Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[otseng]

Yes, if I select the lowest available values for each of the variables, the probability of life in our galaxy is remote. Yet multiply even that remote possibility by the number of available galaxies, the number is less remote.

I would disagree that you selected the lowest available values. Actually, they seem high to me. For example, you estimated n_e to be .33. This value isn't even true for our own solar system. And given what we know about what is necessary for a planet to be habitable, it would be much smaller. Also you give f_l a value of .0001%. Yet, there is no evidence of life being able to come from non-life. So, how can .0001% be the lowest available value?

The God hypothesis, requires us to suppose an entity for which we have no direct evidence living in a realm with attributes we must specify, whereas the multiverse hypotheses requires only that there be other versions of an entity that we know really does exist, only with different sets of attributes.

There is no direct evidence of a multiverse either, so they are on the same ground there.

As for other universes that is similar to ours with differing parameters, that would be conjecture. One cannot say what they are like. They could have different constants. Or even different laws. Perhaps even logic and math do not apply. One cannot say. They could be so different from ours that it would be incomprehensible to us. So, saying that God is unknown and yet other universes are known can not be shown to be true.

Plus, how many other universes exist? One, two, 150 trillion? Infinite? What if there was actually only one other universe besides ours? Even that would not solve the fine-tuning problem.

Suppose there are infinite other universes (which some cosmologists propose). Though this might solve the fine-tuning problem, it does not address what caused those other universes.

So, I submit that a creator has more explanatory power because it addresses all of the issues I've raised so far:
- Fine-tuning
- Origin of universe
- We are special
- Origin of life

Furthermore, since this god must exist in a realm with a time-like dimension, the same arguments used to posit that the universe requires a cause could then be used to require that this god requires a cause.

To be clear, I do not subscribe that God is in a time-like dimension. But even if God is in a time dimension and requires a cause, it does not disprove God's existence.

But such a creator is not really an explanation for the origin of the universe, it is merely a displacement of the question to another level.

In all matters there is a possibility of infinite regression. What caused you to eat cereal this morning? What caused you to be hungry? What caused you to get up early and run? Etc.

For the ultimate cause of something, there are two options:
- There is an infinite regress
- There is an absolute first cause

I believe in the latter. God would be the absolute first cause. I do not posit that there is an infinite regress of gods. And even if there was a naturalistic explanation for the cause of the universe, one can also ask what caused that? And it would then fall into an infinite regress.

We know that life has occurred at least once in the universe.

We know that life occurred once. Implying that there is more than one would be based on conjecture.

You have failed to show the validity of the calculation presented which you have attempted to show that this value is less than 1.

I presented two arguments.

One is Ross' calculation of having a habitable planet.

Two is my argument that there is a zero chance for life to arise by random chance from chemicals.

These two multiplied together would result in 0.

Secondly, even if life is unique, it does not mean that the mediocrity principle has been disproven, just that a rare event has occurred.

No, it would disprove it.

In a broader context, the mediocrity principle states that:

(1) life on Earth depends on just a few basic molecules;
(2) the elements that make up these molecules are (to a greater or lesser extent) common to all stars, and
(3) the laws of science we know apply to the entire universe (and there is no reason to assume that they do not),
(Conclusion) then – given sufficient time – life must have originated elsewhere in the cosmos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

If life does not exist elsewhere, it would prove the conclusion false. Thus it would disprove the mediocrity principle.

Just as God makes the earth quakes, God makes the weather, God makes disease seems to have more explanatory power than "We don't know" would have had for the ancients.

I'm not arguing that "God makes the earth quakes, God makes the weather, God makes disease". So, that would be a strawman argument. I'm claiming that God created the universe, God created life, and God fine-tuned the universe and Earth.

However, a reasonable person would value an honest "I don't know" over a speculative "God did it."

Only if one assumes beforehand that God does not exist.

For a true agnostic that does not make any assumption of whether God does or does not exist, it would be more reasonable to posit God than accepting a series of "I don't knows".

Saying that God created the universe so that humans could exist, is like saying that I bought Anna Creek Station (24,000 km² or 6,000,000 acres) in order that I have a place to raise yeast for brewing my beer, and then only getting a single yeast (typically measuring 3–4 micrometer) to grow.

However, it doesn't show that you could not do that. And it doesn't show that if you did do it, that you would not exist.

But, I think there are scientific and philosophical reasons why the universe is the age and size that it is.

Time is required for the synthesis of the heavy elements from stellar nucleosynthesis. Stellar evolution also requires a significant amount of time. To have heavy elements available in our solar system with our star would require on the order of billions of years.

For the universe to be flat, it would need to have a specific density value. It's been calculated that it would have to be 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016 gm/cc at 1 ns after the Big Bang.

Philosophically, the size and diversity of the universe reveals the majesty, creativity and power of God. It reveals to us that though we occupy a small place in the grand scheme of things, we are the most important creation in the entire universe.

I was unaware that the requirement to support your arguments was conditional.

I provided a source from a cosmologist for my argument. However you did not provide any source for your estimate that there is life on 1 in a million galaxies. Yet you claim that I need to withdraw my evidence whereas yours remains unsupported and does not need to be withdrawn? I think if it's to be a level playing field, you must first then provide a source and then we can both try to provide justifications for the values.

Theology thrives on ignorance.

Incorrect. Anyone ignorant in theology school would get flunked out.

God did it shuts down any rational attempt to find an answer.

I've said this before. Science should continue to investigate any naturalistic explanation for origins. Saying "God did it" does not shut anything down.

[McCulloch]

I would disagree that you selected the lowest available values.

I selected the lowest values available on the web form that I linked to. Saying that they are the lowest possible or probable values is akin to you claiming that your creationist calculations are valid merely because you provide a source.

There is no direct evidence of a multiverse either, so they are on the same ground there.

Right. Two hypotheses, no evidence. One posits that there is a different kind of being than we have ever encountered in a realm beyond our understanding. The other posits that there maybe more than one of a kind of thing that we already know exists.

Plus, how many other universes exist? One, two, 150 trillion? Infinite? What if there was actually only one other universe besides ours? Even that would not solve the fine-tuning problem.

Suppose there are infinite other universes (which some cosmologists propose). Though this might solve the fine-tuning problem, it does not address what caused those other universes.

The fine tuning issue would be solved by having a set of all possible universes, something like the many universes interpretation of quantum theory.

So, I submit that a creator has more explanatory power because it addresses all of the issues I've raised so far:
- Fine-tuning
- Origin of universe
- We are special
- Origin of life

But it does not explain them. It simply acknowledges that they are beyond explanation and shoves them into a box called God.

To be clear, I do not subscribe that God is in a time-like dimension.

I thought that you claim that God has intent. Intent implies a time-like dimension.

But even if God is in a time dimension and requires a cause, it does not disprove God's existence.

No, but it means that the same argument that says that the universe cannot be uncaused and temporally infinite can be used to say that God cannot be uncaused and temporally infinite.

For the ultimate cause of something, there are two options:
- There is an infinite regress
- There is an absolute first cause

I believe in the latter. God would be the absolute first cause.

What makes you think that this absolute first cause has any of the attributes you ascribe to God?

We know that life has occurred at least once in the universe.

We know that life occurred once. Implying that there is more than one would be based on conjecture.

I believe in a fundamental principle that, that which has happened is not impossible. Implying that there cannot be more than one instance of something that has happened is pure speculation.

I presented two arguments.

One is Ross' calculation of having a habitable planet.

I will wait for some validation of Ross' calculation before responding further on that one.

Two is my argument that there is a zero chance for life to arise by random chance from chemicals.

Do show the calculation please.

Secondly, even if life is unique, it does not mean that the mediocrity principle has been disproven, just that a rare event has occurred.

No, it would disprove it.

In a broader context, the mediocrity principle states that:

(1) life on Earth depends on just a few basic molecules;
(2) the elements that make up these molecules are (to a greater or lesser extent) common to all stars, and
(3) the laws of science we know apply to the entire universe (and there is no reason to assume that they do not),
(Conclusion) then – given sufficient time – life must have originated elsewhere in the cosmos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

No, all it would mean is that sufficient time has not passed for life to have developed elsewhere. For your argument against the mediocrity principle to hold, you must not only prove that life on Earth is unique but that it would remain unique eternally.

