That’s SO dumb.
I know, right?
1 Like
Juan,
I am sur4e you san see right through the holes in Prof. Carroll’s argument. The most obvious one is that he claims that the Big Bang was not the beginning, but the start of General Relativity. Thus he says that while there was no time, space, matter, ant time, before the Big Bang, this is NOT the beginning. Then, what was it?
Carroll has a basic problem here that goes back to one of the basic ideas that theology and science agree on, which is that the universe is finite or limited. If the universe is composed of matter/energy means that it is finite. If it is finite, then it has a beginning. If it is finite and has a beginning, it has an ending.
If the universe is limited, it has a beginning and an ending. It also has a direction or purpose and meaning. If it is not finite, then it is infinite and the universe is STATIC.
Ironically traditionally science and philosophy have agreed that the universe has no beginning and is basically static. It was the Bible that insisted that the universe has a Beginning. Then Creationism says that the universe has been static since the first 6 days of the Creation.
Only was only less than 100 years ago that science has agreed with the Bible and said that indeed the universe has a Beginning. This is clearly true because it has both natural and human history. Evolution is part of that history so it is part of the evidence that God exists.
1 Like
You just hit the jackpot.
Proof I have the books. The only thing that worries me is that a user on Reddit said that he lost his faith after reading them because Stenger “destroyed the cosmology and Fine-Tuning arguments”. Luckily, I have responses to Vic’s arguments.
Good point. There might be something to it though; here’s a summary in one review
2b: If a suitably defined supernatural being (God) existed, there would be evidence detectable by scientific means. But in fact, the universe presents evidence precisely to the contrary, firmly establishing that such a God does not exist. (Stenger, the work reviewed here.)
If that’s accurate, the title could be fair (and maybe even self chosen). Hmm. Even Dawkins has a section in “The God Delusion” titled “Why There Is Almost Certainly No God”. More from the review:
Stenger then sets forth his program:
Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
Look for such evidence with an open mind.
If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist. (p. 43)
I’m seeing the logic of the title better. I’m not sure if I’m interested enough to look up the book though and evaluate his arguments.
The whole thing reminds me of the recent discussion on miracles late in this thread. Might we logically be able to see traces of the miracle’s performance, or does its supernatural source forever blind us to anyscientific knowledge of it?
The sentence “there would be evidence detectable by scientific means … if a supernatural being existed” - - is complete fiddle faddle. It’s a lie. It’s wrong and wrong-headed.
And on such an easy conclusion, I would toss the book right into the trash heap of history.
1 Like
To begin with, a failed hypothesis does not disprove anything in an absolute manner, so that would be the first failing. Scientific conclusions are always tentative, and that includes failed hypotheses. At the same time, people often use “proven” and “disproven” a bit more loosely with an implied “beyond a reasonable doubt” at the end of it.
Dawkin’s approach seems to be a bit more practical. His position is that we can disprove (beyond a reasonable doubt) certain claims about God, but disproving God’s existence is beyond the scientific method.
Stenger should also take the advice of Bertrand Russell: it isn’t the job of skeptics to disprove a claim because the burden of proof lies with those who make the positive claim.
2 Likes
The way I see it, if something exists, then God exists, because God is the Source of all that is. On the other hand if noting exists, then God does not exist for the same reason.
ok, I’ll join this conversation; what is the positive claim wrt this conversation that brings with it a burden of proof?
Sure he could just sit there quietly and take that position (and a cynic might say not have a very interesting book to sell as a result) but it seems he has a different kind of argument to make–certain ways the Judeo-Christian God is said to manifest in our reality should result in detectable signs. I’m speculating that that’s what he’s getting at, but maybe I will look it up to find out some time. I may well not agree with his arguments, but I wouldn’t be so quick to toss the book on the trash–if it is suggested that God can affect our reality in some ways, this idea isn’t without merit. Also, it wouldn’t mean “no god can exist” but “this God which people are suggesting exists can’t possibly exist”, which are two kettles of fish.
1 Like
The claim that God exists.
When we speak of God or gods, and ask if we believe existence of any deity, we are inevitably bringing into our conversation, a “state of mind”. By this, I mean we have concepts and meanings of things that are part of our particular life experiences and outlooks. I understand my remarks are brief, but I am trying to show that instead of putting forward a hypothesis as science purports, we are instead commencing with our own particular state of mind. This may mean the status of ones consciousness, as one’s perception of the outside world, our perception of our own intuition, and the function of our mental processes (our brain). Belief is an important factor in this aspect of personhood.
A re-occurring weakness in arguments from anti-theists is their inability to comprehend their own state of mind, and instead appear to speak for others; this becomes acute when they seem to “own science” and can speak of what science can do and how they may obtain insights into natural phenomena - my question on how atheists can deal with an absence of belief has not as yet received an answer - I suspect (but will readily be corrected) that they do operate within a belief system of their own, but may be reluctant to speak in such terms.
That is not a scientific hypothesis
Did he claim that it was a scientific hypothesis?
1 Like
No one said it’s a scientific hypothesis.
2 Likes
Stenger makes claims regarding science and a hypothesis (that god does or does not exist) - it is customary to talk of science and hypothesis as connected (ie testing a scientific hypothesis that brings with it a burden of proof).
Just to give you another point of view on the arguments of the religiophobes, as I refer to the “new atheists”, I’d recommend to you to watch this video of John Lennox talking about the subject.
science and god
Those who claim to believe something to be true can only have the burden of providing evidence for their belief, as defined in the collins dictionary:
" Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened,",
not proof, as evidence is the basis of a belief. Belief without evidence cannot exist as evidence is required to start a cognitive process. However, they cannot be expected to have proof, as proof unlike evidence is the basis of truth knowledge, not belief. If you require proof to form a belief you are by definition an idiot as you cannot obtain knowledge from something being proven to you. Thus, to expect a believer to deliver proof of what he believes in is intellectual dishonesty - or just lack of intellectual capacity to understand epistemology. If you understand science and the concept of falsifiability, and the limits of experimental evidence being finite, you will be aware that the burden of proof lies with the skeptic who does not belief what is the accepted status quo, as the only proof we can do in science is to falsify an existing theory. Thus as a scientist you would be proud to take on the challenge to prove an existing theory wrong. It is however not helpful to do so by using straw man arguments, such as a concept of prayer that involves our will to be done or demands God to act in an irrational manner. To a God who created an ordered universe the demand to falsify the order he created would render him irrational as to deny his own laws, thus would render him impotent, not omnipotent. To postulate a God that is Santa’s big brother, e.g. a personal God who changes reality according to our wishes expressed in prayer, ideally rubberstamped by the words “and this I ask in the name of Jesus”, is a joke with regards to the God that Jesus taught about. He taught us to pray for his will to be done, e.g. to make us do what God wants us to do, not the other way round. And if people do not understand that to pray in the name of Jesus does not mean to use the phrase as a sign of the sincerity of our wishful thinking, but to pray like he would have prayed, it only shows their intellectual immaturity.
Anyhow, enjoy Lennox and do not worry about Marshall Brain’s materialistic understanding of prayer and healing. Use his GII videos to educate your fellow Christians how to pray and what healing is about. Healing is not to get the body you wish for but to accept the body you have. Otherwise you will always fall short of your wishes and define those with bodily imperfections as not healed. The idea that only a healthy body could harbour a healthy mind considering those failing the materialistic definition of “healthy” unworthy of living still has a horrible ring to it from the 3rd Reich. When God heals amputees he does not grow them new legs but when you see how they put us able bodied to shame you will understand that he gives them wings to overcome adversities that make us falter.
May the Lord bless us to be the occasional piece of wing for those in need, particularly in this Christmas period, that instead of promoting Santa and his reindeers we promote the angels that appeared to those shepherds in the field and that tell others not of elfs and material pleasures for Christmas but of the sombre conditions of the birth of Jesus. A child not born as wished for by men, but because a man and a woman had decided to raise a child not of their own creation. Jesus was born in obedience to the word of God to love thy neighbour like thyself. In a time of being under roman military occupation and in a society were lack of virginity let alone pregnancy was under the death penalty - in case the woman did not kill herself for being pregnant without having an explanation - it does not require excessive fantasy to imagine what it would have meant to be pregnant without presenting the father. Sure it sounds okay to think that those primitive goat herders of the time believed in magic any time because they did not know how biology worked, never having heard of biologos and evolution, so they accepted any magic explanation of becoming pregnant by magic. Happened every day 
Do we think the word of God more powerful for popping a baby in existence without involving a father? Parthenogenesis exists in the animal kingdom - so does that account for a miracle?. Or would it be harder to imagine the involvement of a roman soldier impregnating Mary against her will. Would it be a miracle that the word of God turned flesh in turning an act of hate and oppression into a beacon of love and hope. Which interpretation would make us look at the word of God with more reverence would make God lowering himself further and make us admire Mary and Joseph more as to being blessed by God? The choice is ours, but it will say a lot about our understanding of a God and if it is logically coherent.
Have a peaceful and thoughtful Christmas and rest assured that there will always be some God hypothesis that fail. Science has also come up with a variety of hypotheses about atoms and their structures and just because a lot of them did not stand the test of time did not mean atoms were a failed hypothesis, only that some were inadequate to describe them properly. So just feel amused if someone claims to be a scientist and insists the atom must look like Dalton’s billiard ball or Thomson’s plum pudding and even more if they try to use science to prove that reality has no reason and that this “unreasonable” universe has caused reality to become reasonable, e.g. rationally comprehensible.Without accepting an ultimate reason that transcends reality and has put it under a law they loose any justification to do science, but then they really only believe they do science
I really really liked what you were saying – until you got to this part about “not obtaining knowledge from something being proven”.
I don’t quite understand how you mean that? Care to re-state?
if you have proof of a dead body of A in front of you and that causes you to believe that A is dead you must be a bit daft as you should now know that A is dead. To believe, a compound verb implying to “think and not know a=dead” would require you to have evidence of his death but not proof, as otherwise you would know as a belief is resolved by obtaining knowledge.
Justified belief is still not knowledge with regards to not being proven but by having satisfied your criteria to having amounted sufficient evidence to allow you to trust your believe, e.g. to permit you to take a risk based on your belief.