If you want to be free to live, then you have to be free to suffer and/or die. There is no sadism, just pragmatism.
There is a long thread on suffering. Theologically it is justified. Human idealism would like it gone, but that ignores the realities of life
The evidence for evolution is limited and specific. It does not include all the suppositions and extrapolations including Natural Selection
I have already answered that.
Neither Christianity, nor Science has to be taken on an all or nothing basis. There can be a balance, but it is hard to find and unpopular for both Christians and Scientists. neither likes the idea of there being flws in their belies/theories and/or assertions/laws.
You need to get out of this black & white reasoning or understanding. Fifty shades of grey does not mean sexual deviancy.
Another created being creating us does not solve any metaphysical problems and is categorically ruled out from being God by the classical arguments for Godās existence. An actualized potential cannot be labeled actus purus to name one example.
I am sure the Biologos website has plenty of material for you to read about God and evolution. A large number of scientists here disagree with your evaluation that evolution is too messy for God. Here is an excellent read by @Christy a few years ago:
The main thrust of Biologos is about the compatibility of faith and science. Maybe try reading and evaluating some of the resources on this website you seem to be frequenting. In fact, many of the articles are written by credentialed and practicing scholars and scientists in many fields as opposed to the pot luck of a forum.
Most university educated people accept expert consensus on all scientific issues about which a consensus exits. In our worldview, a non-expert who believes that he (or she) is the final authority on any scientific issue is extremely naive and foolish.
Why? A brilliant scientist in another universe was ācookingā a concoction in his lab one day, many billions of years ago, and BANG! His experiment exploded initiating the Big Bang that formed our universe. It is entirely possible.
It is not just my opinion that a supernatural creator is unnecessary. I choose to believe in a creator, but if he ever did exist, he was probably mortal. That hypothesis fits the evidence best.
Stephen Hawking argued that science makes a creator unnecessary, as the laws of physics can explain the universeās spontaneous creation from nothing. In his book The Grand Design, he contended that the universe doesnāt need a creator to set it in motion because spontaneous creation is a natural outcome of laws like gravity. While he couldnāt prove a creator doesnāt exist, he believed science provided a sufficient explanation, rendering theological explanations unnecessary.
Cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss are prominent figures who have proposed theories on how the universe could have emerged from a state that science defines as ānothingā. These theories often rely on the concept of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum or the properties of gravity and quantum laws, suggesting a spontaneous, naturalistic origin rather than a creation from absolute nothingness. However, these ideas are speculative and subject to ongoing scientific debate.
Key scientists and their concepts
Stephen Hawking: Hawking proposed that the universe did not need a ābeforeā to the Big Bang, as time itself began at that point. He theorized that the universe could have arisen from ānothingā through the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics, where the negative energy of gravity could be balanced by the positive energy of matter, resulting in a total energy of zero.
Lawrence Krauss: In his book A Universe from Nothing, Krauss argues that modern science has changed the meaning of ānothingā. He distinguishes between empty space and a ādeeper nothingā where even the laws of physics donāt exist, and suggests the universe could have emerged from the latter through quantum fluctuations.
Alexander Vilenkin: Vilenkin developed the idea of the universe being born from ānothingā through a process he called āquantum tunneling,ā which does not violate the conservation of energy.
Andre Linde: Lindeās work on inflationary cosmology suggests that the universe could be one of many in a āmultiverseā where new universes are constantly being created.
Gary: I am NOT arguing against the existence of a Creator. I believe there probably was one at one time. I am simply demonstrating that many very smart scientists do not believe a supernatural creator is necessary.
Stephen Hawking said it, therefore it must be true. Saying something and demonstrating something are two different things. Learn the distinction.
And if I say Stephen Hawking didnāt believe in God because he didnāt want to be accountable for all that sexual abuse and misconduct, does that make it true? It would be mighty convenient for him after all if all that is true. Isnāt that how you like to argue? By impugning on the motives of others by constantly denigrating them as āChristian scholarsā or āChristiansā?
No one can explain or demonstrate the universeās spontaneous creation from nothing. Itās not even possible in principle for science to address that.
Itās not anymore possible for an actualized potential or a contingent entity to be God than it is for a square to be a triangle. That is complete nonsense of the highest order.
Bachelor in Earth Science and Secondary Education with a Minor in Physics and a meteorology track option (or as we called it, calculus of the atmosphere). And an MS in Geoscience from MSU. Want to know my motherās maiden name and social society number as well?
How about you? How many books have you read that were written by critical biblical scholars? What is the current one you are reading and what are your top 5? How many scholarly journal articles have you read? What journals do you regularly look for articles at? Also, what books arguing for the existence of God have you read? Just list the last 5. Thanks.
Who claimed that I was the final authority on anything? Not me.
The fact that you make such a claim for yourself (et al) just shows your vanity.
Why should anyone (other than God) be the final authority? You do not have enough information to be so.
Your reasoning is flawed.
Get off your high horse or throne of grandeur.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
57
I have a hard time understanding how this position leads to a rejection of evolution. Organisms died in the past. We have their fossils, and there is no way around it. Whether there was natural selection or no natural selection you still have billions and trillions of organisms dying over the last 4 billion years or so. Predators still fed on other species whether they evolved or were created by some other means. Members of a species that were created without evolution are still going to die.
Or what appears to us as random actually has purpose and design behind it. I believe that is consistent with scripture as well.
Precisely, so why are we arguing?
(Because you want to me to identify that/those process(s) for you!)
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
59
Thatās my question to you. Why do you have a problem with science defining mutations as random?
You also didnāt comment on this part:
I have a hard time understanding how this position leads to a rejection of evolution. Organisms died in the past. We have their fossils, and there is no way around it. Whether there was natural selection or no natural selection you still have billions and trillions of organisms dying over the last 4 billion years or so. Predators still fed on other species whether they evolved or were created by some other means. Members of a species that were created without evolution are still going to die.
All these organisms are going to die. Is it crueler that some die before reproducing instead of after reproducing based on their genetics? They die and suffer either way.
It ihas noothignto do with death, or suffering, or lifecycles.
Try looking at it philosophically! God does not favour the strong or the well organised! That is Natural selection. Put God instead of random and the selection is no longer governed by Natural Selection only. There is room for quirks, beauty, irrelevancies and things that do not qualify as advantageous. The weak can survive, because God wills it, rather than purely Natural causes and effects. God is still creator instead of things creating themselves. God is not sitting on the sidelines dispassionately watching the world get dominated by the strong and the selfish.
(But that is not scientific!)
Of course He then mucks it up by allowing humanity sentience and free reign!
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
61
I did.
Why do you have a problem with science defining mutations as random?
We observe that the fittest are favored in nature, right now. Is nature as we see it operating against the will of God? Is there no natural selection, but God makes sure to imitate what natural selection would look like?
That exists in evolution as well. Neutral drift is a big part of the theory.
Then why do we observe organisms dying from genetic diseases sooner than their cohorts who donāt have the genetic disease?
You also reject biological reproduction?
Thatās fine, but we still observe exactly what we would expect to observe if natural selection is operating in nature. How do you explain this?
I donāt think that he understands that randomness often leads to order ā the Bell Curve being the most obvious example.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
63
Randomness does appear to be a fundamental requirement for our universe to function. Thermodynamics is fundamentally the result of randomness, and without thermodynamics our universe wouldnāt function like it does nor would it have the order we see.