Here we get into the concept of expected values and the law of large numbers. If we could calculate the expected number of life forms in the universe and that number was greater than 10, the law of large numbers and the vastness of the universe would virtually guarantee that somewhere out there other life forms existed. However, if the calculation of the expected number of life forms was significantly less than 1, lets say 1 × 10^-5 then the existence of even the one life beginning event would require explanation.

Just as God makes the earth quakes, God makes the weather, God makes disease seems to have more explanatory power than "We don't know" would have had for the ancients.

I'm not arguing that "God makes the earth quakes, God makes the weather, God makes disease". So, that would be a strawman argument. I'm claiming that God created the universe, God created life, and God fine-tuned the universe and Earth.

Yes, but it is a strawman argument with a purpose. Your claim that because we don't know how life originated, it must have been the miraculous intervention of a supernatural being, is similar to the ancients' belief that since they did not know the cause of diseases that diseases must have been caused by some supernatural being(s). Such a belief precludes any serious effort to investigate and research these unknowns.

However, a reasonable person would value an honest "I don't know" over a speculative "God did it."

Only if one assumes beforehand that God does not exist.

No, all you have to assume is that God may not exist.

Saying that God created the universe so that humans could exist, is like saying that I bought Anna Creek Station (24,000 km² or 6,000,000 acres) in order that I have a place to raise yeast for brewing my beer, and then only getting a single yeast (typically measuring 3–4 micrometer) to grow.

However, it doesn't show that you could not do that. And it doesn't show that if you did do it, that you would not exist.

But, I think there are scientific and philosophical reasons why the universe is the age and size that it is.

Time is required for the synthesis of the heavy elements from stellar nucleosynthesis. Stellar evolution also requires a significant amount of time. To have heavy elements available in our solar system with our star would require on the order of billions of years.

How convenient! The formation of life is impossible, therefore God must have stepped in and miraculously caused life to start. But the development of heavy elements requires billions of years and God could not have made them with a miracle.

Philosophically, the size and diversity of the universe reveals the majesty, creativity and power of God. It reveals to us that though we occupy a small place in the grand scheme of things, we are the most important creation in the entire universe.

Now we're getting poetic. The immensely vast size of the universe reveals only the immensely vast size of the universe. It reveals to us that we occupy a very small place. It implies that there is no grand scheme of things. The inevitability of our sun going supernova, probably a significant time after we go extinct, shows that we are not important at all to the universe or to whatever you may imagine created the universe.

I was unaware that the requirement to support your arguments was conditional.

I provided a source from a cosmologist for my argument. However you did not provide any source for your estimate that there is life on 1 in a million galaxies.

I have not made the claim that there is life on 1 in a million galaxies. I have agreed that life is probably very rare. I will not agree just how rare and that if you claim that life is rarer than 1 in a million galaxies, I will require validation of that claim. If you claim that life is less rare than 1 in a million, then we can agree without such validation being brought forth.

Theology thrives on ignorance.

Incorrect. Anyone ignorant in theology school would get flunked out.

Anyone insisting on evidence and reason in theology school would also be flunked out.

God did it shuts down any rational attempt to find an answer.

I've said this before. Science should continue to investigate any naturalistic explanation for origins. Saying "God did it" does not shut anything down.

If the scientists all believed as you do that God did it, then they would not have any hope or confidence in finding naturalistic explanations and would give up. If you truly believed that disease was caused by sin, as the writers of the Bible imply, then how many resources would you put into finding cures and preventatives of disease that are not spiritual [\i] or moral in nature?

[otseng]

I selected the lowest values available on the web form that I linked to.

I didn't select to see the list of all possible values on the web form. Now I see what you mean. But, the list is only an arbitrary list of values. Selecting the lowest values from the lists would still be arbitrary.

Right. Two hypotheses, no evidence. One posits that there is a different kind of being than we have ever encountered in a realm beyond our understanding. The other posits that there maybe more than one of a kind of thing that we already know exists.

There is no evidence, either direct or indirect for a multiverse. But there is indirect evidence for a creator. There is no causal relationship between different universes. One universe would leave no trace of evidence in another. For a creator, God caused the universe, so it would leave indirect evidence.

