Im a 24 year old Christian from the UK. I Believe and do my best to follow Jesus but over the past year, ive been thinking through my faith. Ive been following this forum for a good while now. Very thankful for it. I want to bring up something from an account that popped up in my instagram feed today. Id noticed it before but i want to bring it up here as It is something that has been bugging me. The below text is in quotation marks, please advise me to delete it if it is inappropriate for here.
HereticalTheology writes:
âYesterday I read a book by Lawrence Krauss @lkrauss1 called âa universe from nothing: why there is something rather than nothingâ and it was just a real joy to hear the scientific and philosophical reasons joined together to tackle this question.
.
The question of why there is something rather than nothing is both deeply scientific and philosophical⌠it really has very little to do with God or theology. This doesnât stop Krauss from taking a couple paragraphs to address his debates with theologians as it was almost certainly necessary to do so (unfortunately) due our highly religious world. Just moving from a post religious mindset and to hear actual critical ideas about the science regarding this question was so refreshing.
Between Krauss and and other scientists like @seanmcarroll who have both spent time dealing with the absurdities of various God theories, it just boggles my mind how people are trapped within the âGod did itâ mentality. The reasoning for this God answer is found in the fringes of modern philosophy only and has to work hard at rejecting dozens of others that are more logically and scientifically sound.
.
If a God did create the universe, and is the first and prime mover, which would make logical sense in a pre-scientific era, then we can conclude God interacts with our physical reality. If this hypothetical God does indeed do this, then itâs actions should also be detectable. We do not see this. Instead, we can only see the point where the Big Bang happened, and there is no reason to think that is where it all begin- itâs just the furthest we can see back as that is also when time began as itâs also connected with space. What happened âbeforeâ that is literally eternity, infinite, and astrophysicists like Krauss and Carroll explain the science of how such a thing can happen.
The only difference between the universe and God is that we know the universe exists.
.
If God can be self-existing then so can the universe. There may very well be a God out there, but there is no real good reason to believe in one. Rather, the falsifiable evidence is telling us a much less mythical tale, though still one thatâs just as beautiful and amazing.â
Can we discuss this? I feel like the foundations of my faith rest on this. This is the most vulnerable I have been about discussing this stuff. Like I said, I can delete this, if it isnt appropriate for here and I can take it to DMs if need be
Correct. But the reverse is equally true. In which caseâŚ
Why shouldnât it boggle my mind how people are trapped within the âNature did itâ mentality. LOL
Or⌠one can acknowledge the fact that this is something about which the objective evidence says NOTHING.
So my position? I defend both theism and atheism as both being rational alternatives. This means I reject all the proofs and arguments for the existence of God as being invalid. And yet I am a theist. BECAUSE the failure of these arguments do not equal an argument that God does not exist. The plain fact of the matter is that I am biased against these arguments because they necessarily point to a God which I do not believe in. Objective evidence only exists because of the space-time mathematical equations of the laws of nature which force things on us. Since God is not a part of this mathematical space-time structure then you would not expect there to be any such evidence.
What you would expect if such a God exists (theist kind rather than the Deist kind) is that the laws of nature are not causally closed. And what do you know⌠they are not. Sure theists have had quite a number of things wrong over the history of mankind. But not always. Theists also have this big âI told you soâ when it comes to the universe having a beginning rather than being steady state. Thus there have been surprises for both points of view.
But I suppose you can say that I am at least part agnostic⌠agnostic with respect to objective knowledge of the existence of God â I donât think that is possible. But I am still a theist⌠about 1.5 on the Dawkins scale.
Hi Josh, and welcome to the forum! Iâm glad youâve found it helpful to read here â itâs nice to have a place where these topics can be discussed and your post fits in just fine. Faith shifts can bring up all kinds of difficult questions so thank you for being willing to share one like this.
