What do you think?
Rate this book
Has Science Found God?: The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe
In the past few years a number of scientists have claimed that there is credible scientific evidence for the existence of God. In 1998 Newsweek went so far as to proclaim on its cover, "Science Finds God." Is this true? Are scientists close to solving the greatest of all mysteries? Physicist Victor J. Stenger delves into this fascinating question from a skeptical point of view in this lucid and engrossing presentation of the key scientific facts.
Stenger critically reviews the attempts of many contemporary theologians and some scientists to resurrect failed natural theologies in new guises. Whether these involve updated arguments from design, "anthropic" coincidences, or modern forms of deism, Stenger clearly shows that nothing in modern science requires supernatural explanation. He offers naturalistic explanations for empirical observations that are frequently given theistic for example, that information in the universe implies an intelligent designer, that a universe with a beginning requires a Creator, and that the elegant laws of physics suggest a transcendent realm. He shows that alleged spiritual, nonmaterial phenomena do not lie beyond the experimental reach of physics.
This thorough and careful consideration of scientific evidence covers much ground yet remains accessible and highly informative to the educated lay reader.
Stenger critically reviews the attempts of many contemporary theologians and some scientists to resurrect failed natural theologies in new guises. Whether these involve updated arguments from design, "anthropic" coincidences, or modern forms of deism, Stenger clearly shows that nothing in modern science requires supernatural explanation. He offers naturalistic explanations for empirical observations that are frequently given theistic for example, that information in the universe implies an intelligent designer, that a universe with a beginning requires a Creator, and that the elegant laws of physics suggest a transcendent realm. He shows that alleged spiritual, nonmaterial phenomena do not lie beyond the experimental reach of physics.
This thorough and careful consideration of scientific evidence covers much ground yet remains accessible and highly informative to the educated lay reader.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2002
11 people are currently reading
634 people want to read
About the author
Victor J. Stenger
31 books216 followersVictor John Stenger was an American particle physicist, outspoken atheist and author, active in philosophy and popular religious skepticism.
He published 13 books for general audiences on physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, atheism, and pseudoscience. He popularized the phrase "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings".
He published 13 books for general audiences on physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, atheism, and pseudoscience. He popularized the phrase "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 22, 2018
WOW! This was CHALLENGING!
Stenger argues against all of the various religious theories supporting creation and intelligent design. He makes a strong case that science has found no evidence for god. What made parts of it challenging was that he goes into lots of mathematical formulas and theories from physics and quantum mechanics on down that were beyond me. I never was good at math . . .
The parts I could understand, which was about 75% of the book, were helpful.
Stenger argues against all of the various religious theories supporting creation and intelligent design. He makes a strong case that science has found no evidence for god. What made parts of it challenging was that he goes into lots of mathematical formulas and theories from physics and quantum mechanics on down that were beyond me. I never was good at math . . .
The parts I could understand, which was about 75% of the book, were helpful.
July 19, 2007
i loved this book. this physicist takes on arguments with creationists, 'intelligent design', esp etc. he shows no case that cannot be explained by natural law. he has a terrific layman's discussion of symmetry and conservation laws.
June 15, 2021
A very fine read, but the maths involved can be difficult, especially the statistical analysis. It will take some time to comprehend, slowing down your reading pace (if you truly want to understand), but in the end, well worth the effort.
July 29, 2016
1) Irish physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin's estimate, arguing that Earth had a much lower age. At that time, the only known sources of energy that account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the larges value, on the order of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than Sun, and this was a factor of ten lower than Darwin's estimate of the age of the Earth. He also calculated that the temperature of Earth is would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life. Even Darwin admitted in his letter: "Thomson's views on the recent age of the world have been for sometime one of my sorest troubles." However, Thomson's calculations were wrong because the nuclear energy hadn't been discovered then yet. Now we know that the age of Earth is about 4.5 billion years.
2) Empirical(experimental or observational data) testability and falsifiability may be regarded as a necessary condition for being labeled science but not sufficient unless you accept astrology, palm reading. Astrology, for example, makes falsifiable predictions that have been falsified. The falsification principle would say astrology is science, just wrong science.
3) In response to queries by theologian Richard Bentley, Newton wrote that he could not explain the particular orientation of planetary orbits of their stability. This left open the possibility that while the elliptical shape of these orbits was determined by the natural laws, other properties were determined by God. In the century after Newton, many scientists and other Enlightenment thinkers became deist, who saw no role for God after the creation. Several of the Funding Fathers of the American nation, notably Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Ethan Allen, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine were deists, and indeed, quite anti-Christian.
4) Some scientists, such as Australian physicist, prolific author, and Templeton Prize-winner Paul Davies,have proposed a revised deism in which God designed the world to operate according to both law and chance(by The Mind of God)
5) Information Theory
I(D)=-log2(p) -> "the measure of information in an event of probability p" defined by William Dembski.
H=sum(i) of [-*p(i)*log2(p(i))] = - -> "the entropy of the set of probabilities p1...pn" defined by Claude Shannon. Because of the base-2 logarithm, the units of H are bits. The angle brackets(<..>) refer to the average of the enclosed quantity, and the fact that H is an average. H is called "Shannon uncertainty".
