> 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.
It's only an admission if it reveals previously concealed
information or opinion. In this case, your use of the word
"admitted" is inappropriate. I don't see the need for a
scientific journal to make (or refrain from making)
statements concerning the difficulty in trying to work out
how the Universe got going.
> >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.
Hypotheses don't have a "scientific nature" per se.
Hypotheses can be scientific, philosophical or religious.
Only those hypotheses that survive invalidation attempts
(impossible in this case) and generate confirmed predictions
to be incorporated into laws and/or theories become
"scientific".
> If that were the case then
> *all* hypotheses about the ultimate origin of the universe
> would be
> invalidated.
All hypotheses about the ultimate origin of the universe
*are* invalid. Not because they are definitely wrong -
though some undoubtedly are - but because they have not yet
been validated. By this I mean that they have not set the
terms under which they would be invalidated, and/or they
have not had predictions specific to the hypothesis borne
out.
> 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)
This is the answer of one or two types of theist. But
theists give lots of different answers. Some say the
Christian God, some say Allah, some say Jehovah, etc. It's
not necessary for me to list all of the deities that people
have believed created the universe, is it? Suffice to say
that they are all different.
Also, to prepare you for the remainder of my response, the
fact that you can quote a verse from the Bible in support of
a claim, simply means that the claim has some Biblical
support. It does not, by itself and in the absense of
independent corroborating evidence, authenticate the claim.
> 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.
If we don't "know " anything about the Creator, then it
doesn't rate as much of an explanation, does it? What,
exactly, has been explained? If we didn't know anything
about electricity, then just invoking the word "electricity"
would not tell us much about lightning, would it?
> 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'.
Directed panspermia is not a valid scientific theory - it is
a hypothesis pending validation. It isn't scientific,
because it cannot be falsified. And, if the hypothesis is
ever validated (I'm not confident), then we will be
reasonably confident of at least one thing about the
"creators" - their genetic code.
> 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.
Not observations or evidence, but a story that arose out of
a particular way some people have chosen to interpret a
carefully selected subset of 1st and 2nd century narratives.
> 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".
Not with a great deal of credibility. However, both theists
and non-theists can claim that the pre-conditions for the
Universe have always existed, especially if time started at
the commencement of the Universe. Theists would claim an
anthropomorphic God as a pre-condition of the Universe,
while non-theists would expect a non-anthropomorphic force
or potential of some kind.
> 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.
Cause and effect only have meaning with respect to time,
since causes precede effects in time. Before time commenced
with the commencement of the Universe, there could be no
causes preceding effects.
Neither I, nor anyone else *knows* anything about uncaused
first causes. Some people, "theists", just like to pretend
they do! :-)
> Also, if non-theists claim that "the Universe" has "always
> existed", what is their objection to theists' claim that
> God has always existed?
The main objection is, and always has been, "Which God?" How
does one rationally compare the contradictary claims of
different theists, not to mention deists, animists, etc.
etc.?
The other objection is, "Why a God, why not just a creative
force?" Why the anthropomorphism?
The theists' claim that their gods have always existed is,
perhaps, one of the least controversial claims made by
theists for their various gods.
> 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?
No. Non-theists, like everyone else, don't *know* anything
about how the universe has always existed, or even if it has
always existed. But we won't find out by making up stories
about it! We'll find out by observing, experimenting and
theorising - and constantly subjecting the results of those
observations, experiments and theories to the the most
critical of peer review processes.
> 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.
Very good! However, there is a continuum between absolute
ignorance and absolute certainty. Where a claim lies on this
continuum depends on how much testable evidence can be
massed in support of the claim.
> 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).
The clauses that start with "now" are reasonable opinion;
the clauses that start with "then" and "even" are only
statements of belief. Belief, unsupported by testable
evidence, counts for nothing in determining the validity of
a claim.
> 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.
Yes. And there are tens of millions of Muslims who claim
they know a great deal about the Creator. The problem is
that what they "know" is different to what you "know".
Different enough, that many Christians and Muslims have
thought it worth killing and dying over the differences.
It is probably worth noting at this point that the
Ultra-Darwinians and the Punk Eeks have never resorted to
killing each other in defence of their positions. They are
confident that, sooner or later, the weight of testable
evidence will resolve their differences.
> 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).