Also, how do you know that the other universes would be understandable by us? If you cannot show that they exist through any evidence, how can then claim that you understand them?

The fine tuning issue would be solved by having a set of all possible universes, something like the many universes interpretation of quantum theory.

What do you mean by "all possible universes"? Would this mean there are infinite universes?

But it does not explain them. It simply acknowledges that they are beyond explanation and shoves them into a box called God.

I do not need to show how God caused things. The lack of being able to explain how does not invalidate the claim.

I thought that you claim that God has intent. Intent implies a time-like dimension.

Intent is used to say that a god did not randomly create this universe.

No, but it means that the same argument that says that the universe cannot be uncaused and temporally infinite can be used to say that God cannot be uncaused and temporally infinite.

I think we can safely say that the laws of physics applies across all space and time in our universe. However, we cannot say if the laws of physics applies outside of our universe. Since God would be outside of our universe, we cannot say if it would be limited by the laws of physics. So, no, the same argument cannot be applied to our universe and to God.

I believe in a fundamental principle that, that which has happened is not impossible. Implying that there cannot be more than one instance of something that has happened is pure speculation.

Do you believe there is another you in the universe? Just because you happened once, is there a copy of you with the exact same DNA sequence on another planet?

Two is my argument that there is a zero chance for life to arise by random chance from chemicals.

Do show the calculation please.

What makes something a law is that there is no observed exception to it. The law of biogenesis has never been shown to have an exception to it. So, the law of biogenesis shows that life cannot arise from chemicals. This law would show that it is impossible for abiogenesis to occur.

No, all it would mean is that sufficient time has not passed for life to have developed elsewhere. For your argument against the mediocrity principle to hold, you must not only prove that life on Earth is unique but that it would remain unique eternally.

This would be testable, though of course it would take a long time to test.

Your argument would also be appealing to unknown evidence from the future. Based on what we know now, there is no evidence of life existing elsewhere, so the mediocrity principle would be an unfounded assumption.

Yes, but it is a strawman argument with a purpose. Your claim that because we don't know how life originated, it must have been the miraculous intervention of a supernatural being, is similar to the ancients' belief that since they did not know the cause of diseases that diseases must have been caused by some supernatural being(s).

Here's how it is different. The god of the gaps arguments used in the past was a moving target. Naturalistic explanations eventually filled in the gaps.

The gaps I've proposed is not a moving gap. It's an "all-in" bet. If I lose the bet (naturalistic explanation fills the gap), the game is over (my argument is falsified).

Such a belief precludes any serious effort to investigate and research these unknowns.

Science has marched on in spite of people using God to cover the gaps in the past. So, there is no reason to fear science would stop advancing.

No, all you have to assume is that God may not exist.

If one assumes God may or may not exist, why would it be more reasonable to accept a series of I-don't-knows to a creator?

How convenient! The formation of life is impossible, therefore God must have stepped in and miraculously caused life to start. But the development of heavy elements requires billions of years and God could not have made them with a miracle.

God could've made the heavy elements with a miracle. But, I don't claim that.

The inevitability of our sun going supernova, probably a significant time after we go extinct, shows that we are not important at all to the universe or to whatever you may imagine created the universe.

We don't know exactly what will be the end game scenario. But we do know for sure that there will be an end to life in the universe. If humans escape our solar system to colonize another planet, and continue planet hopping, eventually everything will die as a result of the heat death.

I have not made the claim that there is life on 1 in a million galaxies. I have agreed that life is probably very rare. I will not agree just how rare and that if you claim that life is rarer than 1 in a million galaxies, I will require validation of that claim. If you claim that life is less rare than 1 in a million, then we can agree without such validation being brought forth.

The problem is that those who believe that life is rare often do not provide any values for the probability. Not even Brownlee and Ward provide a value. And the only value I've come across is Ross'. And since it is he that came up with his estimates to compute the probability, I cannot justify his estimates. I think what I'll do is write him and on the off-chance that he replies (probably less than 0.001% chance), I'll post his response.

If the scientists all believed as you do that God did it, then they would not have any hope or confidence in finding naturalistic explanations and would give up.

Not so. Many scientists in the past believed in God and contributed greatly to science.

