Stephen Jones wrote:
> >>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"?
Not an infinite series. If the universe is finite, then the
laws of physics will also be finite. By "all the way down",
I meant "as far down as necessary".
> What *are* these other "laws of physics" that are "all the
way down"?
The laws that reconcile relativity with quantum theory. The
laws that unify the gravitational force, strong nuclear
force and electro-weak force.
> "How" can we "KNOW" them.
We can possibly know them approximately by observing,
hypothesising, experimenting, testing and theorising. In
other words - by doing science.
> If we can't, what is
> your objection to the theist's position on allegedly not
> knowing how?
The theist isn't even trying to find out and, what is worse,
is discouraging others from trying to find out by claiming
an "ultimate cause" prematurely and without evidence.
> 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!" ;-)
Absolutely. The difference is that some of us know we don't
know, but are keen to find out. Others think they do know
and don't care to find out otherwise.
> 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.
If! Another idea that can't be tested. Alternatively, God
may be impersonal and, to compensate, we have made a
personal God in our own image. How would you test these
contradictory ideas by reference to observations that anyone
can make or experiments that anyone can do.
> >>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? :-)
"God on steroids", maybe. :-) Sorry, swimming joke!
> >>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?
New Scientist isn't peer-reviewed all that well. It is a
popular science magazine, not a science journal, such as
"Nature". Besides, just because you and I both find this
idea unbelievable, that doesn't mean that it is nonsense.
Because we are amateurs, i.e. not practicing scientists, our
opinions as to the scientific value of scientific research
count for nothing.
> >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)!
Paul wasn't talking about some generic creator; he was
talking about God, either the God of Christianity or the God
of Judaism.
When I referred to Jews, I was referring to adherents of
Judaism. By the time Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans,
he had extended his beliefs beyond Judaism.
The existence of a Creator, while no longer "plain to all
men", is still potentially valid. But *which* Creator?
> 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.
How can you make such a preposterous claim? Some of the
world's major religions hadn't even started when Paul was
around. And I know of no evidence that Paul had any
knowledge or "personal experience" of any religions other
than those practiced around the Mediterranean. I expect that
Paul was totally ignorant of American and Asia/Pacific
religions, for example.
To give Paul his due, he is the most successful religion
originator in history.
> 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.
Those names, however, imply much more than the concept of
Creator. The differences are in the inescapable "much more".
> 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"
I won't argue that the God of the Old Testament is Jehovah.
It is the God of the New Testament - you know, the God with
a divine Son - that is not Jehovah. Ask any practicioner of
Judaism; they'll tell you very plainly that Jehovah has no
divine Son.
> 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".
Allah wasn't complicit in the slaughter of all those
Palestinians that lived in the "Promised Land" before Joshua
and his genocidal horde turned up. But Jehovah was. See -
different gods.
> 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.
It might be the same method of creation in all three cases;
but very different Gods doing the creating.
> 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!
Have you considered the possibility that St Paul was
*wrong*? Or am I asking too much? I am living proof that he
was wrong. The existence of Paul's God isn't plain to me!
> 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".
No argument. I fully accept that he meant his words to apply
to all men. (That's men - not "men". Paul was very much a
product of his time with regard to his patriarchal attitude
toward women.) It is *because* he meant his words to apply
to all men that he got it wrong. Though, in fairness, his
words probably do apply to all people of pre-scientific
times and attitudes, i.e. almost everyone of the 1st century
BCE.
> >>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.
Exactly. But, just like religions, the hypotheses can all be
false.
> >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.
OK. I concede that point. It *is* highly speculative, but
not quite as speculative as Gott's ideas. :-)
> 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.
I am pleased to see theism recognised for what it is - an
hypothesis. This lends a certain perspective to the position
that evolution is "only a theory".
> 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).
This is sufficiently non-anthropomorphic as to be acceptable
- except the bit in parentheses. How is such a universe
measurably different from one that just had the continually
operating laws of physics, but no God?