R=H(before)-H(after) -> The information(R) carried by a message is defined as the decrease in the Shannon uncertainty when the message is transmitted.
If we consider the special case when all the probabilities are equal, then H=-log2(p(i)). To illustrate, Information of a single-character message that can be one of the eight letters(S, T, U...) with equal probability. Before the message is transmitted n=8, p=1/8 and H(before)=-log2(1/8)=3. After message is transmitted we know what the character is, so p=1 and H(after)=-log2(1)=0. Thus R=3-0=3 bits.
Now suppose that the message is a little garbled, so that we know the symbol transmitted is either a U or a V but cannot tell which. Then, after the message is received, p=1/2 and H(after)=-log2(1/2)=1. Thus R=3-1=2 bits.
Dembski's definition of Information, I(D)=-log2(p), is of the same form as the Shannon uncertainty in the special case of equal probabilities. However, the definition is not conventional and it will equal R(information) only for equal probabilities and when the transmission is perfect so that H(after)=0.
Shannon notes that "the form of H will be recognized as the entropy as defined in formulations of statistical mechanics" and states "H is then, for example, the H in Boltzmann's H-theorem". Without minus sign and using the natural logarithm: H(SM)=sum(i) of [p(i)*ln(p(i))]. Shannon also notes that any constant multiplying factor(positive or negative), could have suited his purposes. In the 1890, Ludwing Boltzmann showed that no matter what initial distribution of velocities f the molecules of the gas, the effect of collisions led to a decrease in H(SM) with time until a minimum is reached, at which point the gas is in equilibrium. It's related to entropy S by S=-k*H(SM) where k is Boltzmann's constant. This gave a statistical explanation for the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy of an isolated system will increase or stay constant, that constant being achieved when equilibrium is reached.
The relationship between entropy and Shannon's uncertainty is: S=k*ln(2)*H. They are equal within a constant and have the same sign. So Shannon was justified in calling H the entropy.
6) Conservation of Information
In his book Intelligent Design and in other writings, Dembski claims to prove a principle he calls "the law of conservation of information". In his book The Limits of Science, Peter Medawar described the impossibility of creating new information from closed logical systems. However, unlike Dembski, Medawar did not claim this as a universal principle but instead it applied only to closed systems.
Every time you rub your hands together, you are making entropy because uncertainty is increasing,(the molecular motions in your hands are becoming more irregular) and information is being lost. We can extend this example. It means Dembski's law violates the second law of thermodynamics.
The universe is an isolated system. Thus, it would appear that no gain of conventional information(negative entropy). However, the universe could have begun in complete disorder without violating the second law, and local pockets of order can still form as time progresses. This is made possible by the expansion of the universe, which continually opens room for order to form.
Suppose we have two magnets, one sitting on the top of the other. Because of their mutual attraction, only the two configuration shown, either both north poles up or both south poles up. Say H=1 for north poles up and H=0 for south poles up(H=I(D) in this case). We open the window and a random breeze comes through and knocks the magnets apart. Assume they must always land vertically. Now, because the poles are no longer in contact, the four configurations are possible. H=11 for both north poles up, H=00 for both south poles up, H=10 for first north and second south up, H=01 for first south and second north up. Thus, the information in system has increased by one bit as a result of a chance process.
7) It turns out that for the general class of search algorithms, which contain also evolutionary ones, no universal algorithm can exists that will work for the problems. Certain "no free lunch" theorems have been proven which show the performance of an algorithm when averaged over all cost functions performs no better or worse then any other algorithm, including blind search. Dembski uses this result to show Darwinian mechanism are no better than chance. However, Richard Wein points out that type of search algorithms addressed by no-free-lunch theorems, including evolutionary ones, do not apply to biological evolution.
8) On the basis of certain, sophisticated incompleteness theorems that have been derived in mathematics and computer science, Roger Penrose argued something more then computation is happening in the brain. He also admits that he is a Platonist who regards proven mathematical truths as more real than the concrete objects of our experience.
9) Newton himself conceded that his laws of mechanics and gravity did not account for everything. For example, these laws did not determine the particular orientations of planetary orbits.
10) If G(constant) were different, we could have the same orbital radius, with a different period. This means Kepler's 3rd law(r^3/T^2=constant) would have a different value.
11) CMB was highly uniform, with the same temperature of 2.7 Kelvin being measured in all directions. In the linear big bang scenario, different parts of the sky would have never been in contact and thus unable to reach the equilibrium. On the contrary, in exponential inflation scenario different parts of the sky were easily in contact. Besides, it is cooling as the universe expands.
12) Gravitational field has negative energy because you have to expend energy to separate two objects against their gravitational attraction.
13) If we treat universe as a sphere of radius R, the entropy of the universe increases linearly with R. However, the maximum entropy allowable entropy of the universe increases with the square of R. This allows order to form locally.
Suppose each day you empty your kitchen waste basket into yard. Pretty soon the yard will have no room left for trash. However, if you dig your yard, you can get more room for trash, which means even the number of trash increases, you can keep your kitchen order.
For each visible photon that Earth receives from the Sun, it emits twenty infrared photons back to universe(because of energy conservation). Each photon can be regarded as one bit of entropy, in this process, the Sun loses 1 bit of entropy and Earth loses a net of 19 bits. Thus the Sun becomes more orderly by 1 bit, Earth becomes more orderly by 19 bits, and the rest of universe more disorderly by 20 bits. The local ordering of the Sun and Earth is made possible by the fact that the maximum entropy of the universe is much greater than its actual entropy.
14) When the universe was a sphere 10^-35 meter(Planck length) in diameter, it was indistinguishable from a black hole of the same size. Since a black hole has maximum entropy for an object of its size, it follows that the universe had maximum entropy at this early moment.
15) One can calculate the minimum lifetime of a star by using three parameters: the strength of the electromagnetic force, the mass of proton, and the mass of electron. The relative strength of the gravitational force is reflected in the mass of proton.
Cosmological constant is often referred to as a fudge factor. There is no fundamental basis for taking it's zero, although it is predicted to be zero by a principle called supersymmetry. An exponential expansion of the early universe was seen to follow from Einstein's equations in the absence of energy and matter with the curvature of space given by the cosmological constant.
16) The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
17) None of the basic principles of physics includes a special time direction. For example;
- Chemical process(H2+O -> H2O + Energy => H2O + Energy -> H2 + O)
- The motion of a pendulum
One exception; some very rare elementary particle processes exhibit a small preference one time direction over the other.
Why doesn't a broken glass reassemble, why doesn't a dead man rise? The answer is: all of them is possible. Ludwing Boltzmann proved that an isolated system containing many particles moving randomly, the system will tend to an equilibrium state in which entropy, disorder, of the system maximizes as time moves forward. However, he noted that the direction of time can be regarded as being defined as the direction of increasing entropy. In other words, the arrow of time is just a statistical definition. Although many scientists since Boltzmann have sought to explain the arrow of time in terms of non-statistical principles, none have succeeded in doing so.
18) Einstein's general theory of relativity does not apply when time intervals are smaller than 10^-43 second(Planck time). It also does not apply when space intervals are smaller than 0^-35 meter(Planck length). Uncertainty principle makes it impossible to measure any time interval or distance smaller than Planck units. It implies that no other physical quantity can be measured which means information is loss, which indicates complete uncertainty or maximum entropy.
What happened at t=0? Most of cosmologists think uncaused quantum fluctuations led to inflation of universe. Then, why happened at t=0? First, some people worry about high energy densities in which experiments in LHC in order to understand early moments of the universe may cause the universe to blow up. Second, the expansion occurs under the condition in which the universe is empty of matter or radiation. Gravitational pressure from that matter is holding off the explosion.
If the universe appeared as a quantum fluctuation in a space-time void, it could have happened more than once, which means there could be other universes beside that of ours. Certain principles like conservation of energy, momentum and the laws of relativity can be expected to apply the all universes because they arise from the symmetries of the void.
19) According to Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, and Steven Weinberg quantum fields and space-time metrics are more real than quarks and electrons, which means they are Platonic.
20) Symmetries of the Void(SpaceTime) bring some conservation laws, which also apply to quantum mechanics.
- Conservation of Energy - Symmetry of Time(No special moment)
- Conservation of Momentum - Symmetry of Linear Space(No special position)
- Conservation of Angular Momentum - Symmetry of Angular Space(No special direction)
Force(change of linear momentum) and torque(change of angular momentum) are associated with broken symmetries.
21) Newton's 1st and 3rd laws arise from the conservation of momentum, and 2nd law gives the definition of force, which is change of momentum.
22) A snowflake has less symmetry than a water vapor but more order. Another example is ferromagnets. Magnetic field appears when temperature is lower than the Curie point, however, it disappears when temperature is higher than that. These examples of symmetry breaking phase transitions do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
23) Momentum and energy are, in fact, the Fourier-transformed variables of spatial coordinates of space and time. So they are equivalent.
24) Photons have both inertial and gravitational mass even though they have zero rest mass.
25) Appendix A: The Planck Length
L = c∙t
∆E∙∆t ≥ ℏ/2
∆E ≥ ℏ/(2∙t) ≥ ℏ∙c/(2∙L)
This energy equals the rest energy(mass) of a body.
∆E = m∙c^2
Let L be the radius of a sphere. We cannot determine that it contains less mass than
m = ℏ/(2∙c∙L)
Consider a special case where the potential energy of a spherical body equals half its rest energy
m∙c^2/2 = G∙(m^2)/R
R = 2∙G∙m/c^2
This is called the Schwarzschild radius. Any body of mass m with radius than R is a black hole. Suppose that L = R. Then L = L(PL), where L(PL) is Planck Length.
L(PL) = (ℏ∙G/c^3)^(1/2)
We can see that L(PL) represents the smallest length that can be operationally defined. If we try to measure a smaller distance, the time interval would be smaller, the uncertainty in rest energy(mass) larger, which means the region of space would be experimentally indistinguishable from a black hole. Since nothing can go out from inside of event horizon of black hole, we cannot make smaller measurement of distance.
t(PL) = L(PL)/c = (ℏ∙G/c^5)^(1/2)
m(PL) = ℏ/(c∙L(PL)) = (ℏ∙c/G)^(1/2)
E(PL) = m(PL)∙c^2 = ((ℏ∙c^3)/(4∙G))^(1/2)
This represents the uncertainty in rest energy(mass) within the space of a Planck sphere or within a time interval equal to the Planck time
27) Appendix B: The Lifetimes of Stars
t(s) = ((α^2)/α(G))∙(m(p)/m(e)^2∙ℏ/(m(p)∙c^2)
is the lifetime of the class of stars larger than the Sun that can end their lives as supernovae
α = e^2/(4∙π∙ε(0)∙ℏ∙c)
is the dimensionless strength of electromagnetic force
α(G) = G∙m(p)^2/(ℏ∙c)
is the dimensionless strength of gravitational force
α = (G∙m(p)∙c∙t(s))^(1/2)∙m(e)/ℏ
We can always find a value of α for any value of t(s), equal to or larger than its value in our universe, regardless of the masses of proton and electron.
26) Appendix C: The Entropy of the Expanding Universe
S = k∙ln(number of states)
for N particles
S = k∙ln((number of states)^N)
S = k∙N∙ln(number of states)
S = k∙N∙ln(a not too big number)
S ≈ k∙N
S ≈ N -> k=1
...
Smax(U) = E/ε(min) = E∙λ(max)/(h∙c) = R∙E/(ℏ∙c) = R∙E -> ℏ = c = 1
- ε(min) = h∙c/λ(max) is the minimum energy of the relativistic particles
- λ(max) = is their corresponding maximum wave length
Smax(BH) = M∙c^2/ε(min) = E∙λ(max)/(h∙c) = R∙E/(ℏ∙c) = R∙M -> ℏ = c = 1
...
Smax(BH) = R^2/(2∙L(PL)^2)
Smax(U) = R/(2∙L(PL))
They equal to each other when R = L(PL). Thus, we see that as the universe expands(R becomes greater) Smax(U) increases linearly while Smax(BH) increases quadratically. Although the universe start out wit maximum entropy, its maximum entropy becomes less than its maximum allowable entropy, that of a black hole of the same size.
2) Empirical(experimental or observational data) testability and falsifiability may be regarded as a necessary condition for being labeled science but not sufficient unless you accept astrology, palm reading. Astrology, for example, makes falsifiable predictions that have been falsified. The falsification principle would say astrology is science, just wrong science.
3) In response to queries by theologian Richard Bentley, Newton wrote that he could not explain the particular orientation of planetary orbits of their stability. This left open the possibility that while the elliptical shape of these orbits was determined by the natural laws, other properties were determined by God. In the century after Newton, many scientists and other Enlightenment thinkers became deist, who saw no role for God after the creation. Several of the Funding Fathers of the American nation, notably Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Ethan Allen, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine were deists, and indeed, quite anti-Christian.
4) Some scientists, such as Australian physicist, prolific author, and Templeton Prize-winner Paul Davies,have proposed a revised deism in which God designed the world to operate according to both law and chance(by The Mind of God)
5) Information Theory
I(D)=-log2(p) -> "the measure of information in an event of probability p" defined by William Dembski.
H=sum(i) of [-*p(i)*log2(p(i))] = - -> "the entropy of the set of probabilities p1...pn" defined by Claude Shannon. Because of the base-2 logarithm, the units of H are bits. The angle brackets(<..>) refer to the average of the enclosed quantity, and the fact that H is an average. H is called "Shannon uncertainty".
R=H(before)-H(after) -> The information(R) carried by a message is defined as the decrease in the Shannon uncertainty when the message is transmitted.
If we consider the special case when all the probabilities are equal, then H=-log2(p(i)). To illustrate, Information of a single-character message that can be one of the eight letters(S, T, U...) with equal probability. Before the message is transmitted n=8, p=1/8 and H(before)=-log2(1/8)=3. After message is transmitted we know what the character is, so p=1 and H(after)=-log2(1)=0. Thus R=3-0=3 bits.
Now suppose that the message is a little garbled, so that we know the symbol transmitted is either a U or a V but cannot tell which. Then, after the message is received, p=1/2 and H(after)=-log2(1/2)=1. Thus R=3-1=2 bits.
Dembski's definition of Information, I(D)=-log2(p), is of the same form as the Shannon uncertainty in the special case of equal probabilities. However, the definition is not conventional and it will equal R(information) only for equal probabilities and when the transmission is perfect so that H(after)=0.
Shannon notes that "the form of H will be recognized as the entropy as defined in formulations of statistical mechanics" and states "H is then, for example, the H in Boltzmann's H-theorem". Without minus sign and using the natural logarithm: H(SM)=sum(i) of [p(i)*ln(p(i))]. Shannon also notes that any constant multiplying factor(positive or negative), could have suited his purposes. In the 1890, Ludwing Boltzmann showed that no matter what initial distribution of velocities f the molecules of the gas, the effect of collisions led to a decrease in H(SM) with time until a minimum is reached, at which point the gas is in equilibrium. It's related to entropy S by S=-k*H(SM) where k is Boltzmann's constant. This gave a statistical explanation for the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy of an isolated system will increase or stay constant, that constant being achieved when equilibrium is reached.
