Ukrainian-born cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has continued to refine mathematical formulas that basically imply the universe had a beginning. As I've searched the Internet, I haven't found one mainstream news source covering the deeper implications of this news. The mainstream media somehow does not consider this interesting. But, at least New Scientist is willing to address some possible implications, referring to it as the "The Genesis Problem".[1] It may be that mainstream news is so committed to the secular humanist worldview that any discoveries that imply the creation model may be true are simply unacceptable.
The occasion for Vilenkin's most recent presentation was Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday celebration which was entitled "State of the Universe" and featured a prerecorded message from Stephen Hawking who was too ill to attend a scientific forum in person. If you remember, there was quite a bit of hoopla in the media in 2010 when Hawking declared in his book, The Grand Design, that there was no need for God, 'because we have the laws of physics.' But compare a quote from his book in 2010 with his somewhat less confident and more defensive quote from January 11, 2012:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," - Stephen Hawking, 2010.[2]
"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," - Stephen Hawking, 2012.[3]
Hawking's statement on January 11, 2012 is obviously understood as one viewing the world through the lens of a materialist. According to Hawking's logic, if the math shows there must have been a creation event, it must mean that 'science broke down' and is neither reliable nor practical. The award-winning cosmologist Allan Sandage addressed this issue: "Must there necessarily be a conflict between science and religion? - In my opinion, no, if it is understood that each treats a different aspect of reality."[4] A truly objective scientist follows the math wherever it may lead, without respect to ideological philosophical commitments. Hawking had stated there is no need for God, but continues to refer to God. It may be as Sandage observed, "If God did not exist, science would have to (and indeed has) invent the concept to explain what it is discovering at its core."[5]
 |
| Alexander Vilenkin |
Vilenkin stated that simply admitting the universe had a beginning does not necessarily mean there was a Creator. He wrote, "We do have cosmological models describing how the universe could be spontaneously created from literally nothing (no space, no time, no matter) as a result of a quantum fluctuation. An intriguing problem with such models is that the creation of the universe is described using the mathematical laws of physics, but it is not clear where these laws came from."
John Lennox of Oxford University outlined, “… physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions."[6] Allan Sandage noted, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."[7] Sandage was ostracized to some extent when he openly expressed his Christian conversion at the ripe age of 50. The willingness to admit a personal belief in God can be risky business in academia today. Nevertheless, contemporary academic professors such as John Lennox remain well-respected and hold their own in philosophical debates. In my opinion, John Lennox outperformed Richard Dawkins in a live debate, both in terms of ideas and technique.[8] It seems that cosmologists such as Allan Sandage end up becoming confessing believers in God simply by being exposed to the details of the fine-tuned universe and the apparent need for an "organizing principle". But it's not just the scientific data that is compelling, it is the underlying philosophical implications that must be reconciled in a cohesive philosophical logic, as Sandage noted:
"If there is no God, nothing makes sense. The atheist's case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise. And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion. If it seems not so, then one's hermeneutics (either the pastor's or the scientist's) must wrong."[9]
At Dr. Vilenkin's profile at Tufts university, hard work and open-mindedness are highlighted as two of his main characteristics:
"I think it's like any job. Most of it is not very glamorous. Much of it is just doing hard calculations. Like any scientist, to be successful you really have to be obsessed with what you're doing; otherwise you wouldn't spend all these hours banging your head against the wall and doing the calculations. But when you really understand something, and you finally see the thing in a different light and you learn something about the universe, it's extremely exciting."[10]
For theists who accept the logic of a Creator, the mathematical evidence of a beginning is not a surprise. The typical atheist explanation of the past, a cyclical big bang, has been eliminated and the creation model is looking better as time goes by. As the standard, past atheist models have been eliminated, it seems to be a bit uncomfortable for materialists. As the beginning of time and space may be represented graphically with a cone, the cone may also be a symbolic representation of how, little by little, the possibilities of how the universe was formed are being narrowed down. The creation model of the universe which was once mocked by scientists is now shown to be more in keeping with the scientific facts. The website Creation Evolution Headlines has outlined how Vilenkin's reports have eliminated popular models of the universe:
- Eternal inflation: Built on Alan Guth’s 1981 inflation proposal, this model imagines bubble universes forming and inflating spontaneously forever. Vilenkin and Guth had debunked this idea as recently as 2003. The equations still require a boundary in the past.
- Eternal cycles: A universe that bounces endlessly from expansion to contraction has a certain appeal to some, but it won’t work either. “Disorder increases with time,” Grossman explained. “So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered.” Logically, then, if there had already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe would already been in a state of maximum disorder, even if the universe gets bigger with each bounce. Scratch that model.
- Eternal egg: One last holdout was the “cosmic egg” model that has the universe hatching out of some eternally-existing static state. “Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096).” No way could the egg be eternal.[11]
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/
Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation-event.html
Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i15/e151301
References
[1] New Scientist, The Genesis problem, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328473.500-the-genesis-problem.html
[2] The Guardian, Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator
[3] Uncommon Descent, A real beginning to the universe? Cosmologist Vilenkin didn’t always give “the worst birthday gifts ever” …, http://www.uncommondescent.com/cosmology/a-real-beginning-to-the-universe-cosmologist-vilenkin-didnt-always-give-the-worst-birthday-gifts-ever/
[4] Leadership U, A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief, Dr. Allan Sandage, http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html
[5] Ibid.
[6] Daily Mail, As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
[7] God and Science, Evidence for God from Science: Christian Apologetics, Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html#n05, Original source: Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
[8] Templestream, Why the God Debate is Valid and Necessary, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god-debate-is-valid-and-necessary.html
[9] The Telegraph, Alan Sandage, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/science-obituaries/8150004/Allan-Sandage.html
[10] Tufts University, Alexander Vilenkin's profile, http://www.tufts.edu/home/feature/?p=vilenkin
[11] Creation Evolution Headlines , Cosmologists Forced to “In the Beginning”, http://crev.info/2012/01/cosmologists-forced-to-in-the-beginning/
[12] God and Science, Biblical Creation Model for the Universe and Life on Earth,
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html
(Revised February 7, 2012)
Search terms
Scientific proof of God's existence, the Genesis problem, Alexander Vilenkin proves universe had a beginning, Dr. Vilenkin's profile at Tufts university, Hawking's views on God, creation model of universe, the beginning of time, time is a physical property, cone model of space and time, the cause of the universe, scientifically untestable
Whoa! Atheists are so illogical and foolish that we should just run away from them. No need to have a discussion until the end. 8)
ReplyDeleteI am not going to copy-paste my criticism of Grossman.
R:The cone which represents this model is quite easy to understand. Time, space and matter had a beginning.
Does the majority of the scientific community reject that notion? Yes, time, space and matter as we understand them had a beginning. And how do you get to a sentient creator from there?
You kinda need to explain why an absolute cause is needed in the first place and you need to prove objective morality exist to support your God hypothesis. You have been bravely dodging the subject and went on with bold assertion so far.
P.S. I will tell you a secret. Hawking has a different understanding of "nothing" from yours.
P.P.S. Curse that Goddamn brainwashing mainstream feminist Fascist media, let heaven have pity on our precious bodily fluids!
I fail to see what's new here... I'll reply to the other thread.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDelete>Yes, time, space and matter as we understand them had a beginning. And how do you get to a sentient creator from there?
- Why did suppose Stephen Hawking stated the following upon the announcement of Vilenkin's discoveries?:
"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God."
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>I am not going to copy-paste my criticism of Grossman.