> 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.
Provisionally, I'll go with "there is no explanation at
all". An untestable "personal explanation" opens the door to
all manner of fantasies.
> 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)
So simple, in fact, that it doesn't even need to be a
person, just an impersonal force or potential. Maybe even a
"deist" God. Anything more is unfettered speculation.
> >>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?
It isn't necessarily wrong, depending on what he means by
"God", but it isn't scientific because there is no way of
testing it. You claim can't be scientifically tested by
comparing it to a Psalm or any other Biblical text. And if
it can't be tested scientifically, how can it be reliably
tested.
> >>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.
Because even "incredibly speculative" theories may lead to
knowledge by inspiring further research. The "God"
hypothesis marks the sufficiency of existing knowledge and
the consequent end of further scientific research.
> 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".
There would be a lot less killing if religions hadn't
invented and continued to support "mutually contradictory
and increasingly fantastic" beliefs for people to kill each
other over.
> 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:
You've been reading too much Kuhn! :-) A scientific
investigation may start just about anywhere. But when it is
time to write the results up for peer review, any theory
must be supported by observations, experiments and/or laws
deriving from those observations and experiments. It must
also not be contradicted by any previously established
observations, experiments or laws, unless the write-up
specifically addresses the inadequacy of the previous work.
> "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)
No argument from me.
> 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?
Hypothesis, yes; theory, maybe - if one is either attempting
to falsify the theory or extend it.
> 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)
I won't argue against the possibility that they saw a "live
Jesus", but a "live Jesus" is not necessarily a "risen
Christ".
> 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)
You are assuming that Peter, the apostle, was the author of
the Second Epistle of Peter. The following quotations from
the 1996 World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia may encourage
you to research this a little further.
"PETER, SAINT ..... No undisputed writings by Peter have
been preserved. Writings by Paul describe Peter as a source
of oral stories about Jesus. The New Testament includes two
essays called Epistles of Peter. The First Epistle, which
urges a group of Christian converts to remain faithful in
times of persecution, may have been written by Peter.
However, the Second Epistle was written by an unknown author
sometime during the 100's.
Contributor: David B. Burrell"
"PETER, EPISTLES OF, are the 21st and 22nd books of the New
Testament. They are letters from the apostle Peter. Most
scholars doubt that Peter actually wrote the letters. They
believe the letters were written in his name by someone
else. The first Epistle was probably written between A.D.
81 and 96 or 98 and 117, during a persecution of the church
by the Roman Empire. The letter's main purpose is to
encourage perseverance in Christian faith despite
suffering. The second Epistle may have been written as late
as A.D. 130 or 140. It is probably the last book of the New
Testament to be composed. Its main purpose is to argue that
Jesus Christ will some day return, despite doubts that had
arisen concerning His Second Coming.
Contributor: Terrance D. Callan"
The following works may assist your research:
Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by
Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. Ed. by Raymond E.
Brown and others. Augsburg, 1973.
Elton, Godfrey E. Simon Peter. Doubleday, 1966.
"Eyewitnesses" - about 100 years after the crucifixion of
Jesus. Probably not!
> 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)
How can Acts be accepted as an authoritative source of what
Paul said. I understand that it was written about 85AD, some
20 or more years after Paul's death.
It should also be noted that the four gospel accounts of the
resurrection, taken together, do not represent a consistent
account free from contradiction.
I also wonder how Jesus' alleged resurrection should not
have escaped Agrippa's notice. It certainly escaped Paul's
notice, prior to his dramatic roadside conversion (mentioned
in Acts, but not by Paul himself in any of his writings -
another reason to doubt the credibility of Acts).
As you might have expected, this unbeliever still finds that
almost all of the beliefs on which Christianity is founded
are incredibly speculative, if not deliberately invented.
--RegardsDerek
-----------------------------------------------------| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au || Melba ACT | derek.mclarnen@telstra.com.au || Australia | | -----------------------------------------------------