The relationship between entropy and Shannon's uncertainty is: S=k*ln(2)*H. They are equal within a constant and have the same sign. So Shannon was justified in calling H the entropy.
6) Conservation of Information
In his book Intelligent Design and in other writings, Dembski claims to prove a principle he calls "the law of conservation of information". In his book The Limits of Science, Peter Medawar described the impossibility of creating new information from closed logical systems. However, unlike Dembski, Medawar did not claim this as a universal principle but instead it applied only to closed systems.
Every time you rub your hands together, you are making entropy because uncertainty is increasing,(the molecular motions in your hands are becoming more irregular) and information is being lost. We can extend this example. It means Dembski's law violates the second law of thermodynamics.
The universe is an isolated system. Thus, it would appear that no gain of conventional information(negative entropy). However, the universe could have begun in complete disorder without violating the second law, and local pockets of order can still form as time progresses. This is made possible by the expansion of the universe, which continually opens room for order to form.
Suppose we have two magnets, one sitting on the top of the other. Because of their mutual attraction, only the two configuration shown, either both north poles up or both south poles up. Say H=1 for north poles up and H=0 for south poles up(H=I(D) in this case). We open the window and a random breeze comes through and knocks the magnets apart. Assume they must always land vertically. Now, because the poles are no longer in contact, the four configurations are possible. H=11 for both north poles up, H=00 for both south poles up, H=10 for first north and second south up, H=01 for first south and second north up. Thus, the information in system has increased by one bit as a result of a chance process.
7) It turns out that for the general class of search algorithms, which contain also evolutionary ones, no universal algorithm can exists that will work for the problems. Certain "no free lunch" theorems have been proven which show the performance of an algorithm when averaged over all cost functions performs no better or worse then any other algorithm, including blind search. Dembski uses this result to show Darwinian mechanism are no better than chance. However, Richard Wein points out that type of search algorithms addressed by no-free-lunch theorems, including evolutionary ones, do not apply to biological evolution.
8) On the basis of certain, sophisticated incompleteness theorems that have been derived in mathematics and computer science, Roger Penrose argued something more then computation is happening in the brain. He also admits that he is a Platonist who regards proven mathematical truths as more real than the concrete objects of our experience.
9) Newton himself conceded that his laws of mechanics and gravity did not account for everything. For example, these laws did not determine the particular orientations of planetary orbits.
10) If G(constant) were different, we could have the same orbital radius, with a different period. This means Kepler's 3rd law(r^3/T^2=constant) would have a different value.
11) CMB was highly uniform, with the same temperature of 2.7 Kelvin being measured in all directions. In the linear big bang scenario, different parts of the sky would have never been in contact and thus unable to reach the equilibrium. On the contrary, in exponential inflation scenario different parts of the sky were easily in contact. Besides, it is cooling as the universe expands.
12) Gravitational field has negative energy because you have to expend energy to separate two objects against their gravitational attraction.
13) If we treat universe as a sphere of radius R, the entropy of the universe increases linearly with R. However, the maximum entropy allowable entropy of the universe increases with the square of R. This allows order to form locally.
Suppose each day you empty your kitchen waste basket into yard. Pretty soon the yard will have no room left for trash. However, if you dig your yard, you can get more room for trash, which means even the number of trash increases, you can keep your kitchen order.
For each visible photon that Earth receives from the Sun, it emits twenty infrared photons back to universe(because of energy conservation). Each photon can be regarded as one bit of entropy, in this process, the Sun loses 1 bit of entropy and Earth loses a net of 19 bits. Thus the Sun becomes more orderly by 1 bit, Earth becomes more orderly by 19 bits, and the rest of universe more disorderly by 20 bits. The local ordering of the Sun and Earth is made possible by the fact that the maximum entropy of the universe is much greater than its actual entropy.
14) When the universe was a sphere 10^-35 meter(Planck length) in diameter, it was indistinguishable from a black hole of the same size. Since a black hole has maximum entropy for an object of its size, it follows that the universe had maximum entropy at this early moment.
15) One can calculate the minimum lifetime of a star by using three parameters: the strength of the electromagnetic force, the mass of proton, and the mass of electron. The relative strength of the gravitational force is reflected in the mass of proton.
Cosmological constant is often referred to as a fudge factor. There is no fundamental basis for taking it's zero, although it is predicted to be zero by a principle called supersymmetry. An exponential expansion of the early universe was seen to follow from Einstein's equations in the absence of energy and matter with the curvature of space given by the cosmological constant.
16) The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
17) None of the basic principles of physics includes a special time direction. For example;
- Chemical process(H2+O -> H2O + Energy => H2O + Energy -> H2 + O)
- The motion of a pendulum
One exception; some very rare elementary particle processes exhibit a small preference one time direction over the other.
Why doesn't a broken glass reassemble, why doesn't a dead man rise? The answer is: all of them is possible. Ludwing Boltzmann proved that an isolated system containing many particles moving randomly, the system will tend to an equilibrium state in which entropy, disorder, of the system maximizes as time moves forward. However, he noted that the direction of time can be regarded as being defined as the direction of increasing entropy. In other words, the arrow of time is just a statistical definition. Although many scientists since Boltzmann have sought to explain the arrow of time in terms of non-statistical principles, none have succeeded in doing so.
18) Einstein's general theory of relativity does not apply when time intervals are smaller than 10^-43 second(Planck time). It also does not apply when space intervals are smaller than 0^-35 meter(Planck length). Uncertainty principle makes it impossible to measure any time interval or distance smaller than Planck units. It implies that no other physical quantity can be measured which means information is loss, which indicates complete uncertainty or maximum entropy.
What happened at t=0? Most of cosmologists think uncaused quantum fluctuations led to inflation of universe. Then, why happened at t=0? First, some people worry about high energy densities in which experiments in LHC in order to understand early moments of the universe may cause the universe to blow up. Second, the expansion occurs under the condition in which the universe is empty of matter or radiation. Gravitational pressure from that matter is holding off the explosion.
If the universe appeared as a quantum fluctuation in a space-time void, it could have happened more than once, which means there could be other universes beside that of ours. Certain principles like conservation of energy, momentum and the laws of relativity can be expected to apply the all universes because they arise from the symmetries of the void.
19) According to Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, and Steven Weinberg quantum fields and space-time metrics are more real than quarks and electrons, which means they are Platonic.
20) Symmetries of the Void(SpaceTime) bring some conservation laws, which also apply to quantum mechanics.
- Conservation of Energy - Symmetry of Time(No special moment)
- Conservation of Momentum - Symmetry of Linear Space(No special position)
- Conservation of Angular Momentum - Symmetry of Angular Space(No special direction)
Force(change of linear momentum) and torque(change of angular momentum) are associated with broken symmetries.
21) Newton's 1st and 3rd laws arise from the conservation of momentum, and 2nd law gives the definition of force, which is change of momentum.
22) A snowflake has less symmetry than a water vapor but more order. Another example is ferromagnets. Magnetic field appears when temperature is lower than the Curie point, however, it disappears when temperature is higher than that. These examples of symmetry breaking phase transitions do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
23) Momentum and energy are, in fact, the Fourier-transformed variables of spatial coordinates of space and time. So they are equivalent.
24) Photons have both inertial and gravitational mass even though they have zero rest mass.
25) Appendix A: The Planck Length
L = c∙t
∆E∙∆t ≥ ℏ/2
∆E ≥ ℏ/(2∙t) ≥ ℏ∙c/(2∙L)
This energy equals the rest energy(mass) of a body.
∆E = m∙c^2
Let L be the radius of a sphere. We cannot determine that it contains less mass than
m = ℏ/(2∙c∙L)
Consider a special case where the potential energy of a spherical body equals half its rest energy
m∙c^2/2 = G∙(m^2)/R
R = 2∙G∙m/c^2
This is called the Schwarzschild radius. Any body of mass m with radius than R is a black hole. Suppose that L = R. Then L = L(PL), where L(PL) is Planck Length.
L(PL) = (ℏ∙G/c^3)^(1/2)
We can see that L(PL) represents the smallest length that can be operationally defined. If we try to measure a smaller distance, the time interval would be smaller, the uncertainty in rest energy(mass) larger, which means the region of space would be experimentally indistinguishable from a black hole. Since nothing can go out from inside of event horizon of black hole, we cannot make smaller measurement of distance.
t(PL) = L(PL)/c = (ℏ∙G/c^5)^(1/2)
m(PL) = ℏ/(c∙L(PL)) = (ℏ∙c/G)^(1/2)
E(PL) = m(PL)∙c^2 = ((ℏ∙c^3)/(4∙G))^(1/2)
This represents the uncertainty in rest energy(mass) within the space of a Planck sphere or within a time interval equal to the Planck time
27) Appendix B: The Lifetimes of Stars
t(s) = ((α^2)/α(G))∙(m(p)/m(e)^2∙ℏ/(m(p)∙c^2)
is the lifetime of the class of stars larger than the Sun that can end their lives as supernovae
α = e^2/(4∙π∙ε(0)∙ℏ∙c)
is the dimensionless strength of electromagnetic force
α(G) = G∙m(p)^2/(ℏ∙c)
is the dimensionless strength of gravitational force
α = (G∙m(p)∙c∙t(s))^(1/2)∙m(e)/ℏ
We can always find a value of α for any value of t(s), equal to or larger than its value in our universe, regardless of the masses of proton and electron.
26) Appendix C: The Entropy of the Expanding Universe
S = k∙ln(number of states)
for N particles
S = k∙ln((number of states)^N)
S = k∙N∙ln(number of states)
S = k∙N∙ln(a not too big number)
S ≈ k∙N
S ≈ N -> k=1
...
