For scientific-minded believers, what is God the Creator of?

[Aupmanyav]

If you believe in evolution and the Big Bang, then what is God responsible for?
An additional question. If you no longer take your creation myths literally, then why do you take God's existence and role as a creator literally?

It would be funny to make a fictitious entity responsible for anything.

 

[rational experiences]

Human being theists mind are self possessed by gods theism.

A human stands on earth using natural answers as survival advice awareness only. Human.

So unnatural thought isn't conscious.

You term what is God first as a thinker by highest greatest. Human supported biology.

You then theory satanisms to convert change.

God is presence.

Satanisms the past only.

You don't exist in the past is how you became mind possessed believing God created you. If gods term greatest don't exist nor would you.

As highest coldest held states own life support.

You hence argue against your owned theism to want God changed.

It's just a human theists own argument.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Take a look at the tree of the family of the Greek gods and goddesses. What you will find there is that the gods are a philosophical system of rationalizing what comes from what. Just follow the family tree the offspring. Its an attempt at understanding the forces of nature and trying to harness some lessons out of those forces

Their mythology went quite a bit deeper than “understanding the forces of nature.”
These gods were described as having sex with humans & producing offspring. (The same activities are found in other famous, unrelated mythologies: Norse, Hindu, etc) Similar to the descriptive record at Genesis 6:1-4….”all whom they chose”

 

[PruePhillip]

If the diversity of life is the product of evolution, life itself is the product of abiogenesis, the earth formed naturally from space dust, and matter traces its origins to the Big Bang, then what did God create?

Most creator deities that are now referred to in English as "God" are given as the explanation for the existence of the land and of living things, but this explanation no longer seems relevant in the light of scientific discovery to me.

If you believe in evolution and the Big Bang, then what is God responsible for?

An additional question. If you no longer take your creation myths literally, then why do you take God's existence and role as a creator literally? The two seem to go hand-in-hand to me.

If you refer to Judaism then it's clear when it says in Genesis 1 (first of the two creation accounts) that 'God commanded the land to bring forth life.'
And then God commanded the sea to bring forth life.
Beginning with the heavens and the earth, followed by the earth as a sterile, ocean and cloud planet. The sky cleared. The continents rose. Life appeared - not with some human arm reaching down to the earth and planting life as some pictures show, but by God's 'command.'
That command has to be the physical laws. I hold that God 'fine tuned' the universe to create all this. And I am sorry for Fred Hoyle, but yes, there was a beginning when something came from nothing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you believe in evolution and the Big Bang, then what is God responsible for?

Here’s my two cents:
The “Superintellect” who “monkeyed with physics” (per Fred Hoyle) is not just a concept.

And evolution is a reality, too….

Consider this: according to the Bible, God told Adam & Eve, “all green vegetation I have given you for food.”

We can’t eat “all green vegetation,” now. I’m sure even the original author, Moses, couldn’t eat “all green vegetation “ in his day.

So the Bible infers that ‘some’ vegetation has changed; ‘some’ of these are now even dangerous— poison ivy, for example.

This is how I see it: God harnessed energy to form matter. Science has discovered that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, called the “conservation of energy”…
Fact or Fiction?: Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed

This agrees with my view, that the invisible God has always existed, as an intelligent entity of energy in a form that we just haven’t discovered yet. (Therefore, the “who created God?” argument is superfluous: science has explained it.)

The problem with the Theory of Evolution, at least the current MS — whether people want to accept it or not — is that it has “explanatory deficits”…
‘The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Philosophical and Historical Dimensions’ Workshop Report – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

I maintain these explanatory deficits will continue even within the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, simply because too many functions in living systems require foresight, something that undirected natural processes can’t accomplish. Even under Lab-controlled conditions.

So to me, it’s logical to accept that from a taxonomic POV, Families (or Orders?) of organisms were created, and modern (and ancient) species evolved from that point on.

Now in discussing our Solar System: has any experiment ever revealed that natural methods can utilize gravity and other forces to put an object into a stable orbit? Gravity explains how it maintains it’s orbit, but through (NASA’s) trial an error, it is a fact that it takes intelligence to put a satellite into an accepted orbit.

(Since the laws of physics seem to be a constant — and finely-tuned, I might add — such facts would extend throughout the universe.)

IMO

 

[paarsurrey]

exchemist said: ↑
The order that governs the universe, I suppose. What we sometimes call the "laws of nature". There is little* or nothing in science that explains why the laws are the way they are or why there should be any laws at all. Without those laws, the universe would not have evolved in the way it has.

*Though things like the conservation laws can be explained to a limited extent by Noether's Theorem.

Einstein, like Spinoza, seemed to view the laws of nature as what we mean when we speak of God.

" There is little* or nothing in science that explains why the laws are the way they are or why there should be any laws at all "

I liked the above reasonable argument so I rated the post as "winner", please.

Sorry, I could not follow the thread.
Did anybody refute the above argument, please? Right?

Regards