- I'm not even sure what the logic of your comment here is. No one is defending Grossman. It was Vilenkin who dismantled Grossman with math as stated in point #2 "Scratch that model" from the Creation Evolution Headlines summary of universe models.
R:"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God."
ReplyDeleteBecause, Rick, you are an idiot that misunderstands a metaphor for a statement. The same way theists like claiming that Einstein believed in God even if he did not. You are distorting Hawking the same way you distorted Darwin. You never read "A Brief history of time", I can bet that.
Hawking claims that we have no possibility to know what happened before the Big Bang (and I disagree with him). Ergo, it is useless to speculate about that and we might just as well turn to the supernatural on this issue. He could have said: "One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of Zeus".
R:I'm not even sure what the logic of your comment here is. No one is defending Grossman. It was Vilenkin who dismantled Grossman with math as stated in point #2 "Scratch that model" from the Creation Evolution Headlines summary of universe models.
Grossman is only stating a theory that "disorder increases with time" and you used that statement to criticize the model of eternal cycles. I disagree with your critic and Grossman s theory, Rick
I have no idea what position Grossman endorses about the start of the Universe from your article. Vilenkin has nothing to do with it.
And as always you run away from the explanation why an absolute cause is needed and you do not provide a proof for the existence of objective morality.
Not to mention, you never explained how you came to the conclusion that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent entity exist from just the existence of a singularity point.
I cannot figure it out. Are you a great preacher for dodging question or a mediocre one for not being able to explain your position.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>Rick, you are an idiot that misunderstands a metaphor for a statement.
- Anonymous, if you want to read into what Hawking is saying and propose there is a metaphorical meaning, you'll need to show why.
There is no particular implication Hawking is using a metaphor for God. The plain meaning is that something began from nothing and he does not have a 'scientific' answer.
When Hawking uses the term "point of creation" he's apparently implying creation ex nihilo, the literal creation of something from nothing - not 'something from some hidden answer we don't know yet' because that would not be "creation". This is perhaps what he wants to believe, there is some other answer than God, but there is no indication he has a clue what might have caused the beginning of the universe other than God's existence.
Anonymous, If you can explain how something can spontaneously appear from nothing, no black hole, no hidden dimension, nothing, then I suppose he could be referring to a metaphor for something else.
>The same way theists like claiming that Einstein believed in God even if he did not.
- Here also it seems you are overstepping. Einstein may have not believed in God as described in the Bible, but he did believe in a 'higher power' as shown by his quotes:
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
And there are more quotes:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/
>you used that statement to criticize the model of eternal cycles. I disagree with your critic and Grossman s theory, Rick
- First of all, I never appealed to Grossman's theory. I stated eternal cycles of the universe was not a valid theory. And it was Vilenkin who debunked Grossman with math.
>I disagree with your critic and Grossman s theory, Rick.
I did not critique Grossman. If you want to go up against Vilenkin you are welcome to. Do you have some mathematical equations to back up your theory?
>And as always you run away from the explanation why an absolute cause is needed.
- If something is created ex nihilo, then a Creator is needed. It's pretty simple. Give me another explanation of how something is created literally from nothing.
>and you do not provide a proof for the existence of objective morality.
- You are really pulling out all the stops. This is probably not the article for this debate. But let me try and to wade into this large subject. What is "objective" exists independently of our subjective opinions. If God exists, then God exists independently of our subjective opinions about God. If God exists, then God is the basis of objective morality. You may state, "God is not seen therefore God exists only subjectively in your mind." However, there are many proofs and ways of showing that God exists. The creation point of the universe is one such piece of evidence. You can claim "One day we will know - and it won't be God." But that is a 'science of the gaps' approach.
The reason why William Lane Craig wins practically of his debates is because there are many strong arguments for God's existence, and few, if any, strong arguments supporting atheism.
In terms of morality, the articles I've written on thanksgiving, forgiveness and worship offer empirical evidence that there is a cause and effect relationship between living with Christ as the objective basis of morality and leading the most happy and healthy life. There are more subjects which support this thesis which I'd like to write in the future as well.
The plain meaning is that something began from nothing and he [Hawking] does not have a 'scientific' answer.
ReplyDeleteNobody does have an answer beyond that point, yet you believe you do Rick. God is your answer. How you support this 'God of the gap' as if it was logical is beyond me.
When Hawking uses the term "point of creation" he's apparently implying creation ex nihilo, the literal creation of something from nothing .
[...]
- If something is created ex nihilo, then a Creator is needed. It's pretty simple. Give me another explanation of how something is created literally from nothing.
Is it literally nothing or not?
Yes : Then God was not there either, or else it's not literally nothing.
No : Then why call it nothing? Why is God the only exception?
It's that simple.
Yet you claim that Atheists refuse your challenges or refuse to be logical...
- Here also it seems you are overstepping. Einstein may have not believed in God as described in the Bible, but he did believe in a 'higher power' as shown by his quotes:
I agree with you on that Rick. That was actually one of Einstein's bias that led him to reject Quantum mechanics for quite some time. If he had not held his religious view so strongly and embraced QM, who knows what he might have accomplished?
***** Morality *****
If God exists, then God exists independently of our subjective opinions about God. If God exists, then God is the basis of objective morality.
Are you sure it's 'objective morality' and not 'objective basis' for morality?
You never replied to that Rick. Why are you such in denial?
In any case, your statement is not logical. If God is the one who decides what's moral or not, then it's God's choice, God's opinion, it's not objective. It is the subjective view of God.
Now I know what you can answer... You might claim that it's God's nature, that God is not choosing what's moral or not but God is morality itself, God is justice itself and all that other crap apologists like to spit out as if it meant anything. The problem is that God, by YOUR definition, is a mind, an intelligent being, something grand and incredibly complex that is able to DESIGN stuff, CREATE stuff, CHOOSE among different options. Yet, you ignore your own Creator God for a moment in order to pretend that God's morality is not a creation but an objective fact. I call bullshit.
The reason why William Lane Craig wins practically of his debates is because there are many strong arguments for God's existence, and few, if any, strong arguments supporting atheism.
His arguments are fairly easy to prove wrong and I even gave you some examples; you just IGNORE.
Atheists on the other hand cannot prove atheism since there is nothing to prove. They can prove their other beliefs, and they can explain why they feel justified to NOT believe, but they cannot prove that all gods don't exist.
At best, they can prove that there are good reasons to reject certain types of gods. There are good arguments for that but again, you IGNORE them.
...the articles I've written on thanksgiving, forgiveness and worship offer empirical evidence that there is a cause and effect relationship between living with Christ as the objective basis of morality and leading the most happy and healthy life.
You are so funny and so full of yourself. That statement by itself is wrong, yet you pretend that you have articles to support it. How delusional can someone be?
Oh and on top of that it's now 'objective basis' for morality. LOL!
Rick, until you correct these ridiculous mistakes, you are officially a dishonest writer from my point of view. You pretend that Atheists run away from your logic or refuse to debate you while you make the same mistakes again and again. At this point, you deserve ridicule and nothing more.
Thanks for the laughter once again.
R:if you want to read into what Hawking is saying and propose there is a metaphorical meaning, you'll need to show why.
ReplyDeleteYou are the one with an agenda, reading into things. I have told you before. Hawking thinks that we have no possibility of knowing how the world begun. Hence, any speculation is meaningless. It could be God, Fairies, Quantum Gravitation and so on. WE DO NOT KNOW! And NO, not knowing does not mean that God did it.
R:When Hawking uses the term "point of creation" he's apparently implying creation ex nihilo, the literal creation of something from nothing
Did you read a "Brief History of time"? No you did not. But, apparently, you do not need to read in detail about the stance of your opponent. Why bother when you can just take a quote out of context?
