Cosmology: Inflation theory under attack part 3 (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, October 22, 2017, 20:29 (2588 days ago) @ John Kalber

reblak; 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.

This misrepresents my view. God uses evolution, but He guides it. I am not a deist.

reblak: 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.

I've admitted that God may have limits, and I try to analyze him without all the religious suppositions about Him. I think He is a neccessary planning being like no other being.

reblak: 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'.

You are correct, since God uses evolutionary processes He may have limits or that may be His choice of methods. From the evidence we cannot know. Not soul searching, just obvious.

reblak: 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.

Human cruelty is indefensible, but God cannot stop it. I don't believe He deals with individual people.

reblak: 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!

What is rational is those wild animals have to eat, just as you do. We just hide away the animals we kill to eat, and hopefully kill humanely. Perhaps to fit your beliefs you are a vegetarian.

reblak: 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.”

Evolution occurred. How speciation works is not proven nor understood.