God and Continual Creation

God is supposed to have started the universe off so God is called the first cause. If there is a first cause that started all other causes and started the universe then what? Christians say that this first cause idea does not matter so much as the belief that God creates now for creation is not a past event but a continuing one. Yet the first cause looks like a first cause as in making a universe that was started off and wound up and left to run by itself. What does that say? That the first cause was not God or a creator.  A creator would only try to make it look like it did nothing but start the ball rolling if it did not want a relationship with us.  It would mean an impersonal creator.  It would not be God to us for it would be unworthy of worship. 

By the way, if a universe can do without God continually creating it it does not need him to start it off.

Also, the present cause is as important as the first cause.  It is more important than it for we weren't around then to witness it.

The idea is that God causes now and that is the main issue not if there was a first cause or whatever.  The first cause if there was one is nothing special for what about the cause now, this moment?

Though people talk about this great first cause, what they really have in mind is a cause that fine-tuned what it caused.  That is what has the real impact.


The universe is supposedly fine-tuned so that life on earth can happen. Believers might say that all can be random but the clever design of the universe and its being fine-tuned for life are not random. 

If God and randomness can agree, then it is possible that there could be a God and still a natural or non-God explanation for fine-tuning.

In the light of continual creation, the fine-tuning right now is what we should think about first and foremost.  Science by disagreeing is clearly denying continual creation or regarding it as useless.  In science, a useless idea is something that you can never say is complementary to science!  If God is useless as an explanation then God has to go if you respect science.

There is much suffering in the universe.   Giving birth damages the woman and the baby needs so much help that it is plainly premature.  Natural law has got it wrong.  There is much evidence that the fine tuning argument cares about how living beings exist. But that is a fine tuning argument for existence not a fine tuning argument for life.  Life and existence are two separate matters if you include quality of life and value of life in the first.    Life is more than just existing.

Believers when they take note of flaws in nature and biology argue that as long as x is functional it is designed and does not have to be perfect. Intelligent design surely should be marked by things being built from scratch.  But what we have is a pattern that could pass for getting things wrong and trying to fix them. That is not fine tuning by any grasp of the imagination.

No Copyright