[McCulloch]

I didn't select to see the list of all possible values on the web form. Now I see what you mean. But, the list is only an arbitrary list of values. Selecting the lowest values from the lists would still be arbitrary.

It does not matter. What makes you say that the values on the list are arbitrary? The cosmologist who set up the page, provided lists of values. In his estimation, the true values will be somewhere in those ranges. I provided a source from a cosmologist for the list of possible values. Are you telling me that I have to justify these values, even though I have a source, but you do not?

I provided a source from a cosmologist for my argument.

Since I presented a source, there is no need to withdraw it as evidence.

My evidence is as valid as yours.

[McCulloch]

But there is indirect evidence for a creator.

No there isn't.
See, no one wins a debate by making unsupported assertions. Present the evidence.

how do you know that the other universes would be understandable by us?

We understand our universe's fundamental physical laws. If those laws were different, we can calculate what the effect might be. We know something of what a universe is, we can describe it mathematically. We have no clue what God is.

What do you mean by "all possible universes"? Would this mean there are infinite universes?

Maybe. Or maybe the number is vast but not infinite.

I thought that you claim that God has intent. Intent implies a time-like dimension.

Intent is used to say that a god did not randomly create this universe.

But to create is a verb, an action. To create, to have intent, one must act in time or a time-like dimension.

I think we can safely say that the laws of physics applies across all space and time in our universe.

I would agree with that principle, but someone in this debate claims that the Copernican principle is false.

Do you believe there is another you in the universe? Just because you happened once, is there a copy of you with the exact same DNA sequence on another planet?

I would not rule it out. However it seems unlikely. However, that there are other forms of life in the universe is much more likely than there being an exact clone of me.

[McCulloch]

Looks can be deceiving, the Moon looks as if it is just past those clouds up there, not much further away than the horizon. But to go to the moon, it is 9.7 times the distance of all the way around the Earth.

To go to the sun, it takes light 8.3 minutes. This is 383 times the distance to the moon or 3,716 times around the Earth.

To get to us from the nearest star, light takes 4.4 years. This is 278,822 times the distance between us and the sun. And between here and there, there is a lot of empty space.

If there was an advanced civilization trying to detect us, they would be listening to any radio waves we might be emitting. We have been emitting radio waves since about 1884 about 125 years, but there were no commercial radio transmissions until 1920. There would be less than 100 years of detectable radio signals from earth. Therefore, our celestial eavesdroppers would have to be within 100 light years of here. There are about 15,000 stars within 100 light years, roughly 0.000008% of the number of stars in the galaxy. For there to be intelligent life within that sphere, the expected number of instances of intelligent life in the galaxy (making the assumption of uniform density), would be 13,333,333, well beyond anyone's estimate. Therefore, unless there is a civilization significantly older than us, we are unlikely to detect them or them us.

All of that to say, definitively and most emphatically, that the lack of direct evidence of extra-terrestrial life is the prediction of both hypotheses that there is and that there is not extra-terrestrial life. One cannot reasonable decide this question on just the lack of evidence.

The relevance of this issue still evades me. If it could be shown that there is some extra-terrestrial life, theists would claim that God made them too (who are we to limit what God does) and naturalists would claim that some natural process gave rise to those life forms as well. It cannot be shown that there are no extra-terrestrial life forms, given the extreme limits of the vastness of the universe. So you are left with the empty assertion on the part of the theists that the development of life is impossible, therefore God did it. So we should therefore be arguing that point rather than the rather pointless debate over whether or not there is life out there.

[otseng]

The cosmologist who set up the page, provided lists of values. In his estimation, the true values will be somewhere in those ranges. I provided a source from a cosmologist for the list of possible values.

Cosmologist that set up the page? Are we talking about the same thing? I'm assuming we're talking about this page.

See, no one wins a debate by making unsupported assertions. Present the evidence.

I've summarized my case here.

We understand our universe's fundamental physical laws. If those laws were different, we can calculate what the effect might be. We know something of what a universe is, we can describe it mathematically. We have no clue what God is.

But, you still cannot show what the other universes are like. And one cannot prove that the other universes would be comprehensible by observers. Further, mathematics might not even apply in other universes. Or even logic might not apply.

Maybe. Or maybe the number is vast but not infinite.