R:Einstein may have not believed in God as described in the Bible, but he did believe in a 'higher power' as shown by his quotes.
And obviously you are too narrow-minded to understand that he meant the constant laws of the Universe. He did not believe in a sentient God and how a God without sentience is different from a law of physics?
R:I did not critique Grossman. If you want to go up against Vilenkin you are welcome to. Do you have some mathematical equations to back up your theory?
1. The Universe as we know it had a beginning.
2. A number of different Universe with a different structure might have existed before the Big Bang.
How did Vilenkin debunked the hypothesis of eternal cycles by showing that our Universe as we know it had a beginning? Not to mention, the point of singularity hypothesis is a couple of decades old.
R:If something is created ex nihilo, then a Creator is needed.
And how do you know that our Universe was created from nothing? Matter is indestructible and eternal as far as we know it. You have no reason whatsoever to assume that it had a beginning, you can only claim that its form AS WE KNOW IT had a beginning.
R:If God exists, then God exists independently of our subjective opinions about God. If God exists, then God is the basis of objective morality.
You are sidetracking. I am asking you to prove the existence of objective morality without invoking God. Are you unable to do so?
And yes, you are mistaking two notions, as Hugo noted. I am going to try to explain it. I have an objective basis for morality as an atheist. I have subjectively chosen happiness and progress as two objective features of our reality as the basis.
R:In terms of morality, the articles I've written on thanksgiving, forgiveness and worship offer empirical evidence that there is a cause and effect relationship between living with Christ as the objective basis of morality and leading the most happy and healthy life.
Sorry, you are twisting facts here. Criticism was already presented to you in your "logic" article, which you chose to ignore.
1. "Living with Christ" is not better than "living with Buddha".
2. Being healthy and happy has little to do with morality. Not to mention that Muslims might be even more healthy since they prohibit the use of alcohol.
3. You have omitted such uncomfortable facts as a higher rate of Christians in prisons, compared to atheists in the US and also a lower educational level.
H:How you support this 'God of the gap' as if it was logical is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteHis understanding is quite simple. If 2+2 does not equal 5 nor 6 nor 7, therefore it must equal 8. Why it equals 8? It looks to be the most probable answer by elimination, the possibilities I can think of seem to be unlikely. Hence, 2+2=8
Hugo,
ReplyDelete>Is it literally nothing or not?
- In a materialistic sense, yes, litrally from nothing.
>Yes : Then God was not there either, or else it's not literally nothing.
- When I used the term "literally" I was referring to methodological naturalism, the widely accepted belief that only materialistic causes are acceptable for materialistic events. I thought it was fairly obvious that I believe God as Creator is the only logical answer.
>If God is the one who decides what's moral or not, then it's God's choice, God's opinion, it's not objective. It is the subjective view of God.
- The most precise understanding of Theist morality is that God's nature and character is the ultimate basis of morality, not His words or opinion. This is an unchanging, objective basis for morality. But in order to fully understand God's character, you have to understand both the love and justice of God, which many atheists are not willing to objectively try to understand.
>His arguments (WL Craig's) are fairly easy to prove wrong and I even gave you some examples; you just IGNORE.
- Hugo, With regard to the Kalam argument, you stated God could not be eternal because you believed this was conceptually impossible. I showed there was a difference between an impossible actual eternal number of things and immortality and you had no further rebuttal.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>You are the one with an agenda, reading into things.
- I'm taking Hawking's words at face value:
"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,"
- Each of Hawking's words has a specific meaning. It is apparently you who wants to try and change the meaning of what he has stated to a "metaphor" not me. In case you don't know what the definition of a metaphor is, it's a substitute meaning.
>Sorry, you are twisting facts here.
- It's funny how atheists often accuse believers of what they themselves are doing at that very moment. :-)
Anonymous and Hugo,
If you both do not believe a "point of creation", an appearance of the universe with no materialist cause or explanation, does not require a supernatural Creator, then please offer some kind of materialist answer, any possible answer, to explain the first cause of the universe.
Thanks.
R:I'm taking Hawking's words at face value
ReplyDeleteNo one really cares how you are taking them. Believe what you want, but science has no evidence of God existing. Not being able to explain something does not qualify as proof of mystical beings
As always, you ignore mostly your opponent. I can only copy-paste my questions and objections.
How did Vilenkin debunked the hypothesis of eternal cycles by showing that our Universe as we know it had a beginning? Not to mention, the point of singularity hypothesis is a couple of decades old.
R:If something is created ex nihilo, then a Creator is needed.
And how do you know that our Universe was created from nothing? Matter is indestructible and eternal as far as we know it. You have no reason whatsoever to assume that it had a beginning, you can only claim that its form AS WE KNOW IT had a beginning.
R:If God exists, then God exists independently of our subjective opinions about God. If God exists, then God is the basis of objective morality.
You are sidetracking. I am asking you to prove the existence of objective morality without invoking God. Are you unable to do so?
You used the existence of objective morality to prove God s existence. And now you are using God to prove the existence of objective morality - circular reasoning.
R:In terms of morality, the articles I've written on thanksgiving, forgiveness and worship offer empirical evidence that there is a cause and effect relationship between living with Christ as the objective basis of morality and leading the most happy and healthy life.
Sorry, you are twisting facts here. Criticism was already presented to you in your "logic" article, which you chose to ignore.
1. "Living with Christ" is not better than "living with Buddha".
2. Being healthy and happy has little to do with morality. Not to mention that Muslims might be even more healthy since they prohibit the use of alcohol.
3. You have omitted such uncomfortable facts as a higher rate of Christians in prisons, compared to atheists in the US and also a lower educational level.
R:If you both do not believe a "point of creation", an appearance of the universe with no materialist cause or explanation, does not require a supernatural Creator, then please offer some kind of materialist answer, any possible answer, to explain the first cause of the universe.
WE DO NOT KNOW! And NO, not knowing does not mean that God did it. We only have theories which you find unconvincing.
Adding God to the equation tells us nothing about the Universe prior to the Big Bang. You are the one with the burden of proof, Rick. Explain why an absolute point of creation is needed.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>How did Vilenkin debunked the hypothesis of eternal cycles by showing that our Universe as we know it had a beginning?
If you have clicked the first reference link in my article you could have read the following:
"Over the years, they have tried on several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see "Why physicists can't avoid a creation event"). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning."
- It is apparent that Vilenkin's mathematical research disproves the prior models.
R:If something is created ex nihilo, then a Creator is needed.
>And how do you know that our Universe was created from nothing?
- That is what a "point of creation" is. That is what the math implies.
>You have no reason whatsoever to assume that it had a beginning
- I do. I have Vilenkin's mathematical proofs as admitted by Hawking as implying a "point of creation."
>You are sidetracking. I am asking you to prove the existence of objective morality without invoking God.
- God's existence is the basis of absolute truth and absolute morality so this is not sidetracking at all. The main problem seems to be that you want to refuse the possibility of God's existence though it is the most logical explanation for the universe and objective morality.
>You used the existence of objective morality to prove God s existence. And now you are using God to prove the existence of objective morality - circular reasoning.
- In and of itself, I do believe the moral argument for God's existence is a strong argument. But if you comp0letely forget about morality, I believe there is evidential and logical proof of God's existence which is stronger.
If you consider that materialism cannot create something from nothing, then a supernatural cause is the only logical explanation. Once you accept the logical explanation of the universe, it's not difficult to see that God's existence is in harmony with all the known facts regarding scientific studies on morality and health. The same goes for the fine-tuned universe and many other details of the universe. It's all logically cohesive when God's existence is acknowledged. It isn't when God's existence is rejected.