Smax(U) = E/ε(min) = E∙λ(max)/(h∙c) = R∙E/(ℏ∙c) = R∙E -> ℏ = c = 1
- ε(min) = h∙c/λ(max) is the minimum energy of the relativistic particles
- λ(max) = is their corresponding maximum wave length
Smax(BH) = M∙c^2/ε(min) = E∙λ(max)/(h∙c) = R∙E/(ℏ∙c) = R∙M -> ℏ = c = 1
...
Smax(BH) = R^2/(2∙L(PL)^2)
Smax(U) = R/(2∙L(PL))
They equal to each other when R = L(PL). Thus, we see that as the universe expands(R becomes greater) Smax(U) increases linearly while Smax(BH) increases quadratically. Although the universe start out wit maximum entropy, its maximum entropy becomes less than its maximum allowable entropy, that of a black hole of the same size.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 2, 2023
Amazone
More combative than illuminating
Occasionally, I get trapped into a conversation that I really hate. The person I am talking to suddenly starts a conversation with someone who isn't even there.
I get to hear all about how bad the missing person is, major excerpts of past and imagined conversations between them, and just what they would tell that missing person if they just had the chance.
The problem of course is one of bias and, usually, a lack of interest.
Reading this book can be a bit like that.
A generally used argumentation tactic is to carefully set up a straw man to represent the opposing view then set about demolishing it.
Stenger never even lets his straw men get up to their knees before blasting away at them.
Perhaps there is an assumption that the reader is supposed to be well versed in the arguments of theists. Stenger is far too concerned with smashing his opponents arguments before he ever sets them up.
He even makes fictional representations of long dead scientists to put words in their mouth to represent the theist and atheist positions.
Finally, he seems to be guilty of the charge he makes of his theist opponents, that they are ignorant of science, when he shows his ignorance of religion.
This book really hits its stride when it stops trying to tell why the theists are wrong and starts to talk about basic physics in the absence of God.
The thought experiment that develops the basic laws of conservation in a formless void was particularly interesting.
But at the end, he drags out long dead hoaxes of seances and ESP as though these have any relevance to modern religion. He wraps up with what can only be described as an atheist manifesto that is more tiring than revealing.
Pull out the interesting nuggets and ignore the rest.
David
November 3, 2022
Believing in reality.
and stop asking for time ZERO.
POSTED BY ME AT AMAZON 2003
Stenger writing is very good, however I am a bit disappointed. Subtitle (The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe) slightly misleads. Yes, book contains very good scientific part (chapter 4,5,6 and 7) devoted to main topic (evolutionary algorithm, natural selection, entropy of information and Universe, quintessence, symmetry, Big Bang, "beginning" of a time and global laws of physics). The most interesting was section devoted to properties of the Void -properties that remain unchanged today, in our full of matter Universe.
I truly enjoyed his innovative explanation of how simplicity, entropy and symmetry are connected. Excellent are mathematical Appendices showing equations of Planck constants, lifetime of stars (to convincingly prove that no fine tuning is required to produce a universe with long-lifetime stars) and entropy of the expanding Universe. Gracefully and using just a few pages, author connected all famous people (from Lucretius who talked about relativity ca. 55 B.C.E. through Hendrick Lorentz, Ernst Mach to Henri Poincare) involved in space research and science.
Remaining sections consist of polemics, demystification and attempts to settle the score with so called "science theists" like Dembski (prime target), Ross, Newberg and several others. Author's statistical argumentation gets sometimes humorous, but at the same time too aggressive, complicated and eventually boring.
and stop asking for time ZERO.
POSTED BY ME AT AMAZON 2003
Stenger writing is very good, however I am a bit disappointed. Subtitle (The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe) slightly misleads. Yes, book contains very good scientific part (chapter 4,5,6 and 7) devoted to main topic (evolutionary algorithm, natural selection, entropy of information and Universe, quintessence, symmetry, Big Bang, "beginning" of a time and global laws of physics). The most interesting was section devoted to properties of the Void -properties that remain unchanged today, in our full of matter Universe.
I truly enjoyed his innovative explanation of how simplicity, entropy and symmetry are connected. Excellent are mathematical Appendices showing equations of Planck constants, lifetime of stars (to convincingly prove that no fine tuning is required to produce a universe with long-lifetime stars) and entropy of the expanding Universe. Gracefully and using just a few pages, author connected all famous people (from Lucretius who talked about relativity ca. 55 B.C.E. through Hendrick Lorentz, Ernst Mach to Henri Poincare) involved in space research and science.
Remaining sections consist of polemics, demystification and attempts to settle the score with so called "science theists" like Dembski (prime target), Ross, Newberg and several others. Author's statistical argumentation gets sometimes humorous, but at the same time too aggressive, complicated and eventually boring.
