God and Evolution of the universe (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, September 19, 2019, 11:06 (1678 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: "Professor Smith said: "Initially, we were perplexed by the results of our simulations. We needed to understand what happens to the expelled shells from dying red giants. We proposed that the shells must be temporary, as if they stayed intact life could not exist in our universe and our planets would be unoccupied. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: How many of our planets does he think are occupied?

"'The shells are not uniform. Most are likely to be cold and molecular. They disintegrate into protruding fingers and so lose their integrity. In contrast, warm atomic shells remain intact. This provides vital clues about how carbon and other materials are transferred and reused within our universe bbbOur civilization happens to exist when the generation of recycled material is at its highest. That is probably no coincidence.'" (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: I view this as God at work evolving the universe for life to exist.

dhw: But then the question arises as to why your always-in-control God has created all the “cold and molecular” shells, and why there are so many planets that appear to be unoccupied – indeed as far as we know, ours is the only planet that IS occupied. If we think of the universe as an eternally and infinitely changing mass of materials, it is not that difficult to conceive of the “coincidence” eventually happening. (David’s bold)

DAVID: First, according to Big Bang theory the universe is not eternal.

But according to you, your God is, and even if the BB theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the BB, so the theory of an eternally and infinitely changing mass of materials is no more and no less feasible or provable than your theory of an eternal God.

DAVID: Second, we find the Earth is most unusual among planets, and we know it supports life. Since I view God as preferring to evolve his creations, the idea of the article makes lots of sense. Further, note the bold, you are still touting the idea of why did God bother to do so much a forehand, still asking for direct creation, not supported by history.

What is not supported by history is your theory that your always-in-control God’s one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens! On other threads you admit that you have no idea why he chose not to fulfil that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design all the non-human forms. Now you tell us that his way of specially designing the planet that would support life to fulfil his one and only purpose was to specially design billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct, including the “cold and molecular shells”, that have no known relevance whatsoever to the support of life. Your claim that he “preferred” to do it that way does not provide even a smidgen of explanation. So maybe he had a different purpose, or maybe he isn’t always in control, or chooses not to be always in control. Or of course, maybe he was never even there – but for the purposes of our discussion, I am wearing my theist hat and simply pointing out the illogicality of your theistic theory and offering theistic counter-proposals which at least provide a more logical explanation than yours for the history.