Most of the others - Buddhism and Baha'i excepted, I think -
also claim to be "the one true religion". I think the rule
of thumb is that if people kill and die for a religion, then
it is a "one true religion, and all other religions are
ultimately false". Obviously, many proponents of these "one
true religions" are very mistaken or lying. With what
reasonable and unbiased methods would you find out whose
beliefs, if any, are fully consistent with the observed
universe?
> So the fact that other religions
> contradict each other is fully to be expected by
> Christians.
They don't only contradict each other - they contradict
Christianity.
And "the fact that other religions contradict each other is
fully to be expected by" all "one true religions".
You will note, however, that, with the odd exceptions like
Lysenko's attempt to bend science in support of Communism,
science is approximately the same all over the world. There
is a common methodology, along with general agreement as to
what has and has not been confidently established by that
methodology.
When are we likely to see a common theological methodology,
along with general agreement as to what has and has not been
confidently established by that methodology? There is little
hope that we will ever see Christianity or Islam
individually ever reach the degree of global consensus that
science has achieved. What chance that all of the world's
religions will achieve such a common consensus? Indeed, my
impression is that the trend appears to be towards further
fragmentation of religions, while science, since the demise
of Stalin, trends toward ever more common understanding.
Note that I am not talking about a common ethical or moral
system. Rather, I am talking about a commonly agreed
metodology for deciding what events with a religious import
actually happened, what events are fictional myth, and what
religious meaning can be ascribed to those actual and
fictional events. It would also be useful if the methodology
could address how the actual events occurred, but I suspect
that answering "how" questions is firmly in the domain of
scientific, rather than religious, enquiry.
> 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.
Since to test Christianity is to test the very existence of
the Christian God, how can this be done "on the Christian
God's terms", since that would presuppose the existence of
the Christian God, the very thing that is to be tested?
Isn't that dangerously close to circular reasoning?
What if the scientific community had tested the claims of
the proponents of "cold fusion" on the terms of those
proponents? The scientific community would probably still be
wasting resources on that "wild goose chase".
You might also note that the "New Age" practicioners also
demand to have their claims tested "on their own terms".
To test something "on its own terms" is not to test it at
all. Scientific methodology is the only means at our
disposal to test anything. If scientific methodology is
insufficient to test a claim, then that claim is, until we
develop a better methodology, untestable.
> 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.
There is no truth in science - just ideas (hypotheses, laws
and theories) that work better than earlier ideas because,
we suspect, they are closer approximations to reality than
the ideas that preceded them.
> 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.
"Pure in heart" by whose published standards - God's,
Jehovah's, Allah's or Vishnu's? Or one of the many others?
And what does "pure in heart" actually mean? Obviously, by
its usage it is intended to mean more than just "a
biological pump that contains no impurities", but can it
mean any more than this? Or is it just a phrase that we have
grown so used to hearing, that we have forgotten to question
whether it describes anything measurable. Given a number of
hearts (still contained within their conscious bodies), how
would Ramm experimentally determine which were pure and
which were impure? And if he can't make this determination
experimentally, of what real use is the phrase "pure in
heart", except to divide the people so described from their
presumed enemies - the "impure in heart".
> 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.
How might these claims be tested? For which deities are
these claims true, and for which deities are they false? How
can we reliably understand?
> 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)
Very much a Christian view! Whenever someone wants me to buy
something - including religious beliefs which are bought and
sold in capitalist economies every bit as much as other
goods and services - that they cannot support by reference
to testable evidence, they expect me to take their
unsubstantiated claims at face value - to have faith or to
trust them or to suspend disbelief. Sorry, but it doesn't
work that way for me - not for competing brands of washing
powder, and not for religions. Though I suspect that the
people who are firmly convinced that a particular washing
powder is very much better that others in the same price
range are the same people who can be firmly convinced that
one religion can be very much better that others in the same
price range.
> 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).
Yes, that is what the Bible says. But if I saw compelling
reasons to believe what the Bible says (instead of
compelling reasons to disbelieve much of what the Bible
says), we wouldn't be having this particular conversation.
You can't use the Bible to validate particular
characteristics of God, if you use God to validate the
accuracy of the Bible.
> 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!
There is no need for Christianity to admit that it is false
- merely to admit that it is based on opinion,
interpretation and the documentation of biased and fallible
writers. And, having made that admission, to only present
its beliefs to others in the light of that admission.
> 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):
A YEC astronomer! Geocentric or heliocentric? :-)
> "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).
Maddening in a tragically literal sense, given the number of
theocentrists willing to kill and die over their beliefs
about this Designer.
> 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.