>Criticism was already presented to you in your "logic" article, which you chose to ignore.
-I'm not sure of what you are referring to.
cont...
>1. "Living with Christ" is not better than "living with Buddha".
ReplyDelete- I explained in my 'forgiveness article' why Buddhism is based on 'detachment.' This is based on a concept of universal 'oneness'. This does not lend itself particularly to loving your enemies and forgiving them unconditionally as Christianity does for several reasons.
1) Because a just Christian God exists, Christians understand that a final judgment day, a day of reckoning, will occur and therefore we are free to love our enemies wholeheartedly and unconditionally because God will be the one to bring ultimate justice. In Buddhism there will be cosmic unity and so justice is not really an issue. Buddha was not an example of unconditional love and self-sacrifice for his enemies.
2) Christ, as our example, exhibits the importance of truth, love and justice in a logical framework. If God was not holy and righteous, then there would have been no need for Christ to die on the cross. By dying as a sacrifice, God has made a way for sinners to enter God's holy presence because the cross served to pay for the sins of the world.
In our daily lives we do see that people have a sense of justice, of right and wrong. This tends to support the Christian view over Buddhism which teaches, basically, "We are all one anyway, so there is no good and evil, no ultimate right or wrong and no ultimate need for justice."
As my article on health and happiness shows, the happiest and healthiest people are those who practice regular religious worship. And my 'forgiveness article' has pointed out why Christianity is uniquely in keeping with the scientific results of forgiveness. The same goes for my 'thanksgiving article', which shows why thanksgiving is a moral question and how this subject ultimately points to the health of being thankful to God as the Creator. There are additional ways in which Buddhism does not seem to be supported by the human condition and scientific studies on health and morality. I would like to write another article on this subject soon.
>WE DO NOT KNOW!
- On the contrary, the math of Vilenkin gives us a specific basis for believing a supernatural Creator exists, as do many other scientific facts.
It seems, rather, that you simply do not want to acknowledge the massive evidence and cohesive logic of God's existence and you prefer to live with your own atheistic ideology. Suit yourself.
>Explain why an absolute point of creation is needed.
- On a purely mathematical basis this has been shown to be what is needed for the universe by Vilenkin and by Hawking's statements. Also, the practical need for a reference point of absolute truth is also verified by the need for a common "origin point" in standard, functioning mathematical multidimensional coordinate systems. And God as a reference point for a cohesive moral framework is also the most logical explanation for all the scientific data on health. All of these facts point to a supernatural, objective reference point and origin point of both truth and the the physical world. Reject the evidence at your own eternal peril.
R:That is what a "point of creation" is. That is what the math implies.
ReplyDeleteThe math only implies that there was a beginning for matter AS WE KNOW IT. No one is contesting that. But you have no basis whatsoever to claim that matter did not exist before the Big Bang in another form.
R:In and of itself, I do believe the moral argument for God's existence is a strong argument.
Unfortunately, that answer to my question is too vague. Can you prove the existence of objective morality without invoking God? If you can, please do. If you cannot, then please say so.
R:If you consider that materialism cannot create something from nothing, then a supernatural cause is the only logical explanation.
Again, we do not know if matter was created from nothing. A supernatural explanation could be any kind of explanation (unicorns) and it does not make a case for God. A consistent mistake is still a mistake.
Your math analogy also fails since it is just a human instrument. Not only the original point is arbitrary (you agreed to it) it is only a concept, used by humans to facilitate our calculations and measurements. In nature it is not needed. The same way as we have a concept of "up" (the ceiling) and "down" (the floor) in a zero gravity environment even if does not really exist.
R:I'm not sure of what you are referring to.
Never mind, you are addressing it here.
R:I explained in my 'forgiveness article' why Buddhism is based on 'detachment.' This is based on a concept of universal 'oneness'.
That does not mean that Christianity is more healthy than Buddhism. You need to provide me with some studies, statistics.
R:Because a just Christian God exists, Christians understand that a final judgment day, a day of reckoning, will occur and therefore we are free to love our enemies wholeheartedly
Let us not forget all the fear, anxiety and guilt which goes hand in hand with Christianity. Not very mental healthy attributes.
R:If God was not holy and righteous, then there would have been no need for Christ to die on the cross
ReplyDeleteGod is omnipotent. Hence, he could have avoided the sacrifice on the cross and still would have saved humanity. He could have spared Jesus, that would have been an act of compassion. Instead he forced needless suffering, an act of cruelty.
R:In our daily lives we do see that people have a sense of justice, of right and wrong. This tends to support the Christian view over Buddhism "We are all one anyway, so there is no good and evil, no ultimate right or wrong and no ultimate need for justice."
Wrong. You are perfectly aware that a sense of justice, of right and wrong are subjective (Islam has a different understanding of those concepts, ect). They depend on individual preference and culture. Since there is no consensus on morality, the Buddhist version seems more likely to be real. And evil in Buddhism is just action-consequences (you do evil and suffer from it latter on, karma, so justice is served).
R:As my article on health and happiness shows, the happiest and healthiest people are those who practice regular religious worship.
1. The only reason why they are more healthy - the community force them to be so. Personally, I do not like such price for health.
2. They are less prone to depression. That is it. Ignorant people also tend to be more happy than educated people. Religious people tend to have a lower education than secular ones. Are they more happy because they are ignorant or because they are religious?
R:The same goes for my 'thanksgiving article', which shows why thanksgiving is a moral question and how this subject ultimately points to the health of being thankful to God as the Creator.
Being healthy and happy has nothing to do with morality as it was pointed to you before. Action of selfless sacrifice are moral, but they do not lead to the happiness of the individual neither to health.
R:There are additional ways in which Buddhism does not seem to be supported by the human condition and scientific studies on health and morality.
Please, provide some exact independent studies with statistics.
P.S. And you still have no explanation why there is a higher rate of religious inmates in American prisons than secular ones and also why religious people tend to be less educated.
ReplyDeleteP.P.S. About Hawking, let me quote your own source. You seem to be using his old book as a source of your assertion. So even if your were right about claiming that Hawking believed in divine intervention (and he did not), he changed his mind long ago. Hence, you distort his views.
ReplyDelete"In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity."
You also seem to distort Vielenkin s position.
On whether there is a final answer to questions concerning the origin of the universe:
"I wish I could answer that. I don't know. It's possible that underlying the universe is just one equation. You just have to figure it out. But even then, from knowing the equation and being able to work out its consequences is a huge distance. There would still be a practically infinite number of phenomena that need to be studied. So I think there is no danger that physicists will be out of work any time soon."
I am truly baffled. Did you read the articles from your own links or did you just copy-paste at random?
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>The math only implies that there was a beginning for matter AS WE KNOW IT. No one is contesting that. But you have no basis whatsoever to claim that matter did not exist before the Big Bang in another form.
- We've been over this theme a few times already, Anonymous, and I'm not sure if there is anything I can possibly write to break through your state of denial.
Both Vilenkin and Hawking have used specific words with specific meanings. That is the first step you should try to acknowledge. Beginning means beginning, not new-cycle, not transformation, not rebirth, not reformation.
Time is a physical property. Time and matter are integrated. When time began matter began. You seem to be in a state of serious denial regarding this issue, Anonymous, and you need to come to terms with that somehow. A "point of creation" is a point of creation ex nihilo. I'll pray for you today that you can come to terms with what these scientists have actually stated, not your personal translation, and accept the logical implications.
>You also seem to distort Vielenkin s position.
On whether there is a final answer to questions concerning the origin of the universe:
"I wish I could answer that. I don't know. It's possible that underlying the universe is just one equation. You just have to figure it out. But even then, from knowing the equation and being able to work out its consequences is a huge distance. There would still be a practically infinite number of phenomena that need to be studied. So I think there is no danger that physicists will be out of work any time soon."
- Can you please show me, Anonymous, where in the previous quote Vilenkin is referring to the "origin" of the universe? He is basically stating there are still many questions regarding the nature of the physical universe and I agree 100%.
Sorry, I am too tired to point out to point out my question you ignored and I am also too tired to point at the numerous mistakes of yours in almost every single field from physics to psychology.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your ignorance and phantasies.
One last comment, though. Time is just an instrument human beings use to measure the changes in matter. Without knowing what kind of changes in matter happened, there is no time. We do not know what kind of changes occurred before the Big Bang, therefore we have no understanding of time back then. That does not mean that time or matter DID NOT EXIST back then.
ReplyDeleteI cannot stand complacent ignorance. Learn about metaphors, Rick. Or at least have a short talk with a good science teacher.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHow can I help you to accept the meaning of the word "beginning" and what it implies for the universe? A "point of creation" implies no time and no matter existed before this point. Period.
Mere words in text don't seem to penetrate your sense of denial, maybe a video clip will?
Even before Vilenkin's presentation at Hawking's 70th birthday, The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem had proven the universe had a beginning NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF SCIENTIFIC MODEL ONE PROPOSES. And atheists who have been denying this kind of proof will continue to try to take Vilenkin out of context:
How Atheists Take Alexander Vilenkin (& the BVG Theorem) Out Of Context - William Lane Craig
http://zomobo.net/play.php?id=Z79FGmh50Xo
Rick, your birthday was the beginning of your life. But that does not mean that nothing existed before your birth. The word "beginning" is arbitrary and relative.
ReplyDeleteVilenkin s model only shows that there was a beginning for matter AS WE KNOW IT. That is it. Write to the Goddamn man itself and ask if science can say with certainty that before the Big Bang nothing material existed at all. Though, I can predict you his answer (because I must be psychic): "We do not know".
Not to mention, that you have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to claim that it was a sentient God that put a start to existence. Proving other theories are wrong does not mean that yours is right.
And I also do not agree with the claim that chaos increases with time as an absolute law.
Anonymous: And I also do not agree with the claim that chaos increases with time as an absolute law.
ReplyDeleteJust a little further information:
"Chaos" is not the same as "entropy". Chaos does not need to increase in order for entropy to increase. Entropy is more a measure of the "usefulness" of the energy of a system. High entropy systems have less usable energy than low entropy systems.
For instance, a snowflake is less chaotic than the system it came from (water vapour in the atmosphere), but are higher entropy (because energy was extracted from the environment in order for the snowflakes to form).
Also, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, which simply means that entropy is likely to increase (or stay constant), rather than claiming that entropy must increase with time.
And finally, the second law applies to closed systems, and so when talking about real world systems, you need to account for any and all sources of input and output from the system (something that many people fail to do).
Rick: The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem had proven the universe had a beginning NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF SCIENTIFIC MODEL ONE PROPOSES.
ReplyDeleteThis is quite simply bullshit.
The type of model does have bearing on whether the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem applies or not. The theorem relies upon models having certain features.
Rick: And atheists who have been denying this kind of proof will continue to try to take Vilenkin out of context:
Rick, instead of listening to WLC, who is as biased a reporter as you're likely to find, why don't you talk to subject matter experts, or even try to find the opinion of Borde, Guth or Vilenkin themselves?
Perhaps you'll find this link of interest, since it links to quotes from Vilenkin himself, and seems to present the theorem in more realistic terms than WLC is inclined to do.
And, as the first comment to that link notes (via Cosmologist Sean Carrol), there are some assumption of the theorem which may indeed be violated by an "cosmic origins" hypothesis.
Cosmologist Sean Carrol on the BGV theorem (as quoted from "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning":
ReplyDeleteI think my answer would be fairly concise: no result derived from classical spacetime can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity. The BGV [Borde, Guth, Vilenkin] singularity theorem is certainly interesting and important, because it helps us understand where classical GR breaks down, but doesn't help us decide what to do when it breaks down. Surely there's no need to throw up our hands and declare that this puzzle cannot be resolved within a materialist framework.
Invoking God to fill this particular gap is just as premature and unwarranted as all the other gaps."
Of course Rick, since you don't care about reality in the least, all of this will be like water off a ducks back.
ReplyDeleteH:And finally, the second law applies to closed systems, and so when talking about real world systems, you need to account for any and all sources of input and output from the system (something that many people fail to do).
ReplyDeleteThanks for the helpful input. Entropy does not equal disorder, it seems. That explains how such a phenomena as stalactites exist, without making a mess of the entropy principal.
Since Rick is most likely going to ignore Havok s link, I think I should quote an interesting point from Vilenkin himself:
ReplyDelete"Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?
Vilenkin replied,
No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.
Vilenkin added,
This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase. That is why Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen had to assume that the arrow of time changes at t = 0. This makes the moment t = 0 rather special. I would say no less special than a true beginning of the universe.
In a follow up email to me Mr. Vilenkin made his position clearer,
[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but..." So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."
Havok, You wrote, "This is quite simply bullshit." (The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem had proven the universe had a beginning NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF SCIENTIFIC MODEL ONE PROPOSES.)
ReplyDelete- Firstly, please don't swear at my blog. I find it unnecessary and unacceptable. If you feel the need to use it in order to strengthen your point, your point is probably pretty weak.
Secondly, If you have a model of the universe that bypasses Vilenkin's theories, why didn't you show what it is?
Thirdly, the references you've offered are from 2010 and apparently don't represent the most up-to-date theories of Vilenkin. The reference at the Arizona Atheist blog is an example of an old reference:
FN#3: "These email exchanges (at least the ones I was privy to) took place between 5-20-10 and 5-24-10 and are used with permission."
>As far as Sean Carrol is concerned, "Invoking God to fill this particular gap is just as premature and unwarranted as all the other gaps."
It might be worth mentioning to Carrol that calling a "beginning" and "Point of creation" of he universe and all the known physical world cannot logically be considered a "gap". But who am I to question the highly esteemed logic of such a well-respected materialist professor? When people don't worship the living God, it's amusing to see atheists hang on every fallable, ambiguos, unverified word of the scientific professors they tend to worship in God's place.
Rick, if you claim that the 2010 info is outdated, then could you provide a link to the up-to-date theory of Vilenkin? So far you have been using second-handed sources, which have been distorting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper from 2003 to assert claims. About which new equation are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteNice way to completely avoid the points I made Rick.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
" The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem had proven the universe had a beginning NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF SCIENTIFIC MODEL ONE PROPOSES."
Yet this is completely false, as you now seem to accept, and as the quotes from Vilenkin which Anonymous reproduced demonstrate:
"No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time."
As for a model which avoids the conclusion of the theorem, another Vilenkin quote that Anonymous reproduced gives us some ideas:
" That is why Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen had to assume that the arrow of time changes at t = 0. This makes the moment t = 0 rather special. I would say no less special than a true beginning of the universe."
Now, I think that this quote from Vilenkin is a little misleading, because the arrow of time is defined as flowing in the direction of increasing entropy (note: not disorder or chaos), and so while in a model like this, t=0 is special, it is special because it is a low entropy boundary. But I think that, because the early universe was also high entropy (for it's volume), even this point fails to be as special as the "true beginning" that you require Rick.
