The immensity of the universe (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Sunday, September 20, 2015, 14:48 (3140 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So your God was hamstrung by the physical requirements of the universe he is supposed to have created?
DAVID: This is one of the theories that have been presented. God appears to have evolved the universe to its current state and that state allowed the appearance of Earth as a home for humans. Is that the only possibility? No, but it fits what we observe if one accepts the idea that there is a theistic mind running all of this.-I don't understand the expression “God evolved the universe”. Surely either God planned its evolution, dabbled in its evolution, or let it do its own thing (= the universe evolved). The scenario of an evolving universe eventually allowing the appearance of Earth also fits what we observe if one accepts the idea that there is no theistic mind running all this.
 
DAVID: [...} My concept allows for more than one trial at humans.
Dhw: So does he [God] or doesn't he plan and control the environment?
DAVID: See my entry of today as to how the fossil story is so confusing and convoluted.-It is indeed, and it fits in perfectly with the notion of unplanned, higgledy-piggledy development, not to mention Darwin's theory of common descent, because “the difference between us and our closest relatives is a complex problem”.-DAVID: As for the environment, I doubt He takes control of day to day thunderstorms or ice ages. These are all part of an evolving Earth.-Ice ages, asteroids, levels of oxygen...all out of God's control? Ditto the formation of the galaxies - all those billions of them? I'm sure even many theists would be horrified at the thought that God left so much to chance.
 
DAVID: Again, look at all the attempts to create H. sapiens. God obviously uses an evolutionary process, not a direct creation of a species and a variable environment fosters different adaptations leading to different results. I don't believe in instant creationism.-So did God plan the evolutionary process, dabble in it, or leave it to follow its own course? “Attempts” suggests he didn't know what to do, and kept failing. Or maybe the chance environmental changes led to nature getting rid of the least fit, just as they led to so many other life forms dying out as each one went its own individual, unguided, undabbled, unpreprogrammed, merry or not-so-merry way.
 
DAVID: I was referring only to the chance creation of this life-supporting universe. Presents you with the same problem.-Yes, indeed. That is why I consider all the different solutions, and they all eventually demand the abolition of reason and a blind leap of faith.
 
DAVID: I have to go back to what is admittedly an argument from incredulity: the stupendous odds against the fact that you and I are debating the issue through amazing electronics invented by human brains, on a rocky planet that had no reason to spawn us. -Accepted. But unfortunately balanced by incredulity at the notion of a supercolossal intelligence of no origin that creates billions of galaxies and stars which come and go just for the sake of humans, and offers no glimmer of evidence that it exists, other than the tales told by humans to explain how they got here.
 
DAVID: And God may wish to have several attempts at beings that recognize Him in this universe, before He starts another universe. I think that is what an eternal mind would do.-Ah, how often have you admonished me for attempting to read God's mind? Maybe an eternal mind would just start life off for the heck of it, sit back, and see what happens. Or turn his attention to somewhere else in his vast playpen, and forget about us. Or maybe he wants beings that recognize him and worship him, so he can reward those that love him, and send those that don't love him to eternal damnation. Lots of people think that is what an eternal mind would do - and they may be right. Or maybe he doesn't even exist. So many speculations. It's enough to make one turn to agnosticism.