support any form of life.  Yet in this indifferent, apparently hostile material universe we have come to exist as conscious entities with the ability to contemplate our reality and interact with this material world.  We no not fit in with the deterministic nature of a material universe which is on a journey of ever increasing entropy and chaos.  We are not a natural product of this material universe, because we are the supernatural creation coming from the ultimate source of all creation - our Father in heaven.

The human imagination is more than capable of creating the Biblical god and all that is attributed to it.

[Gordon]

I cannot conceive that humans are capable of creating the Christian God.  And our God is certainly not regarded as a human with extra powers.
God has made Himself known to us by taking the form of a human in the presence of Jesus Christ.
God also exists as what is commonly known as "our Father", being the ultimate source of all creation, but the true nature of the Father is beyond our human understanding.
And there is the Holy Spirit, which refers to God's continuing spiritual presence here on earth, and is certainly not regarded as any form of "super human" character.

I totally agree that from the perspective of our material universe, we are an insignificant, unintended blip of life which came into existence on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten star debris.  And our lifespan is infinitesimal compared to the time line of our universe.  And the forces of this universe would appear to have no remit to create or support any form of life.  Yet in this indifferent, apparently hostile material universe we have come to exist as conscious entities with the ability to contemplate our reality and interact with this material world.  We no not fit in with the deterministic nature of a material universe which is on a journey of ever increasing entropy and chaos.  We are not a natural product of this material universe, because we are the supernatural creation coming from the ultimate source of all creation - our Father in heaven.

This is just fallacious theobollocks, Alan, for all the reasons mentioned to you on numerous occasions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I cannot conceive that humans are capable of creating the Christian God.

Why not?

And our God is certainly not regarded as a human with extra powers.

If we “are made in His image” then why not?

God has made Himself known to us by taking the form of a human in the presence of Jesus Christ.
God also exists as what is commonly known as "our Father", being the ultimate source of all creation, but the true nature of the Father is beyond our human understanding.
And there is the Holy Spirit, which refers to God's continuing spiritual presence here on earth, and is certainly not regarded as any form of "super human" character.

These are just unqualified faith claims, and so are epistemically worthless. If you want to come here to proselytise, you’ll have to do an awful lot better than that if you expect people to take these claims seriously.

I totally agree that from the perspective of our material universe, we are an insignificant, unintended blip of life which came into existence on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten star debris.  And our lifespan is infinitesimal compared to the time line of our universe.  And the forces of this universe would appear to have no remit to create or support any form of life.

So far, so good… 

Yet in this indifferent, apparently hostile material universe we have come to exist as conscious entities with the ability to contemplate our reality and interact with this material world.

Yes we have. Remarkable in some ways, but arguably highly likely that other such species have appeared too. So?

We no not fit in with the deterministic nature of a material universe which is on a journey of ever increasing entropy and chaos.

Yes we do, and you fundamentally misunderstand here the second law of thermodynamics.

We are not a natural product of this material universe, because we are the supernatural creation coming from the ultimate source of all creation - our Father in heaven.

And that’s just another mindless faith belief to conclude. Do you have anything worth listening to say here - you know, an actual argument that isn’t hopeless for example?

[ProfessorDavey]

I totally agree that from the perspective of our material universe, we are an insignificant, unintended blip of life which came into existence on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten star debris.

Good - so do I. 

And our lifespan is infinitesimal compared to the time line of our universe.  And the forces of this universe would appear to have no remit to create or support any form of life.  Yet in this indifferent, apparently hostile material universe we have come to exist as conscious entities with the ability to contemplate our reality and interact with this material world.

Again I agree - and I'd go further, that from our human perspective our existence is both important and significant but that does not mean we aren't simply products of the material world, nor that if you look from the other end of the telescope that human existence from a cosmic perspective is insignificant (as you also agree see above).

We no not fit in with the deterministic nature of a material universe which is on a journey of ever increasing entropy and chaos.  We are not a natural product of this material universe, because we are the supernatural creation coming from the ultimate source of all creation - our Father in heaven.

Oh no - we were doing so well - huge unevidenced, clunky, hand-waving assertion. We do exactly fit into the natural world and we are not a supernatural creation. It may help you to feel ever so special in a huge universe to pretend you are a special creation of a supernatural creator that you (i.e. humans) have created themselves, but that doesn't mean it is true. And many of us have moved to a more mature position of recognising both that human existence is special and important to us, but is merely one tiny part of a huge universe in which our existence is totally unnoticed in the broader sense.

We have grown up - you can too.