Cosmology: Inflation theory under attack part 3 (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Sunday, October 22, 2017, 16:50 (2377 days ago) @ David Turell

David: How do you know our universe is perfect? It is certainly very dangerous to life, except where it seems protected on Earth.

This is easily dealt with. For something to be seen as imperfect requires a comparison. In a comparison, we may be able to select weak points. The Universe stands alone so cannot be ‘compared’. It has no faults as far as I can see. Being virtually automatic, it has no consciousness, beyond a measure of ‘direction’ generated in sub-atomic and chemical awareness in differing states of being. Until the advent of life, there could be no conscious awareness.

As the several levels of awareness demonstrated in nature are all there is, the inevitable outcome [in the case of life] must place the need for food and survival above all else.

That applies equally to mankind. Nature’s functions do not include exemption from danger, only some well-meaning, all powerful God could so manipulate natural events. Further evidence that He doesn’t exist.

Many animals are born with teeth and claws that are used to kill their prey. Learning the skills of hunting are mandatory. An example springs to mind: a kitten captures and plays with a mouse, enjoying its terrified attempts to escape until it finally kills it. Horror for mousie, hunt practice for the kitten.

What part does this murder play in suggesting that God set the rules? Surely no God would settle for a maximum of cruelty being inflicted on terrified, quite innocent victims.

It’s is all 'Mother Natures' work and this ‘behaviour’ is the only possible way. Only ‘blind’ nature would allow literally any form of life the chance of survival. It can’t avoid it.

David posits his God as the creator who uses evolution as the medium of creation. That surely means, leaving God to one side for a moment, that since its 'creation' there has been no need for God to intervene. He must have set the laws that guide nature in all its functions.

This leaves 'Mother Nature' appearing to be doing it unaided, but – for some, that is not so. They believe God implemented all the 'know how' at outset.

Nonetheless, David chooses to believe that his God is not actually all knowing, all powerful, nor absolutely perfect! That seems a fair representation of David's view.

This is, in my view, an unusual opinion. How can David know God has limitations? I bet my life he doesn't hear voices or see visions and is a sane, normal person. He adheres to the idea that God granted us free will and is therefore not responsible for mankind's often cruel behaviour. This presents [for him] an unusual degree of 'soul searching'.

I'm sure he believes this but - it is simply an idea - a way of defending his particular version of God from involvement in elements of human behaviour that are indefensible.
Critically, this does not exclude God from responsibility for the carnage wreaked upon the animal world. Almost all animal life spends a huge amount of time killing other creatures in the hunt for food or safely.

Neither does it account for the evolution of homo sapiens through a very long period of hominids. Was this God entertaining itself, mucking about with early such lifeforms for millions of years until hitting upon making us? Or was it 'Mother Nature' wending her tortuous, largely automatic way through a web of possibility [which is still in progress].

Almost all animal deaths are a terrifying, agonising and unavoidable experience that can include being eaten alive. Harshly cruel death by thirst and hunger is the fate thrust upon many humans [particularly coloured people - is God a racist?] as well as upon animals, fish etc. All these brutal realities can serve only to support an atheist view.

A rational approach to thinking of these things will end by accepting that these outcomes are simply the rule of 'Mother Nature’, exemplified in the well-known phrase, “Red in tooth and claw.” I can see no difference [in outcome] whether God exists or not.

David may be satisfied by resolving this endless terror with invented rationalization [such as freewill] in sustaining his belief. I am not!

That being so and as nature’s actions can be proven, whereas God’s [if any] cannot, there is no cause, beyond wishful thinking, to introduce any superpower. It is no good complaining that, in acts of nature, we are unable to identify the initial process of life so -“There must be a God and He makes life. Not nature.”

How the blazes can anyone know what a God, who never reveals himself, thinks, feels or does. Faith alone is not an answer. There must first be something demonstrably provable to have faith in!

So - it’s twaddle. All it means is that, for emotional convenience, by simply assuming God’s existence, we can attribute solutions we cannot otherwise find - to a mythical godhead that we invent and empower. Pure superstition – no evidence – just magic. Curiously, apply these assumptions of ‘arcane’ ability directly in favour of 'Mother Nature' and the problems disappear! Well – almost!