Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 07, 2014, 19:36 (3459 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html
> 
>DHW: I agree with much of what they say about origins, which is a major reason for my not being an atheist, but they also inadvertently pinpoint a major reason for my not being a theist. In their attack on Hawking , “Lennox explains by saying: “If I say ‘X creates X', I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent.” And to presuppose the existence of God to account for God's existence is also logically incoherent. 
> -We can't explain the beginning of the big bang either, since it presupposes the existence of laws and something for those laws to act upon. Claiming that the theistic version does something that the Atheistic/Naturalistic doesn't is disingenuous. - 
>DHW: This is a truly shocking “confession”, taken (out of context, according to some critics) from a book entitled Ends and Means that Huxley wrote in 1937 - he died in 1963 - but I have no idea why you've offered it as a response to a rational discussion on the possibility of theistic evolution. I would also find it shocking if you genuinely believed that everyone who doubted your version of life and its history was driven to do so by the self-interest exemplified in the above quote. However, if in the context of theistic evolution or any other subject, you find my ignorance - which I fully acknowledge, though I would vehemently reject the charge of malice or self-interest - too frustrating, we should end that particular discussion. I remain as anxious as ever not to offend, and despite my stubborn refusal to come down from my picket fence, I find our exchanges extremely interesting and valuable!-LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way.

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