God and Evolution (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, August 29, 2018, 06:41 (681 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: ...we think things should be done one way, and then question why he didn't do things OUR way. DHW would create cellular intelligence so he didn't have to do anything else. David would pre-plan, and possibly incorporate some mechanism for change through common descent. Well, why should God care what WE would do?[/i]

DHW: We are not saying what WE would do. If God exists, he must have had a method of creating the history of life as we know it. We are trying to work out what that method might have been.

Tony: Most of what I see is people trying to prove God doesn't exist, not trying to actually figure out what happened. Most of the assumptions they start with are precluded with 'God doesn't exist'. Most of the language used to describe their observations have 'God doesn't exist' as a foregone conclusion. Here, that is less of an issue, but I was speaking in generalities. Still, you don't reverse engineer something by starting at the beginning. You start at the end and work your way back, and you start with pure observation without an over arching narrative. Once you include a narrative, you are predisposed to confirmation bias.

David: You have described how I started from a position of soft agnosticism. In my 50's I did a get deal of reading about particle physics and the new standard theory of cosmology and changed my mind. Studying pure science can do it.

Indeed it can, but not if you start with a foregone conclusion. Even over the course of the last several years of these discussions with you I have observed your position slowly shifting from a more naturalistic point of view to a more theistic one. Not that you were (since I've been here) purely naturalistic, but I have watched you embrace the concept of a designed universe more fully as the years rolled by, largely I think because of the increasingly apparent complexity that is completely at odds with the naturalistic approach.

The interesting thing is that you are not alone in this. I have witnessed a growing movement among formerly naturalistic scientist that have started embracing design. Even if they do not subscribe to a particular theory of a designer, they are at least acknowledging that it HAD to be designed. It's a start.

What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum