God and Evolution of the universe (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, September 21, 2019, 09:57 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My logical point is something or someone has to be eternal for were to be anything now.

dhw: Precisely, so what is the point in your saying that according to the BB theory the universe is not eternal? My logical point is that either there is an eternal God (your someone) or there is an eternal mass of materials (something).

DAVID: I agree that something or someone pre-existed this universe, but how did a 'mass of materials' create the complex rules of the universe by itself?

How can an inventively conscious mind, with the power to create a universe and all its laws, simply have existed for ever? If this astonishing, all-knowing and inexplicable mind can be your first cause, then so can the astonishing, ever changing and inexplicable mass of materials. The first offers top down evolution, and the second offers bottom up.

dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.

DAVID: The elements necessary for life were born in the stars ( your countryman Fred Hoyle did buy it). I still believe God creates by evolving what He wants: universe, Earth, life. All are known patterns of logical development by God, the Creator.

Of course the elements were born in the stars, and that would be true of bottom up evolution through an eternally changing mass of materials. If your God exists, though, and if one believes in evolution, as we do, then he clearly chose evolution as his method! But you persist in leaving out the theory which is not logical: namely, that he specially designed every single non-Earth-related star and every single non-human related life form, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens, and you have no idea why.

DAVID: I do have a scientific reason; see above. And you want to make Him human in thought. You have a very narrow view of how a humanized God might have acted.

There is nothing scientific about the above anthropocentric theory, and it is absurd to call my view narrow since I have offered you several logical views of how your divine God “might have acted”, whereas you have only one, and you have no idea why he would have acted that way.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum