tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post4570638959721061425..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: The Grand Design: Is God Unnecessary?Michael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-33497487922029776392019-12-13T20:32:24.161-06:002019-12-13T20:32:24.161-06:00Thank you for taking the time to write this insigh...Thank you for taking the time to write this insightful review of Hawking's book.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-67482037508808437532018-10-20T08:01:07.878-05:002018-10-20T08:01:07.878-05:00I don't believe the law of causality is limite...I don't believe the law of causality is limited to our universe. It is not basically a law of physics but a law of logic. As such we observe that it operates in our universe, but it would also operate in other universes.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-49723996894600500732018-10-20T05:18:33.701-05:002018-10-20T05:18:33.701-05:00Dr. Michael G Strauss I so much appreciate your pa...Dr. Michael G Strauss I so much appreciate your patience with us, But may I have a little question?, If the universe had a beginning then the law of causality states that it had a cause, But we say the laws of physics began with the big bang so could there be a possibility that the law of causality doesn't work and the universe didn't need a cause? Anonyomoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01914241947613808781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-22291635100900848492018-08-19T16:23:28.537-05:002018-08-19T16:23:28.537-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Jims lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07385507354598354902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-76986988950434002232018-08-17T22:25:24.746-05:002018-08-17T22:25:24.746-05:00Hi Gary, I know this was old, but read it all with...Hi Gary, I know this was old, but read it all with interest. I'm a Christian, and like you am not a Scientist, but the people you cite like Guth and Carroll are not philosophers, certainly are not logicians, but seem to think they are. <br />You stated "I hope your Christian readers will investigate this issue themselves, reading both sides..." Well, I'm one.<br />I feel you are logically incoherent (as every atheist I read). Dr Strauss brought this up, and don't think he fully used it to its full benefit, the notion of actual infinities. We know that the universe had a beginning, right, you admit that? But the answer is, what is the cause? Clearly it cannot be the universe. You cannot state "X did not exist until X caused it", this would be logically incoherent. You cannot state "Matter did not exist until matter caused it", as this would be logically incoherent.<br />However, to rebut this, a simpleton atheist argument only need be "matter exists infinitely". This is the rebuttal that every 3rd grader gives when they can no longer make fun of the other kid at a faster rate, they just reply "infinity". <br />Clearly, there is no observational evidence of actual infinities, as demonstrated by great mathematicians (see Hilbert), and even NOTIONS of actual infinite sets must be based on simpler sets. <br />An appeal to "infinity" is logically incoherent, whereas an appeal to an all powerful mind that is transcendent to the universe is not logically incoherent. Clearly minds exist, so that is not a logical problem. A greater mind than we are is not a logical problem. Being much more powerful than we are is not logical a problem. However, within a NATURAL universe, that is only governed by "laws" that we know as human reasoning, infinity is logically incoherent. Why must it be incoherent? What is infinity + 1? infinity. What is infinity - 1? infinity. What is infinity divided by 2? infinity. When has "infinity" ever been pointed to as the solution to any scientific inquiry or the cause of any observed and understood phenomenon? Never. It has no use whatsoever in reality. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that it exists, and it is logically incoherent.<br />An appeal to "infinity" (actual infinity), is by far inferior than an appeal to God. Infinity is logically incoherent under natural-law. The belief in God states that there is something outside of natural-law, therefore does not contradict itself. So in short: 1) Infinity is incoherent if natural law, and human reasoning is all that exists. 2) God is not at all logically incoherent, especially if natural law and human reasoning is not all that exists. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02292365595052283712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-9144767455084885622018-01-19T10:44:57.386-06:002018-01-19T10:44:57.386-06:00Ah! I apologize for not correctly referring to you...Ah! I apologize for not correctly referring to you as Dr. Strauss! Thank you for wading through my long reply.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735274312737089416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-31789490020790893062018-01-18T18:33:47.130-06:002018-01-18T18:33:47.130-06:00Great questions. Maybe it is worth devoting a blo...Great questions. Maybe it is worth devoting a blog post to this question. I don't think there is an easy or definitive answer, but it is sure worth trying to articulate my thoughts on this.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-73287714950551595672018-01-18T17:39:53.349-06:002018-01-18T17:39:53.349-06:00. . . Part 2 (I'm long winded)
What happens t.... . . Part 2 (I'm long winded)<br /><br />What happens then is we try to find a subgroup of experts which is more trustworthy. . . but we often fail to recognize that the same conundrum is at work. How can we (non-experts) evaluate the integrity and trustworthiness of one group of experts versus another? If we polled nuclear physicists in the USSR in 1985 about the likelihood of Chernobyl melting down, they certainly would have had the most relevant opinion. . . and most would likely have had the wrong conclusion. Our criteria for trustworthiness starts to become an exercise in confirmation bias. <br /><br />Maybe a good demonstration of the lack of consensus in cosmology could have been provided to Gary, in order to question the validity of his appeal to consensus. Perhaps the inflation debate between Steinhardt and colleagues versus Hawkins, Carroll and the rest in Scientific American (I'd love your opinion!). That might exemplify the significant lack of consensus between larely non-theistic cosmologists.<br /><br />The other thing that I would question is the validity of his appeal to a "wait-and-see" approach. It sort of implies that we have all of the time in the world in order to make up our minds about what we believe is true, when I find that real life makes that demand immediate at every moment. <br /><br />How would you address the issue of the conundrum of the non-expert. It is a ongoing issue for me. At many times the question of Gods existence seems to come down to "who have I decided to trust". . . in some ways we all seem to want to defer to the "experts". . .<br /><br />Thanks for your time. <br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735274312737089416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-19930762464556964752018-01-18T17:37:27.750-06:002018-01-18T17:37:27.750-06:00Hello Mr. Strauss,
Thank you for your interesting...Hello Mr. Strauss,<br /><br />Thank you for your interesting website. <br /><br />As I read through your conversation with Gary, I was struck by a few things that I thought might be worthwhile to comment on. One thing that Gary mentioned early on which I also struggle with, is the question of how a lay person (non-professional physicist) can evaluate the opinions of experts. I think his insistence that you demonstrate consensus is really rooted in that particular insecurity which most lay people feel, even if they can't quite identify it. In order to live and function in life, most people need to find an intellectual "resting position" where they are certain enough of their "big question" issues that they can comfortably move on with living. I think Gary, like many people including myself, wants to abdicate responsibility for determining the truth by deferring to those with greater expertise, preferably a community of those people! If we admit it to ourselves, it doesn't sound very noble, but it may be rational given that we don't all have the skills or opportunities to become excellent cosmologists or theoretical physicists. When there is disagreement among the community of experts upon which we are depending to interpret truth for us, that is an uncomfortable position for us to be in.<br /><br />What I would have pointed out to Gary (and I know you tried, in your own way), is that consensus is really a faithless mistress in the quest for truth. As you well know, science has typically lurched forwards in unlikely directions born of the intuitions of the minority and unexpected findings, not necessarily a logical, stepwise progression of methodical experimentation. <br /> <br />There are a number of critical assumptions a layperson makes when they defer to an expert authority, or to a consensus. Is the group of experts truly qualified to speak to the questions at hand? When I read their conclusions, do I have adequate expertise to interpret their conclusions? When we are talking about a small number of experts in a very specialized field, are there ways that they may be biased in their conclusions? I found that to be very relevant to your discussion of Vilenkin. . . on the one hand, Gary is engaging you because you are an expert and he presumably wants your opinion, on the other hand he (as a non expert) is attempting to evaluate the validity of your (expert) opinion. I think if one is committed to agnosticism, then one has to recognize that this is a no-win situation. . .<br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735274312737089416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-62882123840518454872018-01-14T17:57:24.874-06:002018-01-14T17:57:24.874-06:00Thanks for sharing this logical progression of ide...Thanks for sharing this logical progression of ideas that point to a transcendent cause of our universe.