How do you know there is a vast (but finite) number of other universes?

But to create is a verb, an action. To create, to have intent, one must act in time or a time-like dimension.

We've covered this already in several posts.

I would agree with that principle, but someone in this debate claims that the Copernican principle is false.

Depends on how one defines the Copernican principle. Here's the definition I use:

"In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position. More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

I would not rule it out. However it seems unlikely.

Yes, it would be unlikely. But, by your logic, it should still be considered a possibility.

If it could be shown that there is some extra-terrestrial life, theists would claim that God made them too (who are we to limit what God does) and naturalists would claim that some natural process gave rise to those life forms as well.

I do not claim that God would have also made extraterrestrial life.

So you are left with the empty assertion on the part of the theists that the development of life is impossible, therefore God did it. So we should therefore be arguing that point rather than the rather pointless debate over whether or not there is life out there.

I don't mind if we go on and concentrate on life origins.

[McCulloch]

But there is indirect evidence for a creator.

See, no one wins a debate by making unsupported assertions. Present the evidence.

I've summarized my case here.

Evidences

1. Fine tuning argument. This is not evidence (direct or indirect) for the existence of god. This is merely an observation. Three explanations for this observation have been put forward and two you have rejected out of hand, even though there is no evidence for any of the three.
2. The origin of the universe. Again, this is not evidence of a God, merely the tautological observation that the universe exists and that it is finite.
3. Lack of extra-terrestrial life. Since the lack of detection of extra-terrestrial life is predicted by the God hypothesis and by the materialistic hypothesis, I do not understand why anyone would list this as indirect evidence of the existence of God.
4. The origin of life. Let's dig into this one, next post.

But, you still cannot show what the other universes are like. And one cannot prove that the other universes would be comprehensible by observers. Further, mathematics might not even apply in other universes. Or even logic might not apply.

I do not understand this objection. Of the two explanations for the apparent fine tuning of the universe, that an intentional supernatural being planned and executed the universe or that there are a large or infinite set of possible universes, the second is rejected out of hand because it cannot be shown that the other universes cannot be shown to exist. Yet, you object to the rejection of the first even though we cannot show that God exists.

Let us agree that logic and mathematics apply to God and any possible universe. Without logic the discussion of the existence of anything becomes meaningless. We are only discussing the set of all possible universes. The impossible ones are out of scope.

Maybe. Or maybe the number is vast but not infinite.

How do you know there is a vast (but finite) number of other universes?

I don't. This is one hypothesis to explain the apparent fine tuning of the universe. I'm thinking in terms of quantum theory. If the attributes of the universes' fine tuning are discrete quanta then there would be a vast but finite number of universes in this model. If the attributes are continuous, then there would be an infinite number of universes.

But to create is a verb, an action. To create, to have intent, one must act in time or a time-like dimension.

We've covered this already in several posts.

I guess I wasn't explicit enough. The cause of matter/energy in our universe is a supernatural creator. I do not claim to know how the creator created our universe, but I'm only claiming to identify a cause. As an analogy, I have a pencil on my desk. The cause of the pencil is a pencil factory. But, I do not know exactly how the pencil was created by the pencil factory.

Yes, but you are not identifying the cause of the universe. You are merely giving it a label.

I use the word "intent" as meaning "planned, deliberate, not accidental, purposeful".

Plan – verb: to arrange a method or scheme beforehand for (any work, enterprise, or proceeding): to plan a new recreation center.
Each of these descriptions implies that some kind of thought preceded the action.

Please describe what you mean by intent, planning, deliberateness and purpose sans tempus.

If it could be shown that there is some extra-terrestrial life, theists would claim that God made them too (who are we to limit what God does) and naturalists would claim that some natural process gave rise to those life forms as well.

I do not claim that God would have also made extraterrestrial life.

You mean that if we started to get intelligible radio signals from some distant star, you would claim that they were not part of God's creation? Or would you just block your ears and claim that they were not there? Or is it that the discovery of extra-terrestrials would nullify your theistic beliefs and you would come over to our side?

So you are left with the empty assertion on the part of the theists that the development of life is impossible, therefore God did it. So we should therefore be arguing that point rather than the rather pointless debate over whether or not there is life out there.

