Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

Here we go!
The preface begins with Krauss giving his sole purpose for writing the book. Which is, that he is concerned with the position that science cannot answer questions that many philosophers have posed. One of those questions being "Why is there something rather than nothing", or as the german philosopher, Martin Heidegger, put it "Why are there beings at all, and why not rather nothing? That is the question." The concern is more direct then that, of course, aiming at the worldview of theism. And I might even go as far as the christian worldview based on quotes such as, "Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born."

Chapter 1- Oh, how I miss the great minds of physicists!
Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, William Lawrence Bragg, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Plank, and Niels Bohr. These men all participated in one of the greatest times throughout all history within the realm of physics, chemistry, and, of course, the beginning of quantum physics. Where we had meetings discussing theories involving electrons and photons (the form of electromagnetic radiation) within the 1927 Solvay Conference. Where we had Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein combating with each other, engaging in debates over Copenhagen interpretation. And one of the most important figures during that time, was the man who formulated Hubble's Law (who was named Edwin Hubble, just in case you couldn't figure that one out ;)). This chapters main focus was more on the history of physics that brought up two important scientific observations, Hubble's Law and the spin rate of our spiral galaxy (The Milky Way). With these two observations, Krauss begins to form his premise. Now, me and the author can agree with these two scientific observations as a comfortable premise for any theory, but leading to the conclusion that, because the spin rate of our galaxy cannot be explained with what "scientists" have already established as big bang nucleosynthesis, is utterly a cop out. A cop out, of course, to support the big bang theory. Nevertheless, this is the beginning of the authors theory.

Chapter 2- This chapter continues with a little more history, discussing Einstein's calculation that postulated that light bent when space, in the presence of matter, curved due to gravity. Krauss attempts to give a defense toward the amount of dark matter found in superclusters of galaxies with the physicist, Tony Tyson. Tony Tyson, with Einstein's theory on light, created a graph of the supercluster labled CL 0024 (5 billion light years away), which shows the mass/area by thousands of light years. This graph, according to Krauss, not only shows the location and mass of the galaxies within the cluster, but shows what seems to be mass in between the points that represent the obsrevable galaxies we can see within the cluster. The conclusion of this is that dark matter is not only out there, but there is "100 times as much dark matter as visible matter in the universe." Funny enough, Krauss does not go into explaing how Tyson came up with this graph. Any thoughts on Tyson's graph?

Hope to have a interesting and fruitful conversation!

Interesting stuff.

Science is not my area of passion. But keep sharing Chris, i'd love to learn what you get out of this book.

I haven't factually seen dark matter: mostly because it's rather dark. Or as the BBC's Red Dwarf sci-fi show clearly stated:

Holly: Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?

Rimmer: But five of them? . How can you manage to miss five black holes?

Holly: It's always the way, innit? You hang around for three million years in deep space and there hasn't been one, then all of a sudden five turn up at once.

Chris Warns wrote: "Here we go!
The preface begins with Krauss giving his sole purpose for writing the book. Which is, that he is concerned with the position that science cannot answer questions that many philosopher..."

Chris, an interesting thread. But isn't Krauss making a misstep right at the beginning. Is he not promising to tell us why the universe came into being and then goes on to tell us how it came to be?

If I asked an artist "why did you paint that girl in the meadow?" and then he went on to describe about how he began with a blank canvas and used a specific sequence of colors, he would not be answering my question. It seems to me the "why" question has to go back to purpose. Science can perhaps tell me "how." I don't think it can tell me "why" because science is silent on purpose.

Peter is right.

"Why" is a philosophical question not scientific observation.

Peter- Good point!
The funny thing is, is that Krauss will tell you that we live in a universe that has no purpose. This is a truly sad way to look at the world. How, as Christians, can we go about responding to someone with this worldview?
It also makes you wonder, then, how our author even views the statement, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Is it just another method to begin his book in order to excite the ignorant?
That aside tho, it would be unfair to say his theory is invalid based on his professed purpose for writing this book. But it does make you wonder, what is his true purpose?

I bet he screams bloody murder about the goodness of atheism and how their moral stance is superior to ours based on basic human goodness and enlightenment.

And yet he has NO PURPOSE but to live and die - without getting his by an asteroid or Aids.

Again, saying the universe "has" no purpose is making a philosophical assumption. What warrant does he have to do so?

Simon Conway Morris suggests that if we were to rewind the tape of evolution and set it in motion again, it would take a different path yet would converge to the creation of humans again. Humanity is inevitable once set in motion. In this, he sees purpose. I am fascinated enough to order his book.

I wonder if the same can be postulated about the creation of the earth? Was the universe predestined to create a life-giving planet? Does this imply purpose?

