Re: Darwin and God: can they co-exist?

"On 8 Jul 2006 08:17:55 -0700, in article
<1152371875.152131.186580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, wade stated..."


TomS wrote:
"On 7 Jul 2006 08:22:26 -0700, in article
<1152285746.298017.153130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, wade stated..."
TomS wrote:

I don't understand in what sense someone can say that God is
an explanation consistent with the universe supporting life.

Perhaps you've got another word in front of _explanation_.
Perhaps it's "necessary", or "compelling".

No, I don't think so.

Here's my problem:

There are lots of things which are consistent with the
universe supporting life. For example, The Pythagorean Theorem.
There needs to be something else beyond mere consistency. And

Needs in what sense? In the sense of qualifying as an explanation?
Maybe I've got a few extra words in the statement that "God
is one possible explanation for why the universe is capable
of supporting life". My extra words would be that this God chose
to create the universe that way. As explanations go, that doesn't
lead one very far, you don't know how free such a choice was
unless you know alot more about alternative universes or the
powers of this creator type entity. But it doens't seem an abuse
of English to call that an explanation.

I just don't see how "God chose to do it this way" is any
more like an explanation for life than is, well, The Pythagorean
Theorem. I don't have a good definition of "explanation", but it
seems to me that an explanation should be at least an attempt to
tell us "why this, and not something else".

I should point out that I am not denying the truth of The
Pythagorean Theorem, nor of the existence of God. I'm just
thinking about whether those are in the category of "explanation".

I will even grant, for the sake of making my point clear, that
there is no explanation for life without the existence of God. But
that doesn't automatically mean that there is an explanation with
the existence of God.

I'm struck by the picture of a young child asking a question
and following up " ... but why?" [answer] "... but why?".
And there's nothing negative intended in the allusion.

The catechism says somebody made you because they
loved you. I don't know know if it says why they loved you.
I don't recall that it answers what love means.

Why is there a shed in my back yard? Cause I built it.
< Why did I build it? My garage was too full. >

Are those explanations? Did I have to build the shed?
Could there have been a shed without me? Could
there be a me without the shed? I had to use Pythagorus
in the planning but don't think that's an explanation for the shed.

How are these different than the God making the universe
line?

Your example about the shed is interesting. If someone asked me
why there is a shed in my backyard, and I responded, "Because I built
it" - I think that that is a non-responsive answer. I think that the
questioner could rightly say something like, "OK, you don't want to
tell me, but you don't have to be a wise guy about it."

As far as the kid who keeps on asking "why?", I appreciate your
bringing that up. I hope that I have a good response. Yes, every
explanation leaves a gap - leaves something unexplained - but it
at least makes an attempt to narrow the gap.


God in conventional western monotheism is consistent with just
about anything, including a universe with life, a universe
without life, and no universe at all. I don't see how this is any
more of an explanation than is The Pythagorean Theorem.

If you want God to be part of an explanation for a universe
which supports life, then we should hear about some connection.
Is there something incompatible with - or less likely - a universe
without life, given the existence of God? Who knows, maybe there
are things even more wonderful than a universe with life - why
didn't God do one of those things? Why not *two* universes with
life?

How neatly wrapped up and inescapable do things need to be?
If the answer to question 2 is, 'yes billions of more wonderful
universes and those were created too' what's the impact? If the
answer to question 3 is 42 what does that matter? Do we
need to know that we are number 9? Does it matter if the
answers are countable infinities or uncountable infinities?
Seems like we can no more know those sorts of details than
know if the more superficial explanation is correct.

What I am suggesting is that there is still a gap between
"God exists" and "there is a universe like this one, with life".

The explanation is incomplete. There remain more questions.

What I am suggesting is that the gap is just as big afterwards as it
was before. (And, by the way - but this is not my point - I'm just
mentioning it - it shuts off all further questions. "I don't know" -
at least that doesn't shut off all further questions. "You ask too
many questions" - that's more like it.)


Because, as far as I can tell, it is just as compatible with
the existence of God that "there is a universe totally unlike
this one" or "there is no universe at all".

It seems to me that, to put something in the category of
"explanation", that there is an "explaining factor" and a
"thing explained", and one or more of the following holds:

* There is some connection between the factor and the thing.
* If the factor were different, the thing would be different.
* If the thing were different, the factor would be different.
* Something more than the reality (truth) of the factor and
the reality of the thing.

How is there connection missing between God and
universe in "God made the universe"? That is your
first bullet. You said "one or more".


There is nothing that the verb "made" tells us about anything.
It is true of everything, even to the extent that we can say, "Even
though X doesn't exist, if it did exist, then God made it." A statement
that is true of everything (even things which never were and never
will be) doesn't say anything informative about anything.

"God made it" - I'd say that this does not so much make a connection
across the gap - it is not a connection as much as it is a recognition of
a gap.

By the way, I appreciate your responses. They are making me work.





--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20

.

Relevant Pages

  • WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALIVE FOREVER
    ... know what the universe is about, and I was ready to go at that time. ... I thanked the light of God with all my heart. ... "This is the RIVER OF LIFE. ... She had given up an hour and a half after finding me dead. ...
    (talk.philosophy.misc)
  • Re: Re: funny creationsist
    ... itself or came into existence without a cause. ... show me ANYTHING in this universe which just came into existence ... Your god isn't needed. ... What is the exact process by which this new life added material to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: my worldview
    ... information processor itself must posses much rich information (by rich ... up with is an infinite series of Gods if we try to use the God ... that the roughly 15 billion years of the universe's life isn't even ... there you go, in one particular universe, on one particular planet, the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... Jim Spaza wrote: ... It's an issue of whether the origins of the Universe are, at some point, the ... God can do it any way He pleases. ... Only a small number of possible universes can sustain life. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... shown that there can be life otherwise. ... But our universe exists, it is the only one we can know, therefore the ... Because after 15 billion years there is no evidence for a god. ... If there are no humans to do evil, then how can God's inaction define ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading