On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:34:25 +1100, Derek McLarnen wrote:
>SJ>It's good to see that a scientific journal is at least admitting that
>>there are "huge problems trying to work out how the Universe got
>>going"!
DM>Why? Has any scientist suggested the problems would be less than huge?
My point was that I was not aware that a scientific journal has
previously admitted that the the "problems trying to work out how the
Universe got going" were "huge". If you are aware of any such
examples, I would be grateful if you could post them to the
Reflector.
>SJ>But by "satisfying...alternatives" they mean satisfying to a
>>materialist- naturalist whole holds the apriori philosophy that
>>"matter is all there is" (materialism) and that "nature is a closed
>>system of cause and effect which cannot be influenced by anything
>>outside it" (naturalism). Accordingly, any "alternatives that are
>>not "satisfying" to one who holds that apriori philosophy (such as
>>creation ex-nihilo by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator) are rejected
>>out-of-hand without even being considered.
DM>Just how much detailed consideration can such a claim be given? Try
>this contrived conversation.
Indeed it is "contrived"!
DM>A: How was the universe created?
>
>B: An omnipotent, omniscient Creator created the universe out of
>nothing.
>
>A: How?
>
>B: We don't know.
Not knowing "how" an "omnipotent, omniscient Creator created the
universe out of nothing", does not invalidate the scientific
nature of the hypothesis that He did. If that were the case then
*all* hypotheses about the ultimate origin of the universe would be
invalidated.
In any event, the the theist can give a "how" - God's word of
command:
"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host
by the breath of his mouth." (Ps 33:6)
DM>A: What do we know about this Creator?
Again, we would not necessarily need to "know" anything "about this
Creator" for it to be a valid scientific explanation that He created
the universe out of nothing. Directed Panspermia is a valid
scientific theory, which holds that life was sent to Earth from a
dying civilisation somewhere in outer space, even though we would
probably never be able to know anything about these `creators'.
DM>B: That this Creator created the Universe out of nothing.
>
>A: How do we know that?
By the Creator visiting this Earth in the form of a man, testifying
to the reliability of the Old Testament (including the Genesis
account that He " created the Universe out of nothing"), and raising
Himself from the dead.
DM>B: The Universe is here, isn't it? How else could it have come into
>existence?
>
>A: How did the Creator come into existence?
A Creator, by definition, does not need to "come into existence",
but a universe does.
DM>B: The Creator didn't "come into existence". The Creator has always
>existed.
>
>A: I see. It's OK for the Creator to have always existed, but not OK for
>the "seed" of the Universe to have always existed.
>
>B: Well ......
Non-theists can claim that "the Universe' has "always existed". But they
must then face the problem of tracing back a chain of cause and effects
ultimately to something uncaused. I would like your explanation of
"how" there could be an uncaused first cause of all subsequent
causes and their effects.
Also, if non-theists claim that "the Universe" has "always existed",
what is their objection to theists' claim that God has always
existed?
Moreover, if the universe has always existed, what becomes of non-theist's
objection that theists allegedly answer "don't know" to the question
"How was the universe created?" Do non-theist know "how" the universe
has always existed?
DB>A: Do we know anything else about the Creator?
>
>B: No. We can't actually say that we KNOW anything else.
If "KNOW" here means in an absolute sense, then we don't know
anything. The Bible itself says that in this life we know only in
part: "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we
shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully,
even as I am fully known." (1Cor 13:12).
But there are hundreds of millions of Christians (myself included)
who claim they know (in a less than absolute sense) a great deal
about the Creator (through reading His word, being indwelt by His
Spirit, fellowshiping with others who are likewise indwelt by His
Spirit, etc), even though they may not "KNOW" (in an absolute sense)
Him.
DB>Many people believe many things about the Creator, but these beliefs
>are frequently incompatible with one another, often mutually exclusive
This would of course only be a problem to Christianity if it held that
all religions are equally valid. But in fact Christianity claims to be
the one true religion, and all other religions are ultimately false
(Psalm 96:5; John 14:6; Acts 4:12). So the fact that other religions
contradict each other is fully to be expected by Christians.
DB>and lack sufficient objective evidence to be testable by scientific
>methodologies.
Scientists can test Christianity any time they like, but they must do
it on the Christian God's terms, not theirs. Ramm writes:
"Christianity is a religion and not a science. In science the principle of
inter-subjectivity or objectivity prevails. What is true for one scientist
must be true for all. But this is not true in religion, for if the pure in
heart see God, then the impure do not, and what is true for the pure is
not true for the impure. God draws near to those who draw near to
Him, and He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him. He is not
known to those who do not draw close to Him or to those who
refuse to seek Him. What is true for some is emphatically not true for
all. In the Gospels a very wealthy young man refused to make the
motions of faith. He was intrigued by Jesus Christ, but when the issue
became sharply one of Christ or his possessions, the tug of his
possessions was the stronger, and sorrowfully he left Jesus Christ. He
wanted religion without the motions of faith. It is not a rash
presumption to believe that many scientists and educated men wish
for peace of mind, relief from a guilty conscience, hope for the life to
come, and the blessedness of faith in God. But they find themselves
caught between their science and their religious hopes, unable to
move. Being possessed of great intellectual riches which manage to
come first in their sentiments, they leave Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus
refused to pursue the rich young man and make other terms, so today
we cannot lessen or cheapen or alter the terms of the gospel for our
men of science. There is no other Saviour than Jesus Christ, and there
is no other means of having Him than by the motions of repentance
and faith. Therefore, if a scientist comes to God he must come in the
same way as any other person comes to God. He must make the
appropriate spiritual motions. He must repent; he must confess his sin
to God; he must believe in Jesus Christ with all his heart." (Ramm
B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1955, p245)
The Bible says that a scientist (as just another man) must have faith
that God exists *before* God will `prove' himself personally to that
scientist: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because
anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he
rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Heb 11:6). What
materialistic- naturalistic science wants Christianity to do is first
admit that it is false before such a science will accept that it is
true!
This Catch-22 is poignantly illustrated by YEC astronomer Larry
Vardiman who continued a correspondence with Carl Sagan, after Sagan
sought Vardiman out at a seminar in San Francisco, shortly before
Sagan died (emphasis mine):
"I exchanged a half dozen letters with Carl Sagan over the next year
and a half. We continued the conversation started there in San
Francisco, and I came to care for him as a friend. Probably the most
poignant interchange was over a statement he had made in his book,
The Pale Blue Dot. After several leading comments about the
unreliability of the Bible, he said in this book: `The evidence so far at
least and from the laws of nature aside, does not require a Designer.
Maybe there is one hiding, maddeningly unwilling to be revealed.'
(Sagan C., "Pale Blue Dot", 1994, p429). I responded in one of my
letters by saying: `Scientists have the greatest opportunity of all
to see the evidence of God's marvelous provision for man in His
creation. Yet, by and large, scientists today tend to be almost
totally blinded to the evidences. Because of the kinship I feel
toward you about the things of science, I request that you reconsider
your relationship to God. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He is
not hiding from you. Rather, He is waiting for you to see Him.'
(Vardiman L., Personal communication to Carl Sagan, 1995) The final
letter I received from Carl Sagan before his death contained the
response: `ASKING GOD TO REVEAL HIMSELF TO ME PRESUPPOSES HIS
EXISTENCE. Plainly, this would be an inconsistent approach for
someone who sees no evidence for such a God.' (Sagan C., Personal
communication to Larry Vardiman, 1995). This response has haunted me
ever since." (Vardiman L., Scientific Naturalism as Science", Impact
No. 293, Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, 1997.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-293.htm)
It isn't that Sagan saw no evidence for God. His Cosmos book is full
of it! Sagan's problem is that he could not humble himself to admit
that it *was* evidence for God (one wonders what evidence Sagan
had in mind). Sagan wanted God to humble Himself by making the
first step towards Sagan, but God wanted Sagan to humble himself to
take the first step towards Him. Guess who won this battle of wills?
DM>A: So there isn't any intrinsic difference between "An omnipotent,
>omniscient Creator created the universe." and "We don't have any
>reliable knowledge as to how the Universe started".
Diasagree. If Christ really did rise from the dead (as all the
historical evidence indicates), then the the first is true and the
second is false.
DM>Do you see the point I am trying to make here? When someone claims, "An
>omnipotent, omniscient Creator created the universe.", do we actually
>KNOW anything more (in a scientific sense) about the creation of the
>Universe after we hear the claim than before it? Of course we don't!
It depends what the qualification "in a scientific sense" means. If
it means in a *materialist-naturalist* "scientific sense" (ie. that
matter is all there is and the universe is a closed system of
material causes and effects which cannot be influenced by anything
`outside' the universe, then of course we don't "KNOW" it. The
premises guarantee the conclusion!
>>GC>Gott and his colleague Li-Xin Li say it's possible that a branch
>>>of spacetime could loop backwards to rejoin the tree trunk. "Such
>>>a thing is possible because Einstein's general theory of
>>>relativity permits closed time-like curves--loops of time," says
>>>Gott...a time loop could have existed before the big bang without
>>>violating any laws of physics.
>SJ>The universe popping into existence last Tuesday, complete with 5
>>billion human beings and an apparent history, does not violate any
>>laws of physics either. In any event, one must first explain where
>>these "laws of physics" came from. Maybe its "laws of physics all
>>the way down", like the turtles in the story that the cosmologists
>>Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe tell:
DM>...while "turtles all the way down" is a bit silly, I would need
>to be convinced that "laws of physics all the way down" is
>unreasonable.
So you think it is not "unreasonable" to have an actually infinite
series of "laws of physics" explaining other "laws of physics" "all
the way down"? What *are* these other "laws of physics" that are
"all the way down"? "How" can we "KNOW" them. If we can't, what is
your objection to the theist's position on allegedly not knowing how?
To paraphrase you: "do we actually KNOW anything more (in a scientific
sense) about these "laws of physics" that explain the current "laws of
physics" after we hear the claim than before it? Of course we don't!" ;-)
DM>I would also suggest that the only significant difference between "laws
>of physics all the way down" and "An omnipotent, omniscient Creator" is
>a large and arguably unnecessary dose of anthropomorphism.
If God is personal and we are made in His image (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1;
9:6), then: 1) there is "An omnipotent, omniscient Creator"; 2. there
are not "laws of physics all the way down"; and 3) "anthropomorphism"
is an appropriate way to think and speak about God.
>>GC>Space would have been in a loop of time, perpetually re-creating
>>itself. If so, the Universe could be viewed as having given birth to
>>itself.
>SJ>This is a prime example of verbal self-deception. Nothing can
>>recreate itself. If something needs to be created it cannot exist.
>>If it already exists, it can't be created. For the space to create
>>itself it must exist and not exist at the same time, which is
>>absurd. Sproul puts it well: "...Self-creation is a logical and
>>rational impossibility...For something to create itself, it must have
>>the ability to be and not be at the same time and in the same
>>relationship. For something to create itself it must be before it is..
>>Nothing anywhere, anytime, can create itself. A being can be self-
>>existent without violating logic, but it cannot be self-created."
>>(Sproul R.C., "Not a Chance", 1994, p12)
DM>If a being can be self-existent, why not the entity that went BANG (as
>in Big Bang)?
No one said that "the entity that went BANG (as in Big Bang)" cannot
be "self-existent". Sproul in the above quote actually says it can.
But this is not what Gott & Li-Xin Li are saying. They are saying
that the universe was not in existence and it created itself! I
wonder if its a hoax. Gott means "God" in German. I wonder what
Li-Xin Li means in Chinese or whatever? :-)
>>GC>Gott says that asking what the first event in the Universe was
>>>becomes meaningless. "Every event in the Universe could have an
>>>event preceding it," he says.
>SJ>It seems to me that if an effect can be its own cause, anything would
>>be possible, and science would be impossible.
DM>I'm inclined to agree with you here. I think that someone has mistaken
>mathematical consistency with potential reality.
Derek!!! We actually ***agree*** on something!!! ;-)
But if this is lierally nonsense, then doesn't it make you pause and
wonder that this could get through the peer reviewerss and editors
of New Scientist?
>SJ>I regard this as yet another desperate attempt to avoid what is
>>plain to all men (Rom 1:19-20, that "In the beginning God created
>>the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1).
DM>It isn't "plain to all men" at all! It isn't plain to Muslims or Jews at
>all.
It was St. Paul who said that the existence of a Creator was "plain to
all men" (Rom 1:19-10). and he *was* a "Jew" (Phl 3:5)!
Furthermore, this same St. Paul, the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom
11:13), knew more from personal experience about the different
religions of mankind, than probably anyone else who has ever lived.
DM>(Don't tell me that God, Allah and Jehovah are the same, because
>they're not. Allah and Jehovah are one-in-one's - God is a three-in-one.
>Allah and Jehovah don't have a son either.)
I *will* tell you that they "are the same" - at the level of Creator.
"God, Allah and Jehovah" are just *names* of the one Creator-God.
The Bible says that "God" and Jehovah are the same God. The simplest
proof is that the two name are joined into a compound "LORD [Heb.
Jehovah] God" over 500 times in the Old Testament, eg. Gn 2:4 "These
are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"
And the muslim name "Allah" is the arabic version of the Hebrew
word for God "El". Muslims accept the Old Testament up to Genesis 22,
so they would no doubt strongly affirm that their "Allah" is the same
as the Jews "God" and "Jehovah".
That Jews, Muslims and Christians disagree with each other about
other aspects of this one God, does not mean that they cannot have a
common belief in the same Creator.
DM>Nor is it plain to Hindus, Buddhists, or the followers of other eastern
>religions.
>
>It is obviously not plain to agnostics and atheists.
Disagree. St Paul was well aware of followers of "eastern religions",
as well as "agnostics and atheists", yet he maintained that the existence
of a Creator was "plain" to them all!
DM>Now for the real stinger - it is not even plain to many modernist or
>post-modernist Christians. Don Cupitt's "After God" is worth a read if
>you want to see how far it is possible to take Christianity once the
>supernatural component has been acknowledged as fictional and what's
>left has been subject to careful historical and literary analysis.
Same answer. It is quite clear that St. Paul means his words to apply
to all "men", without distinction. The Greek word he uses in Rom 1:18 is
"anthropos, which means "a human being", "man".
>>GC>...Yet in our Universe light always travels with us into the future.
>>>The reason, say Gott and Li, has to do with what would happen to
>>>waves that regressed in time in the kind of universe they envisage...
>>>Such a universe could not exist, Gott concludes, because the time
>>>loop would quickly become unstable.
>SJ>What is this saying? Time could run backwards but the only universe
>>that are stable have time running the way we observe it to be
>>running? So must we also add to this hypothesis, auxiliary hypotheses
>>of multimple-universe ensembles and the anthropic principle for good
>>measure?
DM>It isn't good enough, is it? I'm deeply suspicious of any hypothesis
>that relies to any extent on either the weak or strong anthropic
>principle. It appears too much like "effects constraining causes".
More agreement! Stop this Derek, before Reflectorites get the wrong
idea about us!! ;-)
>SJ>If so, the words of physicist-priest John Polkinghorne
>>concerning the many-worlds hyothesis apply here too:
>>
>>"Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not
>>physics but, in the strictest sense, metaphysics.
DM>I don't quite agree.
Whew! That's a relief!! ;-)
DM>The only thing, that separates these hypotheses from metaphysics is
>>mathematical consistency. This doesn't mean that these hypotheses are
>>credible, however. But metaphysics is not even constrained by mathematics.
Even if it was "constrained by mathematics" and had "mathematical
consistency" that would not make them true. Clearly they cannot
all be.
>SJ>There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of
>>universes...these other worlds are unknowable by us. A possible
>>explanation of equal intellectual respectability - and to my mind
>>greater economy and elegance would be that this one world is the
>>way it is because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who
>>purposes that it should be so." (Polkinghorne J., "One World",
1987, p80)
DM>"Will of a Creator"! What objective evidence do we have that the
>creation of the Universe involved an act of will? Is this not just as
>speculative as Gott's ideas.
No. "Gott's ideas" of a self-creating universe are logically
impossible. It is logically possible that there could be a
Creator-created universe. In fact that is the simplest
hypothesis that explains all the facts, and therefore most
likely to be true:
"The hypothesis of theism is that the Universe exists because there is
a God who keeps it in being and that laws of nature operate because
there is a God who brings it about that they do. He brings it about
that the laws of nature operate by sustaining in every object in the
universe its liability to behave in accord with those laws. He keeps the
Universe in being by making the laws such as to conserve the matter
of the Universe, that is, by making it the case at each moment that
what there was before continues to exist. The hypothesis is a
hypothesis that a person brings about these things for some purpose.
He acts directly on the Universe, as we act directly on our brains,
guiding them to move our limbs (but the Universe is not his body-for
he could at any moment destroy it, and act on another universe, or do
without a universe). As we have seen, personal explanation and
scientific explanation are the two ways we have of explaining the
occurrence of phenomena. Since there cannot be a scientific
explanation of the existence of the Universe, either there is a personal
explanation or there is no explanation at all. The hypothesis that there
is a God is the hypothesis of the existence of the simplest kind of
person which there could be." (Swinburne R.G., "The Justification of
Theism", in "Truth: An International, Inter-Disciplinary Journal of
Christian Thought", Vol. 3, 1991.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html)
>>GC>"This whole area of cosmology is incredibly speculative," comments
>>>Astronomer Royal Martin Rees at the University of Cambridge. "But
>>>I think this is a fascinating contribution."
>SJ>It seems these days one can publish anything "incredibly speculative"
>>on the origin of the universe, except the possibility that God might
>>have brought it into being!
DM>You could publish that, too, if only you could tell us HOW? Otherwise,
>it's no more than any 7-year old child at Sunday School could tell me.
I have told you "how". (Hint: read Psalm 33:6). And if the "7-year old child
at Sunday School" tells you that God brought the universe into being
by His word of command, why is that necessarily wrong or
even unscientific?
>>GC>Gott and Li say that they have only begun to explore their idea
>>>and much more work needs to be done....New Scientist, 24 January 1998
>SJ>I can't help thinking that a major reason for ignoring the God
>>hypothesis, is that such "incredibly speculative" theories generate
>>scientific "work", which keeps cosmologists' kids fed and the
>>mortgage paid!
DM>Cheap shot! Many people in the "God" industry have kids to feed and
>mortgages to pay, too. Some of the more visible ones are very
>conspicuous gatherers and consumers of wealth.
I will ignore your red-herring (we have discussed this particular one
many, many times, Derek), since we are discussing why science
prefers any "incredibly speculative" theory rather than consider
that God may have brought the universe into being. It's not a "cheap
shot" at all - it's the plain truth. There wouldn't be "much more work
[that] needs to be done" (New Scientist, 24 January 1998), if science
ceased inventing mutually contradictory and increasingly fantastic
theories about the origin of the universe and accepted "the God
hypothesis".
DM>Also, there are very few (or no) "incredibly speculative" theories -
>there are lots of "incredibly speculative" hypotheses. Few
>non-scientists understand the difference. Remember the sequence that
>underpins scientific methodology: observations/facts -> hypotheses ->
>experiments -> laws -> theories.
That's a myth. Science actually starts with theories *first* and gathers
facts in the light of the theory:
"Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of
theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the
motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human
activity, not a mechanized, robotlike accumulation of objective
information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation."
(Gould S.J., "The Validation of Continental Drift", in "Ever Since
Darwin", 1991 reprint, pp161-162)
Indeed, how would a scientist know what "facts" to make "observations"
of, it he/she did not already have a theory or hypothesis to guide the
selecting of which facts to observe?
DM>And how would you demonstrate to an unbeliever that almost all of the
>beliefs on which Christianity is founded are more than "incredibly
>speculative"?
I would point out to this "unbliever" that in the case of the central
"beliefs on which Christianity is founded", namely the resurrection
of Christ, that the early Christians appealed to facts that they
had personally witnessed. For example, for evidence of Christ's
resurrection, St. Paul refers his readers to more than 500 believers
who witnessed the risen Christ, most of whom were still alive:
"After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at
the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen
asleep." (1Cor 15:6)
St. Peter emphasises that what he was teaching was not speculation
but eyewitness fact:
"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about
the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses
of his majesty." (2Pet 1:16)
St. Paul again, in his trial before King Agrippa, points out that
"it [Christ's resurrection] was not done in a corner", ie. it was
public knowledge, of which the king was familiar:
"The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him.
I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was
not done in a corner." (Acts 26:26)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------