Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Spud]

What the hell is that supposed to mean and in what way is it relevant to your previous claim that the universe "looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life" despite the fact that the vast majority of it does no such thing?

It means that the vastly intricate conditions required for life to begin (assuming a lightning-striking-chemical-soup origin of life) may not have been possible in a universe that was any different to the one that now exists.

[Stranger]

It means that the vastly intricate conditions required for life to begin (assuming a lightning-striking-chemical-soup origin of life) may not have been possible in a universe that was any different to the one that now exists.

Where to begin...

• Why didn't you say that, then?
  
  
• Are you seriously claiming that your god had to create a universe of at least 93 billion light-years across and nearly 14 billion years old, just to make a tiny speck of cosmic dust orbiting one of its ~10²⁰ stars, suitable for life?
  
  
• What on earth has the "lightning-striking-chemical-soup" got to do with it if it's your god waving its magic wand anyway?

[jeremyp]

What about the bible? Unless you are also saying there is no evidence for Julius Caesar because ancient written testimony doesn't count as evidence.

With Julius Caesar we have testimony from multiple independent contemporary known sources, including some of Caesar's enemies. There are also statues and coins from his time.

The only known near contemporary source we have for Jesus is Paul - one of his supporters, and he never met Jesus.

[Maeght]

What about the bible? Unless you are also saying there is no evidence for Julius Caesar because ancient written testimony doesn't count as evidence.

The Bible is not evidence for the existence of God.

[floo]

What about the bible? Unless you are also saying there is no evidence for Julius Caesar because ancient written testimony doesn't count as evidence.

The Bible isn't  any sort of evidence, nor is it a history book.

[Spud]

Where to begin...

• Why didn't you say that, then?
  
  
• Are you seriously claiming that your god had to create a universe of at least 93 billion light-years across and nearly 14 billion years old, just to make a tiny speck of cosmic dust orbiting one of its ~10²⁰ stars, suitable for life?
  
  
• What on earth has the "lightning-striking-chemical-soup" got to do with it if it's your god waving its magic wand anyway?

Regarding point 2, suppose the universe consisted only of a small galaxy of stars, with the earth and us somewhere in that galaxy.

We would still want to know what was beyond it. We'd probably be developing the same telescopes to see way past the edge of the galaxy to determine whether there was anything further out. We are conscious of infinity whether the universe is lafge or  small.

[Maeght]

Regarding point 2, suppose the universe consisted only of a small galaxy of stars, with the earth and us somewhere in that galaxy.

We would still want to know what was beyond it. We'd probably be developing the same telescopes to see way past the edge of the galaxy to determine whether there was anything further out. We are conscious of infinity whether the universe is lafge or  small.

What's that got to do with the point you were making?

[Gordon]

Regarding point 2, suppose the universe consisted only of a small galaxy of stars, with the earth and us somewhere in that galaxy.

It doesn't: so your observation is pointless.

We would still want to know what was beyond it.

As I understand it to say 'beyond is the universe' makes no sense.

We'd probably be developing the same telescopes to see way past the edge of the galaxy to determine whether there was anything further out.

Already done that: why would that be relevant to whatever point you are trying to make here (which escapes me).
 

We are conscious of infinity whether the universe is lafge or  small.

Or infinite, perhaps!

[Stranger]

Regarding point 2, suppose the universe consisted only of a small galaxy of stars, with the earth and us somewhere in that galaxy.

We would still want to know what was beyond it. We'd probably be developing the same telescopes to see way past the edge of the galaxy to determine whether there was anything further out. We are conscious of infinity whether the universe is lafge or  small.

Spud, do you recall that this conversation was about your claim that the universe "looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life" (which it doesn't because almost all of it can't support life)?

I have no idea what point you are struggling to make now and still less of what the hell it has to do with your original claim.

[Spud]

What's that got to do with the point you were making?

I'm attempting to answer the point you made, that only a tiny portion of the universe supports life (ie what's the point of such a big universe).
How about another way of explaining it, which goes back to the example of the meal.
The universe, although being incomprehensibly massive, still seems to display order.  It might look chaotic in some ways, but generally there's order.  The sausages might be a bit overcooked, but the meal is still edible. So we still come back to the point that for there to be order in the universe (however large it is) suggests that there is an intelligence behind it, just as someone must have cooked the meal.

[Spud]

Spud, do you recall that this conversation was about your claim that the universe "looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life" (which it doesn't because almost all of it can't support life)?

I have no idea what point you are struggling to make now and still less of what the hell it has to do with your original claim.

If I may move the goalposts a touch:-
More generally, the universe looks ordered.

[Stranger]

If I may move the goalposts a touch:-
More generally, the universe looks ordered.