I don't mind if we go on and concentrate on life origins.

Yes, let's.

[McCulloch]

First off, let us dispense with the Law of Biogenesis argument. This argument, repeated by creationists of various stripes goes like this:

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

Here they treat the results of science much the same way that they treat prophesy in their own holy books; ripped out of context, misapplied and misunderstood. The law of biogenesis, as observed by Pasteur and confirmed by modern biology, simply claims that modern living organisms do not arise directly from non-living material. Such research and experiments were directed against heterogenesis, the now obsolete biological theory that life could form from the decayed products of living organisms. This theory has been thrown onto the dustbin of biological theories along with transmutation (Lamarkism), telegony, preformationism, orthogenesis, scala naturae (the great chain of being), ...

Most of the creationist criticisms of abiogenesis is either a criticism of a strawman argument or an attack on the gaps in modern scientific knowledge.

[otseng]

Fine tuning argument. This is not evidence (direct or indirect) for the existence of god.

Much like a fingerprint would be indirect evidence, fine-tuning would be indirect evidence.

Three explanations for this observation have been put forward and two you have rejected out of hand, even though there is no evidence for any of the three.

The "some unknown underlying principle" is rejected out of hand because it's synonymous with "do not know". As for the multiverse, we are currently discussing it and I'm willing to continue investigating it.

Again, this is not evidence of a God, merely the tautological observation that the universe exists and that it is finite.

My computer exists. But it is also evidence of a computer manufacturer.

Let me ask this, exactly what type of evidence would you consider to be valid evidence for a God?

Since the lack of detection of extra-terrestrial life is predicted by the God hypothesis and by the materialistic hypothesis, I do not understand why anyone would list this as indirect evidence of the existence of God.

I go further than simply lack of detection. I claim that there is nothing to detect.

Yet, you object to the rejection of the first even though we cannot show that God exists.

My argument is simply countering your charge that a creator is unknowable so it should be rejected. However, you cannot likewise prove that other universes are knowable.

But, a major difference between the two is that a creator has multiple lines of evidence to support it (fine-tuning just being one). Whereas a multiverse only addresses fine-tuning.

Let us agree that logic and mathematics apply to God and any possible universe.

Why should mathematics apply to other universes? On what grounds can you assume this to be true?

If the attributes of the universes' fine tuning are discrete quanta then there would be a vast but finite number of universes in this model. If the attributes are continuous, then there would be an infinite number of universes.

This is assuming that there is a finite number of each discrete quanta. And also assuming that the physical laws remain the same and only the parameters vary.

Yes, but you are not identifying the cause of the universe. You are merely giving it a label.

God is the cause of the universe. Sure, you can view the term "God" as a label.

Please describe what you mean by intent, planning, deliberateness and purpose sans tempus.

Again, it is more a reflection of a limitation of our language. We only experience living in time and all of our actions involve time. Our vocabulary and definitions are within the concept of time. But, because our language can only describe what we normally experience and cannot adequately describe things outside our experience, it does not mean those things cannot exist. Just because a baby does not have the vocabulary to express things does not mean those things are invalid.

Another example. We cannot adequately define what "life" is. Yet, we have approximate definitions to give a general concept of what is life. But, life exists even though we cannot fully define it.

Our vocabulary to describe anything outside our complete level of understanding would likewise be limited. I use words to describe God to only convey an approximate understanding of God. And I acknowledge that I cannot fully describe it given the limitations of my experience and understanding.

You mean that if we started to get intelligible radio signals from some distant star, you would claim that they were not part of God's creation?

If we get intelligible radio signals from another planet, it would falsify my hypothesis.

Or is it that the discovery of extra-terrestrials would nullify your theistic beliefs and you would come over to our side?

Yes, it would nullify my arguments.

Most of the creationist criticisms of abiogenesis is either a criticism of a strawman argument or an attack on the gaps in modern scientific knowledge.

Let me be clear. I am not attacking the idea of going directly from simple chemicals to a fully functioning cell. Everybody acknowledges that it would be impossible (though I guess theoretically it could still be probable). Life origin scientists instead believe that it'd be a sequence of steps from chemicals to a cell.

OK, now that we have that out of the way, go ahead and present your evidence of how the first cell came about.