And in fact, the model which Stenger sketches, with the universe "tunnelling" into existence, and carrying on in our direction of entropy, and in the opposite direction, is such a model which avoids the conclusion you need to support your contention.
Also, you seem to have completely ignored Carroll's point about the theorem you're championing being completely classical. As Carroll points out, it would be a mistake to draw to solid a conclusion from a non-quantum theory.
But as I said, like water off a ducks back. The truth about reality doesn't matter, only the "Truth" (with a capital "T") of your beliefs matter.
Ps. Rick, if you don't like swearing, then perhaps you shouldn't write the sort of rubbish that you do?
ReplyDeleteRick: Secondly, If you have a model of the universe that bypasses Vilenkin's theories, why didn't you show what it is?
ReplyDeleteOh, and in addition to the above observations which undermine your grandiose claims, the fact that you require such a model from me, and yet don't bother to produce one of your own (which has empirical content, such that we can test whether it is true or false), is very telling of your actual motivations.
You, like most others who believe as you do it seems, accept on very flimsy grounds, anything which you already agree with, and reject everything else, regardless of the support. You don't care that there are speculative hypothesis for the big bang event because you already have the truth, even though you have no detailed explanation for that truth.
You're not interested in reality, you're only interested in supporting your beliefs.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but..." So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."
- Vilenkin answered my email and I added some quotes that should make you happy. He clarified that I was overstepping a bit in the article and I adjusted it appropriately.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteYou're not interested in reality, you're only interested in supporting your beliefs.
- I'm interested in truth. While Vilenkin's math does not apparently make a Creator an absolute necessity, it rules out a lot of previous materialist models. Sandage pointed out the need for God in order for there to be cohesive logic:
"If there is no God, nothing makes sense. The atheist's case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise. And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion. If it seems not so, then one's hermeneutics (either the pastor's or the scientist's) must wrong."[9]
R:Vilenkin answered my email and I added some quotes that should make you happy. He clarified that I was overstepping a bit in the article and I adjusted it appropriately.
ReplyDeleteHow many weeks did it take us for you to admit your mistake? If every single point takes so much time for you to acknowledge reason is it really surprising that most people just do not bother with you, Rick?
R:As the standard, past atheist models have been eliminated, it seems to be a bit uncomfortable for materialists.
If you were wrong on one point, are you able to assume you were wrong about other points as well, Rick? Your knowledge on cosmology is worse than mine. Even if I am a complete retard concerning these matters.
These models have not been eliminated as you claim. There is no consensus on the matter among scientists. We also have to add the phenomena of QM into equation, a phenomena we have little understanding of.
On the other hand, Rick. You are just using the "God of the gap" fallacy. We do not understand how the Universe was formed (because of a lack of data), yet it is not an argument for creationism. Unexplained phenomena (like tides) were attributed to God in the past, but we have a natural explanation for those things now.
Adding God to the formula offers no understanding whatsoever on the subject, yet it automatically discards the possibility of a natural phenomena. That is not the way science works. Science investigates the evidence and base its conclusion on them. On the other hand, theists already have all the "answers" and adjust the data to support their old claims, no matter if they are erroneous.
You have the burden of proof, Rick. What have you provided so far to back up your position?
1) A fine-tuned Universe? We have no knowledge of other Universes, we have no basis whatsoever to claim our Universe could have been different nor can we discard the possibility it appeared by chance alone or after a countless combinations.
2) Trying to prove that other theories are false also does not help. You cannot prove your own theory by shooting down alternative ones. If we cannot think of any other explanation, but "God", that is not a proof or evidence of his existence. It is only evidence of our present limitations and ignorance.
Rick: I'm interested in truth.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence of your behaviour undermines that statement Rick.
Rick: While Vilenkin's math does not apparently make a Creator an absolute necessity, it rules out a lot of previous materialist models.
It rules out some classes of models, and even there we should still be cautious of the claims (as Carroll observed, it's a classical theorem, and we need a quantised version, and as Aquire observed, even assuming the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theory, some particles can have worldlines extending infinitels into the past).
Rick: Sandage pointed out the need for God in order for there to be cohesive logic:
No Rick. Sandage offered an opinion. This opinion looks to be absolute rubbish.
Sandage: "If there is no God, nothing makes sense.
An assertion made without evidence.
Sandage: The atheist's case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise.
Another assertion without evidence.
Sandage: And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion.
I completely agree. Unfortunately for both yourself (and possibly Sandage) the God of Christianity does not appear to be true scientifically.
Sandage: If it seems not so, then one's hermeneutics (either the pastor's or the scientist's) must wrong."[9]
I agree, but this statement seems to assume the truth of the claim "God exists", and this is far from obviously correct (and as far as Christianity, and basically any other faith humans have devised, most likely false).
Anonymous: Unexplained phenomena (like tides) were attributed to God in the past, but we have a natural explanation for those things now.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually a very pertinent point to make.
In the past, explanations, when we have found them, have always turned out to be materialistic. The history of scientific investigation is a history of pushing the unknown, the supernatural, Gods, into smaller and smaller gaps. It's like a horse that always wins.
Yet Rick and his ilk would have us place bets against this horse simply because he likes the colours or number of one of the others in the race.
Anonymous: You cannot prove your own theory by shooting down alternative ones.
Actually he could do this by showing that his "God hypothesis" was the only possible explanation, and that an alternative explanation was impossible. This would amount to much the same thing as demonstrating that his God hypothesis was correct, and either way Rick would have to actually produce a detailed "God Hypothesis", something he's not bothered to do (nor have many/any other theists, it seems).
Anonymous: If we cannot think of any other explanation, but "God", that is not a proof or evidence of his existence. It is only evidence of our present limitations and ignorance.
Who would have thought that theistic arguments concerning reality would turn out to be "God of the gaps" arguments. Colour me unsurprised :-)
Rick: Cosmologists such as Allan Sandage end up becoming confessing believers in God simply by being exposed to the details of the fine-tuned universe.
ReplyDeleteThe link you provide to support this claim does no such thing.
There appears to be only a single sentence which addresses this:
During his absence, he became a born-again Christian, reasoning that "I could not live a life full of cynicism. I chose to believe, and a peace of mind came over me."
No indication that it was due to any "fine tuning" of the universe. That sentence makes it sound as if Sandage become a Christian for emotional rather than intellectual reasons.
This seems like just another in a long line of your claims that are not supported, Rick.
Ps. Instead of rewriting history by modifying your original blog post Rick, you should provide a dated "update", so that people can tell what you've modified and why.
ReplyDeleteDoing what you seem to have done makes any comments which address those changes sections seem like they're addressing something you never said.
Havok,
ReplyDelete>The link you provide to support this claim does no such thing.
I added a link to help clarify why Sandage became believer and how the need for an "organizing principle" influenced him:
Allan Sandage noted, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."[7]
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
The organizing principle suggests fine tuning. I remember reading that the precise fine-tuned atomic frequencies of carbon and other atomic elements required for their molecular combinations was a great influence on Sandage.
PS - I generally don't rework articles like this, but I wanted to do justice to Vilenkin's email. If you have made previous comments citing specific quotes in your notes then people will understand what you were referring to. When I make an edit I always add a date to make it clear when the last edit occurred.
Sandage: "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. Sandage gives no reason to think that he is correct. It's an appeal to his emotions, rather than any sort of intellectual argument.
Rick: The organizing principle suggests fine tuning.
What organising principle would that be Rick?
The one which is nothing more than Sandage's opinion?
And what fine-tuning?
The tuning which relies upon more heaping helpings of ignorance and "god of the gaps" claims?