So, you're conceding that the universe doesn't look like it was made for the purpose of supporting life?

The sausages might be a bit overcooked, but the meal is still edible.

So, your god is a bit incompetent?

So we still come back to the point that for there to be order in the universe (however large it is) suggests that there is an intelligence behind it, just as someone must have cooked the meal.

So you're attempting to explain order in the universe by imagining something even more ordered to make it - but this incredibly ordered "intelligence" somehow doesn't need explaining because... err... it's magic!

[Gordon]

I'm attempting to answer the point you made, that only a tiny portion of the universe supports life (ie what's the point of such a big universe).
How about another way of explaining it, which goes back to the example of the meal.
The universe, although being incomprehensibly massive, still seems to display order.  It might look chaotic in some ways, but generally there's order.  The sausages might be a bit overcooked, but the meal is still edible. So we still come back to the point that for there to be order in the universe (however large it is) suggests that there is an intelligence behind it, just as someone must have cooked the meal.

This looks like a 'there are sausages so there must be a chef' argument for God: all you need to do now is explain who trained the chef, and then explain who trained the chef who trained the chef - can you see the problem here, Spud?

[Maeght]

I'm attempting to answer the point you made, that only a tiny portion of the universe supports life (ie what's the point of such a big universe).
How about another way of explaining it, which goes back to the example of the meal.
The universe, although being incomprehensibly massive, still seems to display order.  It might look chaotic in some ways, but generally there's order.  The sausages might be a bit overcooked, but the meal is still edible. So we still come back to the point that for there to be order in the universe (however large it is) suggests that there is an intelligence behind it, just as someone must have cooked the meal.

My point was not 'What's the point of such a big Universe?' It was a response to your suggestion that the Universe was made to support life.

Order does not imply to me an intelligence being behind it.

[Spud]

This looks like a 'there are sausages so there must be a chef' argument for God: all you need to do now is explain who trained the chef, and then explain who trained the chef who trained the chef - can you see the problem here, Spud?

No... :-( I might do if you elaborate a bit?

[Spud]

My point was not 'What's the point of such a big Universe?' It was a response to your suggestion that the Universe was made to support life.

Order does not imply to me an intelligence being behind it.

Well from what I have heard from people of various religions, it does imply that to them.

[Spud]

This looks like a 'there are sausages so there must be a chef' argument for God: all you need to do now is explain who trained the chef, and then explain who trained the chef who trained the chef - can you see the problem here, Spud?

The Who Made God argument, you mean?

[Gordon]

The Who Made God argument, you mean?

The problem of an argument that results in an infinite regress.

[Maeght]

Well from what I have heard from people of various religions, it does imply that to them.

Of course. Was pointing out that not everyone sees it that way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This looks like a 'there are sausages so there must be a chef' argument for God: all you need to do now is explain who trained the chef, and then explain who trained the chef who trained the chef - can you see the problem here, Spud?

Yes it sounds as though you are going to inflinct the evolution of the sausage on us.

Alternatively the perfect sausage has always existed.

[Stranger]

The Who Made God argument, you mean?

Yes it sounds as though you are going to inflinct the evolution of the sausage on us.

Alternatively the perfect sausage has always existed.

The point is that postulating a god that made the universe in order to explain it (or some aspect of it) is firstly, nothing but a baseless guess (unless you have some other evidence) and secondly, it explains bugger all. All you've achieved is replacing a question about the universe with an exactly equivalent one about some 'god' that is only a baseless guess anyway. It isn't an explanation at all; it's basically shrugging your shoulders and saying "this is hard to explain... I dunno, it must be magic" - then calling the magic 'god'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point is that postulating a god that made the universe in order to explain it (or some aspect of it) is firstly, nothing but a baseless guess (unless you have some other evidence) and secondly, it explains bugger all. All you've achieved is replacing a question about the universe with an exactly equivalent one about some 'god' that is only a baseless guess anyway. It isn't an explanation at all; it's basically shrugging your shoulders and saying "this is hard to explain... I dunno, it must be magic" - then calling the magic 'god'.

It isn't baseless at all. There is nothing more baseless about an intelligent creator than a universe which can just puff itself into existence or defies cause or effect.

You and your ilk merely have an extreme form of the modern fallacy. I blame poor education and that collective orgy of intellectual w**k known as New Atheism.

[floo]

It isn't baseless at all. There is nothing more baseless about an intelligent creator than a universe which can just puff itself into existence or defies cause or effect.

You and your ilk merely have an extreme form of the modern fallacy. I blame poor education and that collective orgy of intellectual w**k known as New Atheism.

If there is an intelligent designer what created it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there is an intelligent designer what created it?

I don't know.

[Aruntraveller]

If there is an intelligent designer what created it?

Hoorah, back to good old infinite regression.