There is no doubt that the universal constants, along with
the specific conditions in our tiny little corner of the
Universe are generally favourable to the type of life that
has arisen here. However, this is hardly surprising, since
we *are* here. And, if it were otherwise, we wouldn't be
here.
However, I have yet to see evidence for any particular
provision for humans, or specifically for people of any
particular religious opinion.
> Yet, by and large, scientists today tend to be almost
> totally blinded to the evidences.
I suspect that they are more staggered by the lack of
evidence for preferring one God over the others.
Contradictory religions can't all be right, but they can all
be wrong!
> 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)
I'm not surprised that Sagan's response has haunted
Vardiman. It should haunt every theocentrist, since it very
succinctly displays the fragility of their belief system.
I believe I may have run this argument before. I still await
a satisfactory answer.
Proposition 1. God, as Christians understand Him, knows me
intimately.
Corollary 1. Therefore God knows what it would take for me
to believe that He (specifically the Christian God - not
just a generic universe creator) exists.
Proposition 2. God, as Christians understand Him, wants me
to believe that He exists.
Observation 1. However, God, knowing what it would take to
convince me of his reality, has not convinced me.
Conclusion 1. Therefore, either God does not know me
intimately, in which case He is not God, or
Conclusion 2. God does not want me to believe that He
exists, and I should not believe counter to God's wishes, or
Conclusion 3. God does not care whether I believe or not, so
my unbelief is of no consequence.
> It isn't that Sagan saw no evidence for God. His Cosmos
> book is full
> of it!
He saw no evidence for any particular god, especially not an
anthropomorphic god. Even Paul Davies saw only the vaugest
evidence for a generic god that was in favour of life, but
not specifically human life.
> 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).
What you call "evidence for God" is no more than evidence
for the laws of physics, some of which we still don't
understand. There was no need for Sagan to "humble himself",
though I expect that, like almost everyone who has a
reasonable understanding of the wonder of the universe, he
felt humble anyway. Nothing to do with God, however.
> Sagan wanted God to humble Himself by making the
> first step towards Sagan,
The Bible describes many instances of God making the first
step toward people without necessarily humbling Himself,
doesn't it? Why not to Sagan?
> but God wanted Sagan to humble himself to
> take the first step towards Him.
God told you what he wanted Sagan to do, did He? Christians
are great at telling the rest of us what God wants, yet,
when we ask for testable evidence that this is what God
wants, none is forthcoming.
I could just as easily claim that God has had no dealings
with humanity since we killed His Son, has enjoyed His
revenge of watching us inflict suffering and death upon each
other in His name, but now wants nothing more to do with us
ever, and doesn't care whether we worship Him, curse Him or
ignore Him. I have just as much testable evidence for my
claim as you have for yours. NONE! Your claim and my claim
therefore have the same worth. NOTHING! I know my claims
arose out of a fertile imagination, because it was my
imagination (unless God was communicating with me through my
imagination - hmmmm). How can you test that your claims did
not have their origin in someone else's fertile imagination?
> Guess who won this battle of wills?
Since Sagan died agnostic or atheist, obviously Sagan won.
Also, we have much more evidence that Sagan existed than
that any anthropomorphic god existed or exists. And an
entity that doesn't exist can hardly "win".
> 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.
Firstly, there is the question of whether he was "Christ the
God" or just "Jesus the man". There is no convincing
historical evidence to answer that question, apart from the
fact that every other human-appearing entity has been a
human, not a God. Secondly, even if he did "rise", did he
rise from the dead, or did he rise from the "unconscious and
badly injured"? Again, no convincing historical evidence.
Even the four gospels differ on significant points in their
description of "resurrection" and "post-resurrection "
events.
> 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!
In a similar manner, theistic premises guarantee theistic
conclusions.I would amend you definition of
"*materialist-naturalist* scientific sense" to:
that matter/energy is all that is known to us, observable by
us and measurable by us and the universe appears to be a
closed system of material causes and effects which is not,
to any extent that we can measure, influenced by anything
`outside' the universe.
Alternatively, if matter and/or energy is not "all there
is", show me something else.
If you claim that the universe is not a closed system of
material causes and effects, show me the "opening".
If you claim that the universe can be influenced by
something `outside' the universe, then show me some testable
evidence of this "something" or at least demonstrate its
influence.
<cont'd>
--RegardsDerek
-----------------------------------------------------| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au || Melba ACT | derek.mclarnen@telstra.com.au || Australia | | -----------------------------------------------------