Lee that is the ultimate question: Purpose?

I think true nature just gives off chaos, NOT DESIGN.

How many beautiful functioning things come out of explosions?

Since philosophical assumptions underlie all atheistic scientific assumptions, I'm always amazed at how ignorant may scientists et al are of this when they make their arguments. I think one of the most interesting non-Christian reads I've read in the past few years was Sir Karl Popper's piece on what defines what science is from other areas (he grew up in a time when Marx & Freud were considered scientists. Orignally, he also asserted that Darwin's evolutionary arguments weren't scientifically based on his points, but later changed his statement on Darwin, but I'm not sure why.)

It was Popper who first argued the concept that all science is falsifiable BUT, note that many scientists didn't agree with all of Popper's list and have chosen to ignore some interesting ones. Popper also wrote that he didn't mean that science was the only way to find answers, etc.

Most people I read arguing about this concept who bandy the thought that if your premise isn't falsifiable it isn't a valid premise and/or isn't real science have no idea where that concept even arose or who decided it was correct or who decided what other things Popper brought up should be tossed because it didn't fit with what they wanted science to be.

So, back to the point, purpose. I believe purpose is extremely important and atheists have to find convoluted explanations for how the big bang theory aligns itself with the law of entropy.

Karin - I'm not sure what you mean that all science is falsifiable. When making an hypothesis the scientist must phrase it in such a way so that it is testable, usually by experimental statistics. Depending on the rigor of the science, the criterion for upholding or rejecting the hypothesis is then set. For genetics this is 0.95, meaning the numbers in my data set must support the "truth" of the hypothesis 95% of the time (there are always some outliers!) or my hypothesis is baseless as written and no journal article is forthcoming (death to a university scientist). Is this what you mean by falsifiable?

"unicorns don't exist" is falsifiable. Just find one to prove it false.

"unicorns do exist" is not. You can't prove that there isn't one somewhere.

Maybe they're long extinct, Lee. Besides aren't we delving into mythology or fantasy literature rather than science?

Robert- I believe what Karin means, is that you can never proof anything absolutely 100% true, through means of observation or any scientific methodology. If that's the case, then I cannot know, with science ALONE, whether the earth is round or flat. We must start with our worldview. If my worldview declared that everything we see in nature is flat or (somehow) 2 dimensional, then I will lean towards the conclusion that what I'm seeing is an illusion; referring not only to the Earth's shape, but everything I see on the earth. My philosophy will ultimately shape the way I observe evidence I find through scientific means.

This explains why theoretical physicists, like Krauss, believe in the big bang theory. Because if there was no transcendent being present, at the beginning, influencing our natural realm, then it follows that all a theorist must do is rewind the clock to figure out when the big bang started (taking into account Hubble's Law).

Lee- Does a rhinoceros count! lol

Btw, please forgive me, those of whom have been reading this book. I know I did not post a new thread for chapters 3-4, but I will continue again this saturday. I've had a hectic week and didn't have enough time to create the post. I will try to have the thread on chapters 3-4 by saturday night.

Chris - in order to avoid the state of vacillation you and Lee seem to be in, one needs to accept some things as true and forget this 100% business. A supreme creator, Jesus as part God/part Man, miracles, an afterlife: none of these things have ANY provability, yet, as members of this board we accept them as Truth because we regard the Holy Bible as God's (whom we accept on Faith) word and He has THE ONLY moral authority on Truth. To turn right around and say science is fallacious because some assertions which APPEAR to contradict Scripture, but hold up perfectly well in the natural world, is a misuse of logic and highly hypocritical as well.

Robert, I recall you stating with 100% certainty that God exists.

Some of us are incapable of simply choosing to believe whatever we wish. Whether you call it faith or something else, you have made a conscious choice to accept certain unproven items as Truth. Quite dishonest, in my opinion.

One of our members here so badly wants an inerrant Bible that he ignores the contradictions that are right in front of his face. What he believes actually has 0% chance of being true, yet he regards it as Truth. Do you so badly want God to be true (as you describe him) that you likewise ignore the slim odds?

Robert-You misunderstood the whole purpose of my post. First of all, I never said science itself is fallacious. Rather, I would say, that the men who interpret any evidence, through his/her observations, are errant. This is the same with the interpretation of Scripture. Truth may be found in nature with correct interpretive methodology, and this is why we have the scientific method. What I was trying to say, which maybe i just didn't present my position as clear as I should have,is that the presuppositions that we conjure up from our beliefs influence the way we see the world. So, yes, by faith I know that THE God exists, and that He came to earth two thousand years ago as the person of Jesus Christ to die for those of whom that would believe in Him and that by coming to repentance and faith, by the will of the Father, may enter into His eternal kingdom. But without that foundation that THE God exists, the way you view the world will ultimately lead you to a state of despair and hopelessness, unless suppressed by some idol that you create in order to make yourself more comfortable in the world you live. And this we see all the time with cults and world religions. But with the christian foundation we see the world as making sense, and with that we begin to understand that science CAN be done ONLY because our almighty sovereign God truly exists and allows it to be done. Again, without that foundation science cannot make sense and therefore science itself can't prove anything true. All science is is a method to discover how the world works, but it cannot answer why it is working AT ALL. (As both Brent and Peter were pointing out earlier). "For the fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of knowledge;..." Proverbs 2:10

Some words from Galileo as well:

"Nature … is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible."

Chris Warns wrote: "Robert- I believe what Karin means, is that you can never proof anything absolutely 100% true, through means of observation or any scientific methodology. If that's the case, then I cannot know, wi..."

Well, some things can be proved. We can prove that blood flows through veins, for example. Some things cannot be proved 100 percent, such as the origins of the universe or the origins of life.

When it comes to God, we can't prove God by scientific means or to someone else. That said, I know that God has proved Himself to me, but I cannot prove that to anyone, nor do I need to prove that He has proven Himself to me. I can, however, sometimes help people who are interested to find out for themselves.

What I was also saying, is that the entire idea that in order to be a valid scientific theory it must be falsifiable is that that is a man-made concept contrived during the twentieth century and that it doesn't mean that because something is falsifiable it is inherently better or that it necessarily leads one to truth. Also, that people who embrace this either have rejected or never heard one of the other 8 or so points on Popper's list, which basically states that you can't prove a scientific theory correct unless you are trying to prove it wrong but find you can't. Make no mistake, Popper wasn't Christian, but these are the last few of the 7 redone points, and I want to note the last, which is very prevalent in modern theories of evolution & cosmology.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

Lee - well, I'll just rephrase Karin's last post on the certainty of God. To me, it's 100% certain, although not testable and not explicable to anyone else unless they're receptive. I've stated my position clearly and often on a young earth and Biblical inerrancy, which doesn't mean literal. I'm not sure what you're referring to as having "slim chance" - please clarify

Chris - so just by being Christian, the world magically makes perfect sense and no Believer is ever in despair anymore?

Well, Karin, the double helix of genetics was only discovered during the 20th century, but the hypotheses around it are more than merely man-made contrivances. The scientific method is absolute if one wants to get published but the questions are organic and very close to the God I know. Delving deeply into this discipline, I'm left in awe of our Creator and in disdain of most evolutionary claims.

Robert wrote: "I'm not sure what you're referring to as having "slim chance" - please clarify "

No offense was meant (at least not this time, ha), I merely mean that despite the logic games apologists play, the chance that we have an eternal, omni-everything, personal creator who condemned us for eating an apple, revealed himself to the Hebrews, came down and died on a cross to save us from sin, rose from the dead, promised to make everything right, then ignored us for 2,000 years is statistically pretty doggone slim, right? It's a pretty fantastic tale which can only be believed by making a conscious decision to ignore the odds in favor of faith.

Add to that, Lee, that He's going to Rapture me tomorrow and nothing but a pile of clothes will be left and you have a tale ripe for criticism. So carry on, Lee, snort with derision and sniff with elitism. Meanwhile, I'll just embrace this wondrous saga and be grateful I'm an integral part of it.

No derision intended. I merely would like to find people who can objectively evaluate their God-experiences without copping out and playing the "faith" card to avoid searching for the truth. Perhaps we can find the real truth together.

Objectively, if I discarded my Faith and evaluated Religious claims versus atheist claims in a nonpassionate manner, I'd say the arguments fall at a 60/40 ratio for a supreme creator/ruler of some sort.
This does imply an omni-everything supernatural entity and just what He's driving for with humanity isn't clear. Seems we are given just enough brainpower to be truly dangerous. Perhaps even God in all his glory enjoys soap operas! Wonder if He's a Texan and likes Dallas.

OK. Well, here's the thing. Talking again about the book we are reviewing, there are a couple of things I don't understand. If I understand the author correctly, the calculated velocities of surrounding visible matter are contingent upon our viewpoint (the earth, from where we are making our measurements) being assumed as the center of the universe, ostensibly because he claims that it is not possible to prove that it is not. My question is, am I correct in this observation of his argument, or not? If not, I would like to know where else this postulated center, or origin point of the big bang is, relative to us, and I would also like to know who did the calculations and how they were done. These, I have never seen, anywhere, and without them we are dealing with pure mathematical speculation based upon an assumed hypothetical. Where, exactly, is this postulated center of origin? To say that it could have been here, or it could have been there, or maybe waaaay over there only accentuates its basis in the hypothetical.

On the other hand, if we have absolutely no evidence of where this big bang's origin point is, I have but one comment.

Say what?!?!??

Antipodes - there is no evidence as to where the epicenter of the big bang was located. As the universe is still expanding, astrophysics will only ever know a tiny fraction of it. Now, if it turns and collapses upon itself for lack of energy, that's another matter, and we will literally see all hell break loose (for an instant, anyway)!

Robert wrote: "Well, Karin, the double helix of genetics was only discovered during the 20th century, but the hypotheses around it are more than merely man-made contrivances. The scientific method is absolute if ..."

I'm not sure which hypothesis or theory (not quite the same thing) you are referring to. Yes, the double helix contains DNA, which includes our genes which code for proteins. In addition there is mitochondrial DNA. Yes, we know that there are physical traits that are controlled, to various degrees, by those genes. I think that comes, to some degree, under the parts of what you can prove, such as the example I gave that blood is pumped through veins. However, finding a fruit fly developing into a different man-named species of fruit fly is not the same thing as proving that a fruit fly evolved from a more primitive single celled organism. Nor does it explain how something becomes alive.

If God can raise someone from the dead (eg how about Lazarus, dead 4 days, or in the resurrections to come), why limit what He can do because a group of scientists chose to interpret their findings based on the unproved theory of uniformitarianism? If the Big Bang happened, how do you know that and the subsequent events happened in the time frame postulated?

That said, I am not advocating old or young earth, but there are a group of different creation theologies, not just one or two. As for the big bang, that could have happened by God's power even if there wasn't biological evolution. One doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with the other, nor can anyone prove the timeframe. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, which I believe He is, why limit Him by theory?

Proving something in the here and now is a far cry from proving something that may or may not have happened 6000, 10,000, 1,000,000 or billions of years ago. One of the first questions I asked when I was an agnontic (for about 6 years) studying a theory I had fully subscribed to for as long as I remembered (evolution) was what assumptions underlie the theories behind radioactive dating? What is the theory of uniformitarianism? I should add that I was also studying the history of science & taking a methodology class all around the same time. When I chose to reject the theory of evolution it was before I came to Christ & based on the inherent logical fallacies and lack of evidence.

If, and this is an if I don't consider particularly valid at this point in time (prove macro-evolution and I'm willing to reconsider), there was evolution, it was not by chance, which then means that you accept some form of Intelligent Design theory, of which there are a variety of types (eg Christian, agnostic, atheist).

Karin - you'll fit well in this group. We've all mastered the art of talking past others in the discussion and advancing whatever agenda we REALLY had in mind. Out of all the subject matter you've pursued in your lengthy posts, I'm not sure yet which is your pet, but I'm sure it will become abundantly clear soon enough.

Living in the world of "there are no accidents, man" as I choose to do, I 'accidentally' stumbled across this post just hours after it was, well, posted: www.walkingtimes.com/2014/04/21/searc...

I don't believe that one could ask for a more authoritative nor concise a counterbalance for the volume here under review. And with the walkingtimes article being submitted, I feel rather at a loss to comment further on the opinions of A Universe From Nothing.

Ooops!

The link is: www.wakingtimes.com/2014/04/21/search...

Great find, Antipodes. I've been trying to impress upon this board that this was where science was headed, but with little success. Maybe this article will help.

Thank you, Robert.

The article certainly helped to open the eyes of my understanding considerably, and with the bibliography I expect to be kept busy increasing my knowledge for a while to come. Good stuff.

The science points to a participatory design for the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Anything beyond that is outside the realm of science, wandering into less clear metaphysical waters. To me, the bottom line is that there is but one reality, and we are in it. As is God.

It has a bit of the old "if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around, etc." ring to it, but it's much more logical than the multiverse wishful thinking.

I think that with its reliance on statistical probabilities and developed inferences from those results, as well as the symbolic manipulations of other mathematical realms, that much of the then derived physical theory, be it cosmological or quantum, is actually investigating and discovering the nature of mathematics and the human mind, or human consciousness. We have met the enemy and he is us sort of a thing. Our own consciousness is so intertwined with our investigate tools that we are confusing what we are finding with what we are using to find it with.

Robert wrote: "Karin - you'll fit well in this group. We've all mastered the art of talking past others in the discussion and advancing whatever agenda we REALLY had in mind. Out of all the subject matter you've ..."

ROFL. I suppose I did. I started the post off addressing another post & went off on that tangent, didn't I? I don't know if I have a pet thing or not, but rather a few things.

Antipodes wrote: "I think that with its reliance on statistical probabilities and developed inferences from those results, as well as the symbolic manipulations of other mathematical realms, that much of the then de..."

Are you saying something similar to we can't see the forest for the trees, only in this case our discoveries for our tools? Math is fascinating, but much of math is human invention (if you read the history of math it's quite intriguing). I think logic, which is used in at least some math (I don't have a degree in math, so can't speak for higher math that is more like philosophy in some ways, based on what I've heard) uses logic & proofs, is only a tool. Many people assume that if an argument is logical it has merit, but if the assumptions are completely baseless or fallacious, then the best logic in the world won't get you to truth.

@Karin - ALL of math, and logic, are human inventions - products of human consciousness. If you don't think so, go outside and bring me back a 3, would you? They are concepts of the human imagination represented by symbols, (3), also of the human imagination. And yes, I am exactly saying that on the limits of our theoretical understanding of the cosmos and quanta we are indeed, to an unknown degree, mistaking our tools for reality. We are, at times, investigating the effects of our own applied consciousness.

Someday science may catch up to Heraclitus...

"Now if we had followed materialism thus far with clear ideas, when we reached its highest point we would suddenly be seized with a fit of the inextinguishable laughter of the Olympians. As if waking from a dream, we would all at once become aware that its final result—knowledge, which it reached so laboriously, was presupposed as the indispensable condition of its very starting-point, mere matter; and when we imagined that we thought matter, we really thought only the subject that perceives matter; the eye that sees it, the hand that feels it, the understanding that knows it. Thus the tremendous petitio principii reveals itself unexpectedly; for suddenly the last link is seen to be the starting-point, the chain a circle, and the materialist is like Baron Münchausen who, when swimming in water on horseback, drew the horse into the air with his legs, and himself also by his cue." - Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation

One may smirk at science's shortcomings and deadends, but all significant societal breakthroughs and advances in recent years have been in science and technology. Name the last time philosophy or religion contributed anything original or major of lasting value.

I don't think any of us think that science doesn't accomplish remarkable feats. But the purpose of philosophy has never been to send rockets to space. The main issue I see with some scientists is not in their ability to make awesome things happen, like cell phones and airplanes, but in the fact that while they do it they don't see the philosophical assumptions that underly their own beliefs.

I don't think the issue with many scientists like Krauss is science at all - it is materialism, which is a philosophy, though I suspect perhaps they may not even realize this.

And we must keep in mind that not all scientists and engineers are secular humanists either. Both sides of that philosophical divide tend to err on the side of overgeneralization when speaking of the other. Actually, it is kind of ironic, but it would appear as if those who have driven the rational scholasticism bus to the ends of the theoretical trail with the most zeal may end up being responsible for discovering that God is not irrational.

Wheeler is fun. I confess, this pantheistic type of "consciousness" God is the easiest for me to envision.

Robert comment:
" Name the last time philosophy or religion contributed anything original or major of lasting value."

Hopefully you don't include Christian thinking and morality in that lump.

That's 2000 years old, Rod - has been hashed over every which way and hardly qualifies as a recent advance.

Robert comment:
" Name the last time philosophy or religion contributed anything original or major of lasting value."

Rod comment:

"Hopefully you don't include Christian thinking and morality in that lump."

How does one define "major" and "of lasting value" in that sentence, Robert? Are you defining "major" as "not heard of before?" That seems like an error to me.

And why shouldn't I include Christian thinking and morality in the categories, "religion" and "philosophy?" Those are the categories in which discussions of Christian thinking and morality belong.

Need I point out that so long as humanity remains humanity, nothing in the discussion of the major claims of either Christianity or morality could possibly be original? That the only things that will arise in that discussion will be new ways of looking at old issues that are relevant to current affairs?

Rod, I think perhaps you're making too much of your preacher's claim to hate "religion," but to love, instead, "the good news." Whether you want to admit it or not, the proper category for any discussion relating to God is "religion," or perhaps more properly, "theology." That's if categories are actually to mean anything. To pretend otherwise is to try to engage in special pleading for your own position by pretending that words don't mean what they do mean.

And Robert, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. We expect technology to change, and the boundaries of knowledge to expand, so long as we're working on technology and examining the universe. And we expect the problems of humanity to remain pretty much the same over time, so long as humanity remains humanity. That's just the nature of the exercise. The fact that humanity doesn't change quickly, if at all, does not make discussions of morality useless; it just means that a lot of the discussion will be about bringing neophytes up to speed (which is no small thing).