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-62500839239892940922018-01-10T00:42:15.081-06:002018-01-10T00:42:15.081-06:00Thanks for your blog topics, Mike. I really appre...Thanks for your blog topics, Mike. I really appreciate and enjoy the content. Here's a bit I put together, relying on Dr. Norm Geisler's "Christian Apologetics." Perhaps Gary might find some of this worth chewing on:<br /><br />The universe exists, but all known science indicates that it also had the possibility of nonexistence. That is, we have no scientific evidence that shows that the existence of the universe was necessary; its existence was potential. The existence of the universe was a potentiality that was brought into actuality (caused to exist) by something beyond itself, something that transcends the time and material that comprise the universe itself and the laws that govern it. The very existence of this potentially existent universe is either 1) self-caused, 2) uncaused, or 3) caused by another; there are no other possibilities.<br /> <br />1. Self-caused: It is impossible for anything to be self-caused since it would have to exist prior to its existence in order to be the cause of its own existence – which is an absurdity. But nothing (literally, no-thing) can produce something, and an effect cannot be ontologically prior to its cause. <br />2. Uncaused: Equally absurd is the notion that the universe is uncaused (that is, it is eternal). If the universe space/time were eternal, then maximum entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) would have occurred by now and the universe would be dead. Since max entropy hasn’t occurred yet, and moments keep on coming, there can’t be an infinite number of moments prior to this moment – since there is no such thing as an infinite number of moments plus more moments. And since there isn’t an infinite number of moments prior to this moment, there must be a finite number of prior moments, which indicates there was a first moment - when the universe was actualized in existence.<br />3. Caused by Another. The only remaining possible cause, and the only one, in my opinion, that has any hope of rational defense, is that the universe had a transcendent cause – a cause beyond itself which possesses the minimal causal capacity for actualizing the effect that is the universe. A cause is that which effects a transition from potentiality to actuality, such as causing a potential universe to become an actual existing universe.<br /><br />The tools of the physical sciences simply cannot reach beyond the boundary of their domain, which is the physical universe itself - at least not with any certainty. This limitation renders any notions of their applicability beyond this universe speculative at best, untestable and unfalsifiable. It seems to me that Christian Theism alone provides the only rational answer, which also enjoys the support of several additional evidences.<br />Scotomahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523622068092989272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-548499664051220732017-09-07T22:41:29.078-05:002017-09-07T22:41:29.078-05:00That's silly. There is evidence for both theo...That's silly. There is evidence for both theories, but most scientists believe there is better evidence for the universe having had a beginning. Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-14608020402748460542017-09-07T18:19:16.145-05:002017-09-07T18:19:16.145-05:00"Mithani and Vilenkin are also scientists, an..."Mithani and Vilenkin are also scientists, and are correspondingly willing to be honest about our state of ignorance: thus, “probably” yes. I personally think the answer is “probably no,” but none of us actually knows. " <br /><br />Carroll, and you too, are ignoring the crucial question: Where to the evidence point?<br /><br />Which evidence support Carroll's "probably no" statement? There isn't any.<br /><br />And you should not ignore the deductions against an actual infinity in the past:<br /><br />"The arguments against an infinite past time are strong – it’s simply not constructible in terms of events or instants of time, besides being conceptually indefinite."<br /><br />Ellis G. F. R. & Kirchner U. & Stoeger W. R.,(2003). Multiverses and physical cosmology. https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0305292.pdf (p.15) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00936950024309527633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-80939696302127916662017-09-07T18:03:34.205-05:002017-09-07T18:03:34.205-05:00“Some people claim your work proves the existence ...“Some people claim your work proves the existence of God, or at least of a divine moment of creation.”