Rick: I remember reading that the precise fine-tuned atomic frequencies of carbon and other atomic elements required for their molecular combinations was a great influence on Sandage.
So what?
This still doesn't seem to be a conversion for intellectual reasons - it seems that Sandage didn't understand something, and so he shoved God into his life. The initial link for Sandage, at "leaderu" seems to reinforce this observation.
Rick: I generally don't rework articles like this, but I wanted to do justice to Vilenkin's email.
ReplyDeleteYou could have done that by adding an addendum, or adding Vilenkin's email in a comment.
Also, I only just noticed that your title for this post is completely false as well - there is no "Creation model". There are vague "God did it" claims, but there is no model which is even remotely on a par with the model of cosmology which you seek to discredit, even while seeming to lack much of any understanding of the field.
"God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
ReplyDeleteThis is gobbldegook.
Sandage seems to be admitting that he knows nothing of "God", but he knows that "God did it".
This is a punt to mystery, plain and simple.
Why not simply state what he is really saying "It is a mystery to me why there is something rather than nothing". It's far more honest, and doesn't invoke things for which there is little to no evidence.
Besides, doesn't the bible teach a young earth? As opposed to the old earth and universe that physics demands?
ReplyDeleteThat, and if one reads genesis, the order of creation doesn't match the order of how the evidence says happened.
This trying to use the "beginning" of the universe as "support" for the "creation model" is stretching things, is it not? All this does is throw the problem back one step: Where did "god" come from then?
Why not just start with nature in the first place since the order of creation that your god is supposed to describe doesn't match reality?
Not to mention the huge billion year gaps that the old-earthers and ID people try to jam into the supposed "days" of creation? Example:
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm
You may want to look at how that guy plays fast and loose with the bible to try to get it to fit science.
Havok,
ReplyDelete>Also, I only just noticed that your title for this post is completely false as well - there is no "Creation model".
- "A common complaint of atheists is that creationists attack standard models of evolution, but provide no viable alternate model. The purpose of this page is to provide just that - a creationary, scientific model for the universe and life within it...."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html
>Sandage...This is a punt to mystery, plain and simple.
- Your fractional quote, Havok, left off an important aspect, the implied need for an organizing principle.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>Besides, doesn't the bible teach a young earth? As opposed to the old earth and universe that physics demands?
- This depends on what period of time you are considering. If you are considering from the time of Adam, yes the Earth could be considered 'young'. The tree rings could have been multiplied per year because the entire earth was a tropical greenhouse according to Genesis before the flood.
The cosmology of the universe could have been 'created with age' in a manner easily explainable with what we know today about the relationship between time, space and matter. Adam was 'created with age' as an adult, not as a newborn. Similarly, the universe could have been created in quickly successive stages - 6 days - with the appearance of great age.
"A common complaint of atheists is that creationists attack standard models of evolution, but provide no viable alternate model. The purpose of this page is to provide just that - a creationary, scientific model for the universe and life within it...."
ReplyDeleteI see there is no reference to anything that would be expected from a cosmological model. No detailed hypothesis, no real empirical content, no predictions.
All it is is an ad-hoc attempt to fit the genesis text in the Christian bible to what scientific investigation has actually shown.
Rick: Your fractional quote, Havok, left off an important aspect, the implied need for an organizing principle.
Sandages need for an organising principle is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity, as you would know if you read my earlier comment:
"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle."
In essence Sandage suffers a failure of imagination. He cannot imagine how order could come from chaos, and so there must be something else. He doesn't prove that order cannot come from chaos (which is false, by the way), nor does he demonstrate that this putative "organising principle" he calls "God" actually exists.
Oh, and from the leaderu link from which you snarfed some earlier comments from Sandage:
"Q. Do recent astronomical discoveries have theological significance?
I would say not, although the discovery of the expansion of the Universe with its consequences concerning the possibility that astronomers have identified the creation event does put astronomical cosmology close to the type of medieval natural theology that attempted to find God by identifying the first cause. Astronomers may have found the first effect, but not, thereby, necessarily the first cause sought by Anselm and Aquinas."
So, in Sandage's opinion, there was no comfort for theology in cosmology. Remember that he was a cosmologist.
So where does Sandage find his evidence of "organising principle"?
"I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function."
He finds it in a field in which he appears to have little to no knowledge - biology. Which is strange because believing biologists seem to put their "evidence for the existence of God" not in biology, but in fields in which they're not familiar (Ken Miller seems to put his "faith" in quantum mechanics. Francis Collins, in moral psychology and behaviour).
Interesting isn't it?
Rick: Your fractional quote, Havok, left off an important aspect, the implied need for an organizing principle.
ReplyDeleteSince Sandage puts God into biology, we should note that Evolutionary Biology demonstrates that Sandage's "organising principle" is not God, but is naturalistic forces.
Rick: The cosmology of the universe could have been 'created with age' in a manner easily explainable with what we know today about the relationship between time, space and matter. Adam was 'created with age' as an adult, not as a newborn. Similarly, the universe could have been created in quickly successive stages - 6 days - with the appearance of great age.
ReplyDeleteMore ad-hoc rationalisation Rick.
You're appealing to the Oomphalos hypothesis, commonly known as "Last Thursdayism".
It's completely unfalsifiable (and therefore completely useless as a theory) and there is absolutely no reason to think that it is actually true.
The cause of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the nature of truth are all scientifically untestable. The fact that prominent theists today more often win debates on these subjects than prominent atheist scientists and philosophers underscores the fact that a biblical explanation has as much merit as a materialist one, if not more so.
DeleteH:The history of scientific investigation is a history of pushing the unknown, the supernatural, Gods, into smaller and smaller gaps. It's like a horse that always wins.
ReplyDeleteThat is partially true. Our knowledge expands, but the number of questions also expands. The God of the gap will not go away for at least a couple of million years.
H:Actually he could do this by showing that his "God hypothesis" was the only possible explanation, and that an alternative explanation was impossible.
The problem would be how would someone prove his explanation is the only possible one? For now it is impossible with the current data
R:The organizing principle suggests fine tuning.
Again you ignore me and most of the posts from your opponents. How can you say that is finely tuned if you have nothing to compare it to?
R:The tree rings could have been multiplied per year because the entire earth was a tropical greenhouse according to Genesis before the flood.
Ehhh... No, They could not. Read about biology. The tree rings are occurring because of season changes.
R:The cause of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the nature of truth are all scientifically untestable
Please, stop trying to escape and answer my question. How does a concept of God help us understand the Universe and all those problems? How is it different from magic?
P.S. Oh! And about the Oomphalos hypothesis. Why would God create all those fossils? To confuse the humans even if he wants us to worship him? Then why did provide all those "miracles" to prove his existence? That does not compute.
ReplyDeleteRick: The cause of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the nature of truth are all scientifically untestable.
ReplyDeleteRick, we've been discussing scientific hypothesis to explain the big bang event, so to state here that this is in principle beyond scientific investigation, is ludicris.
Abiogenesis research is continuing apace, and there seems no reason to think that it cannot in principle provide an explanation (or explanations) for the origin of life from chemistry.
Research from neuroscience is also continuing to shed light on the brain, and again there seems no in principle reason to suspect conscioousness is outside of the purvey of science.
I have no idea what you mean by "the nature of truth". or whether it is an empirical or conceptual claim, but if it is empirical, then again it seems like it could be amenable to scientific investigation.
Rick: The fact that prominent theists today more often win debates on these subjects than prominent atheist scientists and philosophers underscores the fact that a biblical explanation has as much merit as a materialist one, if not more so.
This is rubbish.