I donât have much in the way of answers, but in reading this, the part that I zero in on is this:
If a God did create the universe, and is the first and prime mover, which would make logical sense in a pre-scientific era, then we can conclude God interacts with our physical reality. If this hypothetical God does indeed do this, then itâs actions should also be detectable.
And my question to this idea would be: Why? Why should Godâs interactions with the world be âdetectableâ to us and what would we even classify as âdetectableâ anyway? Only things which would qualify as scientific evidence? Until the reasons behind this assumption are dealt with, Iâd find it difficult to engage more with this idea.
Is it just because we live in a materialistic era and this is the standard that weâve set up for scientific evidence? I think this idea makes God very small, and a God that can be scientifically studied does not seem like much of a God to me.
I believe in and experience all kinds of things on a daily basis that are not âscientifically detectable.â So the idea that only those things that fall into that category are reasonable to believe in just doesnât make sense to me. I think this is going beyond the limits that science should have.
I havenât read Kraussâs book but have read several reviews of it. I understand that it is problematic because he defines ânothingâ differently than most physicists define it, so when he claims that science can explain how universe(s) pop in and out of existence from ânothingâ heâs not really understanding the fundamental question âwhy is there something rather than nothingâ! FYI, hereâs an article that goes into some of the debate:
Absolutely we can discuss this, Josh! It is very appropriate here. (And even though youâve been lurking a while ⌠welcome to the discussion, where you belong!)
Iâm just going to give one brief reaction here for now - I wonât pretend itâs adequate, and hopefully others will provide more discussion yet. But one thing Krauss & Co. seem to do a lot is react against the crowd who they see as âHere is a gap in my knowledge ⌠therefore ⌠Goddidit!â by giving a mirrored result (sharing completely in the presumed philosophy), and saying âHere is our knowledge of how this works ⌠therefore ⌠no God!â It would be sort of like me suddenly getting disturbed in my mathematics classroom if I realized I had just solved a problem on the board, and didnât invoke God anywhere in the process - so I then leap to the conclusion that God is unnecessary. Of course this is all easily answered - the aggressively atheistic conclusions as well as the naively caricatured theism.
I hope you donât mind if I bring up your post over in our âApologeticsâ thread, because the struggle you describe is very pertinent to what weâve been discussing over there too.
Ha. Yeah, some people may not be interested in the ultimate âwhyâ questions to begin with, and maybe donât know how to properly frame them.
In this case, I think Lawrence sets up his (philosophically naive) New Atheist audience to think that heâs really answering the age-old question that philosophers and theologians have pondered for centuries (why is there something rather than nothing). But then he does a bait-and-switch by altering definitions of ânothingâ and claiming to answer something that he really didnât. Like man! Philosophy and theology are useless because science had the answer all alongâŚ
I have particularly enjoyed reading your posts Mitchell! Very, Very unique beliefs you have.
If you donât mind, my initial thoughts on your reasons. Underdevloped as Im not formally trained in the Sciences, or Theology/Philosophy for that matter:
Is this a way of saying, somehow, that science cant answer everything?
Is Exisitentialism usually agnostic or Indifferent to God? I always thought it was
Quantum Physics is intriguing. The account that I copy and pasted from in my original post has discussed Quantum Physics before but summed it up as âNot knowing what hell is going onâ which to me, does not rule out a God belief wholesale at the very least
Ah Mysticism. It seems to be making a slow comeback amongst deconstructing Christians. Methinks Church leaders are afraid because it involves not knowing or being certain of everything!
In Our Polarised world, some might view this as quaint?
I donât know how long youâve been âhoveringâ or âlurkingâ, or how thoroughly you browse, but objective evidence has been discussed before. There is good evidence for Godâs existence, but it does require epistemic humility before him and a childlike willingness to connect the dots:
I found that really interesting. Really turns the question on it head as there seems to be a sleight of hand in it where the objector is assuming ânature did itâ is the axiomatic posture to take for the origin of the universe or why there is something rather than nothing.