<br /><br />Obviously the work of Vilenkin does not prove that. Nevertheles, it does proves that the premise “the physical reality has a beginning” is probably true in light of the evidence (although the deductions against an actual infinity in the past are powerful proofs of that premise. The scientific evidence are just the cherry on the cake)<br /><br />And if we combine that premise with:<br /><br />“Whatever begins to exist has a cause” and “if the physical reality has a beginning, therefore, the physical reality has a trascendent cause”, then, the conclusion follows: <br /><br />The physical reality has a trascendent cause. <br /><br />The conclusion proves that God exist? No. But in bayesian terminology, it raises the initial probability in favor of the proposition "The Christian deity exist". And that maybe is not a proof, but it is evidence in favor of God existence. <br /><br />“Gary: How can he be any more clear??? Vilenkin himself does not believe that his theorem infers a "transcendent" [supernatural] cause to the universe. You are misrepresenting his theorem, Mike.”<br /><br />Come on, connect the dots!<br /><br />“I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics.”<br /><br />So, the cause would be a set of rational entitys (the laws of physics) that transcend space, time, matter and energy. That’s really close to a descriptive definition of God. <br /><br />No doubt thats why Vilenkin ask himself:<br /><br />“The tunneling process is governed by the same fundamental laws that describe the subsequent evolution of the universe. It follows that the laws should be “there” even prior to the universe itself. Does this mean that the laws are not mere descriptions of reality and can have and independent existence of their own? In the absence of space, time, and matter, what tablets could they be written upon? The laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations. If the medium of mathematics is the mind, does this mean that mind should predate the universe?”<br /><br />Vilenkin A., (2006). Many worlds in one: The search of other universes. New York: Hill and Wang. (P. 204-205)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00936950024309527633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-15501286482832578952017-09-05T13:04:04.346-05:002017-09-05T13:04:04.346-05:00The issue is: Do you really have a personal relat...The issue is: Do you really have a personal relationship with an invisible being who resides within your body or are you operating under self delusion; the person you are communicating with is simply...YOURSELF.<br /><br />Unless you can provide evidence which proves that someone other than yourself lives inside your body, this "evidence" is purely subjective. It is NOT objective.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-63506802466457137492017-09-04T13:42:34.829-05:002017-09-04T13:42:34.829-05:00Gary, Bill Craig is not saying that there is no ev...Gary, Bill Craig is not saying that there is no evidence for the resurrection. As someone who believes in a spiritual realm, he is saying there is evidence beyond simply the physical for the resurrection. If Christ really did rise from the dead then he is alive today and you can have a personal relationship with him. An actual relationship is objective evidence for the truth of something.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-23920644167395364182017-08-30T18:18:50.701-05:002017-08-30T18:18:50.701-05:00Neal said: "And I've been reading you an...Neal said: "And I've been reading you and Gary's exchanges every week. Seems like he's just out to be a thorn in your side because he's trying to convince you that the God of the bible was invented by superstitious uneducated people thousands of years ago. He won't understand the relationship you have with God in your heart."<br /><br />Gary: I believe that Neal has hit the proverbial nail right on the head. As a former evangelical Christian myself, I feel very confident in making this statement: The overwhelming majority of very devout conservative Christians base their belief in the validity of the truth claims of Christianity primarily on their FEELINGS AND INTERNAL PERCEPTIONS, not on hard evidence. This is why William Lane Craig can say, "The simplest [uneducated] of Christians can know the Resurrection is historical fact by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in his heart."<br /><br />The problem is: How does a Christian differentiate between a god speaking to him/giving daily guidance internally [in his head] in an inaudible voice and himself...speaking to...HIMSELF???<br /><br />Humans are well known for incredible self-deception. Feelings and perceptions do not seem like a very reliable means of validating or rejecting truth claims, especially truth claims that involve the supernatural.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-71336330104320925952017-08-29T21:30:54.966-05:002017-08-29T21:30:54.966-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stetson Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697583852025293333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-33748651162977809322017-08-27T14:40:38.804-05:002017-08-27T14:40:38.804-05:00AAARGGHH! Here we go again. Please read my comment...AAARGGHH! Here we go again. Please read my comment on God vs transcendence. We can "leave it at that" if you want, but I don't understand why you won't read a dictionary and see what transcendence means. Hint: it may or may not mean God. Consequently, Vilenkin's statement is agreeing and compatible with all of my statements. I know what Vilenkin has said in interviews.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-56852379622597652532017-08-27T14:37:43.871-05:002017-08-27T14:37:43.871-05:00Quoting the results of a scientific paper is not b...Quoting the results of a scientific paper is not being biased. I have previously read all of the interviews with Vilenkin that you are quoting. I hope that all readers do investigate those for themselves. They'll see that Vilenkin does believe in a transcendent beginning. He's just not willing to say that the cause would be God. I have said that all the known physics points to a transcendent cause. That is a true, unbiased statement. Whether or not that cause is God is another, different question. I think it is but I don't know it is. One of the reasons I think it is God is because a transcendent cause lines up exactly with what theists and the Bible predicted long before the 20th century. An idea that makes predictions that turn out to be true is often true itself. You can call that biased if you want. It is actually, good science. <br /><br />Gary, you seem to think I haven't investigated carefully both sides of this discussion because you keep bringing up things you seem to think will be new to me, like those who had a belief in God but now don't, or the Vilenkin interviews. Has it occurred to you that there are people who have carefully and deeply actually investigated the case for and against the Christian God from science, history, philosophy, etc. and have come to informed conclusion that the God hypothesis actually explains the data best. It seems that some of these counter-ideas changed your mind, but I have investigated them thoroughly and find them quite lacking and unpersuasive compared to the idea of the Christian God. Call that biased if you want, but if someone has carefully investigated a question from all sides and can even explain the other sides' arguments and has come to a conviction based on the evidence, I would hardly call that biased. I think one of the reasons that you tend to think its biased because you have been confusing transcendent with supernatural, or God.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-16964006898630954922017-08-27T14:31:41.833-05:002017-08-27T14:31:41.833-05:00Question: Some people claim your work proves the e...Question: Some people claim your work proves the existence of God, or at least of a divine moment of creation. What do you think?<br /><br />Vilenkin: I don’t think it proves anything one way or another.<br /><br />Gary: I suggest we leave it at that.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-56782821311284575032017-08-27T14:22:55.255-05:002017-08-27T14:22:55.255-05:00I am asking you to think and to read a dictionary....I am asking you to think and to read a dictionary. If you are unable to do that, why continue this conversation. Transcendent and supernatural are two different things. I tried to give you the dictionary definition of transcendent but you, evidently, don't believe in the dictionary either.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-80717412446683099142017-08-27T14:21:16.622-05:002017-08-27T14:21:16.622-05:00You are confusing transcendent with supernatural. ...You are confusing transcendent with supernatural. I tried to give you the definition of transcendent but you seem unwilling to think beyond your preconceived notion. I have never claimed the beginning must be supernatural, just transcendent based on the meaning of the word. Vilenkin does believe in a transcendent beginning because the space, time,matter, and energy of this universe came from something beyond this universe. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD TRANSCENDENT MEANS? IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN SUPERNATURAL and I never used the word supernatural. I said that the BGV theorem requires a transcendent cause and that God would be a transcendent cause.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-72889113518406574732017-08-27T13:01:17.213-05:002017-08-27T13:01:17.213-05:00"I think we are done talking about this."..."I think we are done talking about this."<br /><br />Does that mean you are cutting me off? Nice. You should at least post my quote from Vilenkin which directly contradicts your interpretation of his theorem, then you can cut me off.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-56490804402027625442017-08-27T12:58:40.351-05:002017-08-27T12:58:40.351-05:00Nonsense. I hope your Christian readers will inve...Nonsense. I hope your Christian readers will investigate this issue themselves, reading both sides, and see that there is NO CONSENSUS on this issue. You are pushing an AGENDA. Good scientists do NOT do that. If I wanted to push a similarly biased agenda, I would be campaigning as an atheist; that science proves there is no God. I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic, which means I allow for the possibility of the existence of a God, but I am waiting for better evidence to confirm or reject this claim. <br /><br />You are the one pushing an agenda, Mike. It really is sad to see a professional scientist be so biased.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.com