Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, July 20, 2017, 21:21 (2682 days ago) @ John Kalber

john: God is classed as physically 'insubstantial', so its presence cannot be detected. Other than by claims made by its ardent proclaimers, no evidence whatever is available that proves its existence. One may say that any ongoing peculiarity that presently remains unexplained is only explicable by the acts of God. This line of reasoning presently has (as its mainstay) the enigmas of an obviously positively, directed evolution and of life itself.

This is certainly the way to look for evidence of God in his works as the Quran states.

John: I maintain that my explanation of evolution (whatever its theoretical faults) is fundamentally sound and removes this feature from rational discussion. It adds an enormous dose of reality to the atheist argument. Life itself may be perhaps an element, like every other force of nature, but requiring specific conditions to become apparent.

We have no idea how life began, but it certainly required 'specific conditions', which are the organic chemistry of life coming together, and it seems miraculous.

John: What I see as ‘consequences’ is that you honour a belief in a God that is Almighty, unlimited in any way, that permits evil/misguided men (principally) to commit unspeakable cruelties upon all and sundry.

The cruelty of humans exists because God gave humans free will. The cruelty is no God's fault.

John: “... it is the separate coming into being of the living, self-reproducing primeval organisms, the hitherto unthought-of even if the primeval eye, ear, nose, lung, heart, penis, vagina, etc., that presents the problem. Darwin himself understood this, and so refrained from discussing such origins.”

And it an issue that cannot be avoided in any consideration of life and evolution.

John: Darwin laboured without our modern day knowledge and his thinking hampered by a gradually diminishing religious belief. That can leave a thinker in a disturbed state of mind.

I don't think Darwin was disturbed. In my view he became agnostic, but he certainly labored without much real knowledge of what we now know.

John: I (at least) am confidently aware of the natural and automatic way that Mother Nature performs these amazing acts of creativity. The simple proof of my explanation is the total absence of any other natural alternative! Chance – a mathematical concept – has little bearing on the works of Mother Nature. Dawkins and co. are plain wrong. Numbers can often lead to a likely conclusion – they do not create the events they may explain in terms of human understanding. One example will do.

You still have not explained your concept of 'Mother Nature'., or where the laws of nature come from.

John: Natures forces do not obey laws invented by man!

We don't invent, but find reasonable laws of our reality which rationally fit how nature works.