Thoughts on the Book "Return of the God Hypothesis"

[Terry_Sampson]

• I was, but now that you mention it, it’s for you too.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Terry_Sampson

I’m not the one you want, babe
I will only let you down

If you do not want God/Jesus in your life, that is up to you, but many others disagree. They look forward to the time when Jesus will return to defeat the gods of this world like Putin.

Thank you for Palm 82. God will make a way for Ukraine.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Terry_Sampson

yet you have difficulty moving on.

It was you who brought it back up again.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

What Bible verses lend credence to God’s attribute of omnipresence?

There are several Bible verses that lend credence to God’s attribute of omnipresence. Here are some examples:

1. Psalm 139:7-10: “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.”
2. Jeremiah 23:24: “Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?” declares the Lord. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” declares the Lord.
3. Acts 17:27-28: “God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’”
4. Hebrews 4:13: “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must
   give account.”

These verses suggest that God is present everywhere and that there is nowhere we can go to escape his presence. God’s omnipresence is a testament to his power and sovereignty over all of creation.

Systematic theology à la ChatGPT

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

Spirit: pneuma, not body and spirit, just spirit. Not confined to any dimension of space or time.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Per Heiser, I have no problem with YHWH being above and ruling over other elohim. That does not mean he is like them in every other attribute except for his dominance.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

My first reaction to the OP and title of this thread was to point the finger at Dawkins for improperly treating God as a scientific hypothesis, opening the door for others to do the same. But… on further reflection, I suppose you could see Dawkins as merely responding to the ID crowd who had already pushed God as a scientific hypothesis. But of course Bill_II is correct in pointing out that this could never be a scientific hypothesis because it is not falsifiable making the scientific methodology inapplicable.

@rholub

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.

The only one of these I see as remotely connected to God’s existence is the first, the big bang. It is because the theists got the right answer to the question of whether the universe has a beginning. However, one can argue that they were bound to get something right.

Fine tuning is flawed by the simple fact that we have no way of calculating probability for any other possibility than the universe as it is. And it is ultimately a God of the Gaps type argument because science could discover reasons why any of these constants are as they are.

As for the existence of life and consciousness, this is even more of a God of the Gaps type argument making much of things which are poorly understood at this time, but which science is discovering more about all the time.

[heymike3]

@mitchellmckain

this could never be a scientific hypothesis

Epistemological hypothesis?

It would do well for scientists to admit what the possible statements are that can explain the universe, and a cause that is aware of its action is one of them.

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

@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?

You are making assertions without evidence.

[heymike3]

Am I doing that? Because your comment indicates I am making an assertion, and not my unconscious mind.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@mitchellmckain

Fine tuning is flawed…

Yes, but you could write a sci-fi bestseller about how well the plumbing works.

…it is said that we only find ourselves in a universe that permits life, therefore we shouldn’t be surprised to find it having the characteristics we do.

Imagine, however, trying to explain the finely-tuned arrangements of your own home this way. “I would never consider the unique characteristics of my home unless I were living in it so of course I will notice these details.” But that is not finally an explanation for the house or the details. Why this house rather than no house at all? Saying “I’m living in it” does not offer any explanatory scope or power as to how the house came about in the first place or why the numbers behind it are the way they are.

Penrose just seems to say, “Well, I find the house very curious and convenient, but beyond that, I don’t know. It is a puzzle the plumbing is just right, or the oven works so uncannily well or that the lights are just the right brightness or the electricity is channeled throughout the house in such a remarkably useful way. Maybe some sort of science fiction story might finally provide an answer, but I don’t know.”

Response to the fine-tuning self-selection effect argument

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

Imagine, however, trying to explain the finely-tuned arrangements of your own home this way. “I would never consider the unique characteristics of my home unless I were living in it so of course I will notice these details.” But that is not finally an explanation for the house or the details. Why this house rather than no house at all? Saying “I’m living in it” does not offer any explanatory scope or power as to how the house came about in the first place or why the numbers behind it are the way they are.

We can watch people building houses. That would be the difference.

Also, the fact we have to build shelters to protect ourselves from the universe seems to argue against the fine tuning principle.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I understand. You had no choice but to say that.

[heymike3]

@Dale

You had no choice but to say that.

My hunch is that the notorious “dropped like a hot brick” lab data will show some people have more of a choice than others

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@heymike3

Epistemological hypothesis?

Well if we are going to talk philosophy, then it is more of an ontological hypothesis, I think.

@heymike3

It would do well for scientists to admit what the possible statements are that can explain the universe, and a cause that is aware of its action is one of them.

Why should scientists be expected to anything other than science?

But of course when scientists like Dawkins take it on themselves to write books on things other than science then that is a different matter. And he did consider this possibility.

[heymike3]

@mitchellmckain

And he did consider this possibility.

I would be totally flabbergasted if Dawkins wrote down what the other possible statements are. And put them along side one another, so that the problem of empirically determining one from the other is apparent.

@mitchellmckain

Why should scientists be expected to anything other than science?

Because the beginning of the universe is a legitimate area of enquiry. And it would be a wonderful gift to science, for scientists to understand what can and cannot be empirically determined about the world.

[HRankin (Hillary Rankin)]

He visited the podcast and we provided this breakdown that addresses his claims.
podcast episode: Stephen C. Meyer | Is God a Hypothesis? - Podcast Episode - BioLogos
followup: A Guide to the Stephen Meyer Podcast Episode - Article - BioLogos

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Terry_Sampson

I’m not the one you want, babe
I will only let you down

@Relates

If you do not want God/Jesus in your life, that is up to you

Terry, you did not respond to my response. If you have something to say, please say it. Do not depend on Bob Dylan or Leonard Krausse…

[Terry_Sampson]

• Be grateful that I don’t respond to your failure to recognize my firm belief in the crucifixion, death, entombment, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. You’d be hard pressed to make sense of Einstein’s special theory of relativity, and no one could bail you out of the pit you dug for yourself.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

Try me! I want to know the Truth Logos even if I am wrong.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

Then do it in private.