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

by dhw, Friday, September 18, 2015, 16:54 (3142 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: ...I will repeat the comments I have made before about the universe and what its makeup might mean. We don't know what it came from but cause and effect strongly suggest it is energy, since the universe is at its simplest forms of energy. 
We have agreed on that. The disagreement is over whether that energy is conscious.-DAVID: I have said that perhaps it has to be this big in order to create the special galaxy which is the Milky Way, one of the largest galaxies known. The galaxy must be big, so the Earth can be in the safer outer reaches away from the Black Hole and the severe radiation activity nearer to the center. -But why did there have to be a black hole? See later. -DAVID: (We are 2/3rds out on the second spiral arm. To have life (which I believe is the purpose of the universe) it requires a special planet just like the Earth with all the metals and minerals we find here. [...]-Yes indeed, life as we know it requires the conditions we know. If your starting point is God, then that's how God made it (or had to make it), and if your starting point is no-God, then that's how it happened. Easy so far, but watch out, here comes trouble...-DAVID: Our sun will explode in 5 billion years. So humans on this planet are limited to somewhat less than that time. Since the universe is so large and evolving, another Milky Way with an Earth could develop and God's next experiment in humans could begin. In fact it might already be developing. We can only know our circumstances.-The same problem as with your concept of evolution: does your God plan and control the environment? If the large universe is evolving and another Milky Way and Earth “could develop”, you have a purposeless drift and a lucky break. So up to there, you are with the atheists. Then your God intervenes, whereas they opt for another lucky break. If he plans and controls it, you are once again stuck with your problem of the billions of galaxies, not to mention that nasty black hole, all for the sake of you and me.
 
DAVID: There, I've ruminated on the giant size of the universe. I see purpose where you struggle with it. As Paul Davies points out, the appearance of sentient beings who can study the universe and understand its workings, is a highly significant event. And I would add high unlikely due to chance.-Thank you for your ruminations. I agree 100% with you and Paul Davies, but of course it doesn't need God to make our appearance highly significant, and while I agree that chance is highly unlikely, it seems to me no more unlikely than the concept of an eternal mind that encompasses billions of galaxies.-DAVID: I've not closed my eyes to the dilemma of why the universe is like it is, but have chosen to concentrate on the appearance of life, which I think is easier to analyze from the point of view of teleology. 'How' is what you seem to concentrate on, not 'why' as I do. I think that is our difference.-Your starting point is the assumption of teleology, and of course it is easier to find design in the appearance of life than in the possibly infinite, seemingly pointless comings and goings of billions of galaxies and zillions of stars. It is not the ‘how' that I focus on, but the question of whether there is a ‘why'.