First, as has been pointed out to you, confrontational debates are usually more about rhetoric and sophistry than an attempt to find the truth, especially, it seems to me, from the theist side. william Lane Craig is a fantastic deabter, but many of the arguments he uses in debate are either false or not as secure as WLC makes out. It's just that it often takes more time to dismantle a claim than it does to make it (and theists do love to "Gish gallop").
As for a biblical explanation having as much or more merit than a materialistic one - this also seems false. A "materialist" explanation, by which I expect you mean scientific, has the backing of solid methodological principles, which puts any explanatory claims from this process on a firm epistemological footing. Supernatural claims, of which just one small possible subest you are championing, have no such methodological backing, and so any and all claims seem to be built on sand. There seems to be no means of gaining reliable information about reality apart from science (broadly construed as rational intersubjective empiricism), and as such explanations based upon other claimed "ways of knowing", such as the revelation Christians are so fond of, should be treated with suspicion at best, and in general, it seems to me, ignored unless and until they are also supported by a similarly firm methodological foundation.
So not, biblical explanations don't at present even seem to be raised to the level of possible explanation, while the success of "science" indicates that we ought not to discount the possibility of it providing an explanation prematurely.
Anonymous: That is partially true. Our knowledge expands, but the number of questions also expands. The God of the gap will not go away for at least a couple of million years.
ReplyDeleteSince the "God of the gaps" argument is fallacious, I would hope it would go away long before that.
What won't be ruled out entirely is some possible supernatural explanation, or the possibility of some phenomena which is not explainable by science.
Anonymous: The problem would be how would someone prove his explanation is the only possible one? For now it is impossible with the current data
Exactly - it's a task that is more difficult than providing a positive case in favour of your explanation. however, since there doesn't seem to be any possibility of providing a possitive case for theism in this sense, due to theists constantly refining their God concept to avoid any possible means of falsification (and therefore rendering the explanation more and more impotent), it does seem to be the only avenue available for the theist.
Anonymous: Why would God create all those fossils? To confuse the humans even if he wants us to worship him? Then why did provide all those "miracles" to prove his existence? That does not compute.
God is a deceiver, and wants his followers to ignore the actual empirical evidence and follow what appears to all rational scrutiny like a delusional belief system, no different to the thousands of false religions.
Either that or God doesn't exist and Christianity is false :-)
Rick: The cause of the universe...[is] scientifically untestable.
ReplyDeleteA quote from the introduction of "A Universe From Nothing" (Laurence Krauss)
"The purpose of this book is simple. I want to show how modern science, in various guises, can address and is addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing"
Rick, you should be a little more cautious before making such grand pronouncements :-)
H:What won't be ruled out entirely is some possible supernatural explanation, or the possibility of some phenomena which is not explainable by science.
ReplyDeleteI think every phenomena (even the supernatural) has an explanation. However, there is always the possibility that the explanation will not be found. We may just run out of time and go extinct )
H:God is a deceiver, and wants his followers to ignore the actual empirical evidence and follow what appears to all rational scrutiny like a delusional belief system, no different to the thousands of false religions.
Well, God is beyond both human and divine comprehension. See the logic? 8)
Anonymous: I think every phenomena (even the supernatural) has an explanation.
ReplyDeleteNot too sure about that - you seem to be making a statement of ontology rather than epistemology, and denying even the possibility of brute facts.
Anonymous: However, there is always the possibility that the explanation will not be found. We may just run out of time and go extinct
Completely agree.
It could also be that we lack the capacity to actually understand something than, from a putative "God's eye view" does indeed have an explanation.
Anonymous: Well, God is beyond both human and divine comprehension. See the logic? 8)
So God is good, and lying is bad, except that God lies, so lying is good, but only when God does it, because morality is objective and absolute, and so lying is bad regardless of who is lying, except when it's God, so morality isn't absolute and objective, except when it's applied to us when it is, and not when applied to God, though God is perfectly good, except when he's not.
Hmm, this logic is making my head spin :-P
H:Not too sure about that - you seem to be making a statement of ontology rather than epistemology, and denying even the possibility of brute facts.
ReplyDeleteWell, I just take it as an axiom.
H:It could also be that we lack the capacity to actually understand something than, from a putative "God's eye view" does indeed have an explanation.
I do not think that it is a problem. We can always invent some Godly spectacles 8)
And it is not like we will remain the same for eternity. I can even go as far as to claim that the next step in human evolution will be cyborgs. Combining biological and technological assets seems like the most logical conclusion in the future.
H:Hmm, this logic is making my head spin :-P
For that precise reason I never debate Rick in a sober state.
Well Rick, it looks like the others here have dealt with your reply to me, so I've no need to comment further.
ReplyDeleteI will point out that: How do you know that your interpretation of the bible is correct and the young-earthers one is not?
You all read the same "holy book", you both worship and are theoretically able to pray and get guidance from the same "god", so why can't you people get your stories straight?
If you can't get your stories straight then why insist that your contradictory "theories" about the origins of the universe, etc should be taken seriously?
It'd save a lot of time for scientists who would have only one baloney set of beliefs to debunk (from your religion anyway).
As an aside: when you said that:
The fact that prominent theists today more often win debates on these subjects than prominent atheist scientists and philosophers underscores the fact that a biblical explanation has as much merit as a materialist one, if not more so.
Ah, no. Look up Samuel Birley Rowbotham, a flat-earther who actually won all of his debates.
Using your reasoning above, Rick, that means that he was right. In reality, it does not. Debates are more about rhetoric, etc than evidence.
Reynold, our host seems hold the strange (and patently ridiculous) notion that the best method of finding out the truth is confrontational debate, with strict time limits. The fact that sophistry and rhetoric are often more important than being "correct", and the aim is generally to win (at least on the theist side) rather than educate or approach the truth, seems to elude him.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, though. Rick himself does not wish to debate in a "live" format. I guess it is too hard to ignore your opponent in a live debate and run away when cornered. 8)
ReplyDeleteRick, I'm wondering if you can tell me whether it would undermine the "creation model" you hold to if the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem was found to be false?
ReplyDeleteIN SUPPORT OF CREATIONISM:
ReplyDelete"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," - Stephen Hawking, 2012
Point of Creation = Genesis 1
Beginning of Time = 12:00:00 AM (00:00:00)
120000 sec = 33.3333 min
333 sec = 0.0925 hr
Yehoshua HaMeshiach = 925 (jewish)
12:00:00 (hr.min.sec hand at 12.12.12)
121212 sec = (2020.20)* min
20:20:20 (hr.min.sec hand at 8.4.4)
(844)* sec = 14.06666 min
0.1466666 hr = 528 sec
Yehoshua = 528 (hebrew)
(844)* sec = (0.234444)* hr
(23:34)* opposite 1:26
1:26 = 86 sec
God = 86 (hebrew)
(2:34)* opposite 10:26
1026 sec = 17:06
17:06 opposite 7:54
Yehoshua HaMeshiach = 754 (hebrew)
20:20:20
20:00 = (8:00)*
Iesous = 888
Hr.min.sec hand at 8.8.8 = 8:40:40
84040 sec = (23.34444) hr
8:44 opposite (16:16)*
(16)* x (16)* = 256
2.5666 min = 2:34
754 sec = 12:34
1.2344444 hr = 4444 sec
4:00 PM = (16:00)*
12:34 AM = 00:34
34 x 34 = 1156
11.56666 min = 11:34 (PM = 23:34)
(number)* = creation numbers
The math still stands. Creationism is Rational. And so is the Big Bang. Which will stand the test of time? We'll soon see ; )