Hi Laura, thanks for the warm welcome. Ive had many tabs open on my computer for this forum (donât worry, I get out too haha)
I suppose it would be difficult to engage further with people who donât particularly seem interested in the âwhyâ regarding any sort of philosophical question. Unless in this case, they have far too high a view of humanity despite our shortcomings? As if we deserve to be able to detect Godâs interactions?
Yes, a small God doesnât much appeal to me either
Haha, your last paragraph. Ina comments section of another post from that Instagram account, there was a back and forth spew regarding things being falsifiable. Needless to say, it went nowhere!
Oh - it doesnât need to be moved anywhere other than where you put it right here. I was just wanting to give you a heads-up in case I want to mention some of your discussion elsewhere so that you donât feel like weâre talking behind your back.
As in - there has been no credibe challenge given - so there really isnât even anything to answer. So Krauss doesnât believe in any Zeus-like deity (only a bigger model - one that presumably is good for popping the universe into existence) who is also then running around and occassionally âinterfering in creationâ to do some miracles or supernatural mischief. Very well. Many (most?) of us believers around here donât believe in a god like that either. So kudos to Krauss for stepping away from that. Meanwhile, the God we do believe in (also a Creator and Sustainer of everything - including the cosmos and its intelligible processes that we can even study) is not just another âbeingâ to be discovered or proven. God is the ground of all existence itself in a classical Christian view. So there is no science or scientific discovery which will touch on that belief any more than I would expect a mathematical formula to suddenly reveal a miracle to me.
So my answer to Krauss would be congratulations. We agree on this! - that is, until you start presuming that all God-belief must be irrational because you insist that all god-belief must be on your terms. Which it isnât. And in fact may not even be about that at all (which is part of where weâre going in the Penner Apologetics thread.
Thatâs the same kind of direction my train of thought tends to go with that⌠basically placing ourselves and what we are capable of âdetectingâ as the be all, end all of the universe. Kind of implying that if we canât scientifically detect something itâs not even worth believing.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
16
It doesnât get more courageous than this of you Josh. For me Leibnizâ question is only scientifically approachable; with the philosophy of science and rationality extrapolated from it. Terribly cognitively biased of me Iâm sure. Eternal nature is the brute fact. I can think of none more brutal. Encapsulating it in God without warrant explains, adds nothing at all at infinite cost. The universe is utterly mediocre, insignificant, infinitesimal. I canât think of anything philosophy can say any more than religion can. Apart from to doubt everything including doubt. In a sense theyâre right, existence is absurd. Kierkegaard.
Desire alone is not sufficient warrant. The only possible, positable warrant is Jesus. This is what Kierkegaard realised I misunderstand Iâm sure. Welcome to fideism shorn of natural theology. Faith is not reasonable. I still hanker for it. Want to live as if transcendence is real, like my patron saint, Puddleglum - itâs easier to believe in God than in a meaningful afterlife; I can see that life is better with God for most people. And I can argue for a best case God to be better with.
Welcome. I think I still qualify as a non and there are others here as I guess you know who are entirely comfortable with the atheist monicker. I feel the agnostic label is a better fit but if pressed as to whether I think a being exists who created everything and guiding it along a path with a purpose Iâll freely admit I do not. But I realize the God-does-NOT-exist position is on the same shaky ground as those who think God exist precisely as they envision Him and has exactly the qualities and agenda that they imaging Him as having. As a result Iâve taken to talking about that which has given rise to and still supports God belief rather than God Himself, because that at least I do think is real, important and dynamic. While I am not a card carrying member of the club, I am a regular here and enjoy the company of thoughtfulChristians who are good neighbors.
Merv mentioned the End of Apologetics thread that is going on now. At 24 I imagine you are a busy guy but if youâre interested your participation in that thread would be a plus.
This is just a phenomenally bad argument. By this logic, if J. K. Rowling created the world of the Harry Potter novels, then the characters in those novels should be able to detect her interactions with their physical reality. Because they donât see any evidence of a novelist, Rowling must not exist.
