Thoughts on the Book "Return of the God Hypothesis"

Very pertinent is the recent book “Return of the God Hypothesis”, by Stephen C Meyer. It shows how, in view of three facts - the big bang, the fine tuning of the universe so that we can exist, and the existence of life and consciousness, the most plausible explanation is that a personal God is behind it. Note that all three points are complementing each other. I noticed that @DarrelFalk commented on it… I couldn’t look it up. I just learnt today about this forum. Perhaps this book has been sufficiently discussed here. BTW, it’s easier for me to deal with written word than podcasts.


I havent read the book yet, however, i have watched quite a number of Stephen Myers online videos about it. Despite the casim between TEists and YEC, at least we can come together on the idea of intelligent design.

  • I haven’t read the book, but look forward to reading it.
  • Just the little that shows in it’s couple of pages taught me something about scientific materialism. [I’ve seen a little of Lawrence Krauss’ performance, … he’s very funny; wrong, but funny.]

Welcome to the forum @rholub, great to have you here. I wonder if there is a particular part of Meyer’s book or the ideas that he presents that you might like to discuss. If so you can edit your original post to include these points/questions. You might find that draws in a few more people to your thread.

1 Like

Well the title tells me Meyer isn’t writing a book on science. In science a hypothesis has to be testable and falsifiable. Neither would apply to God. Based on the Amazon listing for the book it is yet another ID argument by Meyer. Personally I don’t think using science is the best way to approach understanding God.

1 Like

I’ve never understood how you get to the conclusion that a supernatural deity is the most plausible explanation, especially in cases where we have no positive evidence and know so little about the topic.

1 Like

It says “plausible”, not a proof. As bishop Berkeley pointed out, there is no proof you have consciousness (like I do), you might be just figment of my imagination. Yet it is more plausible to accept that you do have consciousness as I do. What do you mean by “supernatural” anyway? Isn’t it fairly natural that you have consciousness? There is too much fuss about this naturalism (or materialism). There is no proof that everything is just matter and fields. Yet you appear to cling to this hypothesis. Do you think that you have free will? If it is an illusion (that you have free will), was it determined what we write here at t = 0 (big bang)? And what exactly happened at t = 0? If you are going to say “be patient, we will find out (sooner or later)”. Well, they call “promissory triumphalism”, not meant as a compliment.

I didn’t ask for proof. I was asking how you even get to plausible.

The difference is that you have proof that I exist, that I have a brain, and you can directly interact with me.

Deities creating universes.

There is proof that fields and matter exist.

I don’t know if I have free will, and frankly, I don’t care. I subscribe to what I call the “Roller Coaster Philosophy” (of my own making). It says that the roller coaster is a really fun ride, even if it runs along a pre-ordained course. Just enjoy the ride.

We don’t know what happened at t=0. That’s kind of the point. I don’t see how we can go from “I don’t know” to “It’s plausible a deity did it”.

  • Lawrence Krauss’ “something out of nothing” scientific materialism is just so much more plausible than “creatio ex nihilo”.

His schtick is no more credible and I don’t think materialism is in any privileged default position as a conclusion. But I do not think that what is essentially mysterious is resolved either by holding (or consenting to) the wall to wall tenets of any established believe system or by insisting that only science and rationality may weigh in.

  • Scientific American
    • “Is Lawrence Krauss a Physicist, or Just a Bad Philosopher?”
      Physicist Lawrence Krauss, who disparages philosophy, acted like a bad philosopher in a recent debate. Article by John Horgan on November 20, 2015
    • “Is Scientific Materialism “Almost Certainly False”?”
      By John Horgan on January 30, 2013
  • From ChatGPT:
    • Where did life come from?
    • "The question of where life originated is one of the biggest mysteries of science, and researchers are still working to fully understand it. However, there are a number of theories that attempt to explain how life may have arisen.
    • "One of the most widely accepted theories is that life originated through a process called abiogenesis, in which simple organic molecules combined to form more complex ones, eventually leading to the emergence of self-replicating molecules that could be considered the first living things. This process may have occurred in a variety of environments, including deep sea hydrothermal vents, volcanic hot springs, or on the surface of the early Earth.
    • Another theory is that life may have been brought to Earth by comets or meteorites from other parts of the universe, a process known as panspermia. This idea suggests that the building blocks of life could have formed on another planet or moon and then been transported to Earth by a cosmic impact event.
    • “While the origin of life remains a topic of ongoing research and debate, scientists have made significant progress in understanding the chemical and physical conditions that may have contributed to its emergence, and continue to search for evidence to support various theories.”

The best response to Krauss in this area that I have found was in a review of his book online by a fellow scientist and non-believer. He pointed out that Krauss based his argument on the theory that matter can be created in “empty” quantum space, but the Big Bang theory speaks to the Beginning before time and space.

We know that space is expanding with time. It follows that if we go back far enough in time (reverse engineer so to speak,) space and time will both disappear into nothing,

This fits very well with the equation, Energy = mass times the speed of light (space= kilometers x time per second) squared. I understand that 0 times anything always equals 0. Thus, when Time equals 0 in this equation, mass and energy also equal 0. When mass and energy = 0, so does time and space.

The Big Bang theory does not “prove” God created the universe, but it does eliminate all naturalistic answers. To say a singularity arose out of nothing is not an answer, but to say that God created a singularity to put in motion the creation of the universe is, even if we do not agree with it for whatever reason.

The irony is of course that some people who argued against trusting science because they did not accept Darwinism must now argue for the science of Big Bang and some of those who argued for science and Darwinism now must argue against the science of the Big Bang.

This, again, seems pertinent:

@rholub careful there :grin:

@T_aquaticus a brain that has been determined to be incapable of consciously making a decision… or did you find something in that experiment you are now willing to disclose?

Not to be a troll :rofl: but it’s becoming more and more difficult to determine who is real online

1 Like

This solipsist doesn’t. :grin:  

TrollGPT is at the door. :grin:

  • I’m reminded of Bob Dylan’s song “It Ain’t Me, Babe”. Remember the words?
    • Go away from my window
      Leave at your own chosen speed
      I’m not the one you want, babe
      I’m not the one you need.
    • Go lightly from the ledge, babe
      Go lightly on the ground
      I’m not the one you want, babe
      I will only let you down
1 Like

At least it’s less distance for God to have to travel to be omnipresent.

Why are you asking me? You know you’re never going to agree with me nor convince me to accept your leash, and yet you have difficulty moving on.

While you’re waiting for your bus, watch this:

New? Start Here!

  • Psalm 82
    • God presides in the divine assembly; He renders judgment among the gods:
      2 “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?
      3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; uphold the rights of the afflicted and oppressed.
      4 Rescue the weak and needy; save them from the hand of the wicked.
      5 They do not know or understand; they wander in the darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
      6 I have said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’
      7 But like mortals you will die, and like rulers you will fall.”
      8 Arise, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are Your inheritance.
  • Heiser - Divine Council Intro

Screenshot 2023-03-12 at 06-36-55 HeiserDivineCouncilIntro

I thought you were disagreeing with Roger @Relates. You weren’t?