July 15, 2025
THE SCIENTIFIC SKEPTIC CRITIQUES RECENT ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Victor John Stenger (born 1935) is an American particle physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic; he is also a regular featured science columnist for the Huffington Post. He has written many other books, such as 'God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist,' 'God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion,' 'The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2003 book, "In the present book, I critically examine the attempt to apply 'logos' to seek evidence for the existence of God or, more generically, for a transcendent element to the universe that has significant, observable effects... this book... is an application of science present to the question of the existence of a nonmaterial, divine reality that transcends the world of the senses... As I will attempt to show, the empirical data and theories based on that data are now sufficient to make a scientific judgment: In high probability, a nonmaterial element of the universe exerting powerful control over events does not exist." (Pg. 17-19)
He recapitulates, "In 'Not by Design' ... I attempted to show that no principle of physics was violated by a universe that appears from nothing. Neither the first law of thermodynamics... nor the second law... I tried to explain the basic physics and cosmology for the general reader and described the latest models. In the present book, I will revisit and extensively update these ideas and explore the new territory that has come to light during the recent rapid development of the science-religion dialogue." (Pg. 39)
He recounts the story of "Intelligent Design" theorist William Dembski's removal as director of the Polanyi Center at Baylor University, observing that "the dispute between creationists and scientists is more political than academic, and the battle metaphor used by Dembski was not inappropriate even if it was ill-advised." (Pg. 100-102)
Of Roger Penrose's books ['The Emperor's New Mind,' 'Shadows of the Mind'], he observes, "Penrose claimed to show that the brain was not simply a computer... Penrose argued humanlike 'artificial intelligence' was impossible for any physical system... He says that something more than computation is happening in the brain. Penrose admits that he is a Platonist who regards proved mathematical truths as more real than the concrete objects of our experience." (Pg. 119)
He argues, "As long as the universe keeps expanding... we always have a place to toss out our entropy as we organize ourselves locally. Whether we will always have sufficient energy to do this is another question I will not address here. For now, we have enough... In short, no miracle, no violation of any known principles of physics, need have occurred at the creation. In fact, the data are just what would be expected for a universe that came into being without design or cause." (Pg. 152)
At the end of the book, he says, "I must at least mention the sharp theological differences among the premise keepers, and even greater disputes between them and other Christian thinkers. These various internal schisms are more formidable than any that may separate them from scientists ... [John] Polkinghorne and [Arthur] Peacocke differ substantially in their theologies. Polkinghorne holds on to rather conservative beliefs, such as the Virgin Birth and Resurrection, while Peacocke questions many traditional teachings...What is left of Christianity when it is pruned of virtually every traditional teaching?" (Pg. 315-316)
This is a substantial addition to his first book; those who enjoy this book will enjoy his even more detailed later books.
Victor John Stenger (born 1935) is an American particle physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic; he is also a regular featured science columnist for the Huffington Post. He has written many other books, such as 'God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist,' 'God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion,' 'The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2003 book, "In the present book, I critically examine the attempt to apply 'logos' to seek evidence for the existence of God or, more generically, for a transcendent element to the universe that has significant, observable effects... this book... is an application of science present to the question of the existence of a nonmaterial, divine reality that transcends the world of the senses... As I will attempt to show, the empirical data and theories based on that data are now sufficient to make a scientific judgment: In high probability, a nonmaterial element of the universe exerting powerful control over events does not exist." (Pg. 17-19)
He recapitulates, "In 'Not by Design' ... I attempted to show that no principle of physics was violated by a universe that appears from nothing. Neither the first law of thermodynamics... nor the second law... I tried to explain the basic physics and cosmology for the general reader and described the latest models. In the present book, I will revisit and extensively update these ideas and explore the new territory that has come to light during the recent rapid development of the science-religion dialogue." (Pg. 39)
He recounts the story of "Intelligent Design" theorist William Dembski's removal as director of the Polanyi Center at Baylor University, observing that "the dispute between creationists and scientists is more political than academic, and the battle metaphor used by Dembski was not inappropriate even if it was ill-advised." (Pg. 100-102)
Of Roger Penrose's books ['The Emperor's New Mind,' 'Shadows of the Mind'], he observes, "Penrose claimed to show that the brain was not simply a computer... Penrose argued humanlike 'artificial intelligence' was impossible for any physical system... He says that something more than computation is happening in the brain. Penrose admits that he is a Platonist who regards proved mathematical truths as more real than the concrete objects of our experience." (Pg. 119)
He argues, "As long as the universe keeps expanding... we always have a place to toss out our entropy as we organize ourselves locally. Whether we will always have sufficient energy to do this is another question I will not address here. For now, we have enough... In short, no miracle, no violation of any known principles of physics, need have occurred at the creation. In fact, the data are just what would be expected for a universe that came into being without design or cause." (Pg. 152)
At the end of the book, he says, "I must at least mention the sharp theological differences among the premise keepers, and even greater disputes between them and other Christian thinkers. These various internal schisms are more formidable than any that may separate them from scientists ... [John] Polkinghorne and [Arthur] Peacocke differ substantially in their theologies. Polkinghorne holds on to rather conservative beliefs, such as the Virgin Birth and Resurrection, while Peacocke questions many traditional teachings...What is left of Christianity when it is pruned of virtually every traditional teaching?" (Pg. 315-316)
This is a substantial addition to his first book; those who enjoy this book will enjoy his even more detailed later books.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews