tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post8734589382457808522..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: Some Proposals about the Beginning of our UniverseMichael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-58327009136920628662017-07-19T07:31:16.247-05:002017-07-19T07:31:16.247-05:00Gary, please read my post on Looking for God in Na...Gary, please read my post on Looking for God in Nature. A natural explanation does not mean that God did not do it or was not involved. Your implied suggestion that a natural explanation means we no longer require a creator is not at all the biblical idea of how God works. It is a fallacy to suggest that if a natural explanation is found, God is not required.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-58815568216103785952017-07-19T07:12:24.971-05:002017-07-19T07:12:24.971-05:00Yes, I do think that this universe had a beginning...Yes, I do think that this universe had a beginning. All the best theories we do have, including the BGV theorem, point to an actual beginning. I think a quantum theory of gravity will ultimately yield the same result. As far as your second question, I do think the entire universe had a beginning. In general, we can only speculate about the universe beyond the visible universe, but there is no reason to believe that the laws of physics differ or what we can't see is different from what we can see. Thanks for your comments and questions.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-41931139232960736102017-07-10T12:31:21.817-05:002017-07-10T12:31:21.817-05:00"Until we have some experimental evidence to ..."Until we have some experimental evidence to confirm or refute these proposals, they remain outside the realm of observational science. If we were to ever find any evidence to confirm one of these ideas, then, and only then, would we be able to make some firm conclusions regarding any suggestions as to what happened at the beginning of our universe. The best current conclusions come from the best confirmed science which continues to suggest an actual beginning to our universe. The confirmed evidence points to a transcendent cause that brought our universe into existence. It would hardly be possible for scientific inquiry to give stronger evidence for God."<br /><br />As I have said in another comment, the current state of science is that the "jury" is still out on the origin of the universe. I believe that atheists should admit that it is POSSIBLE that an intelligent being created the universe and Christians should admit that it is still possible that the universe was not created by intelligent design. However, many times over the course of human history, humans have been stumped by a process in nature which they do not understand (droughts, disease, lightning, etc.). Because humans did not know the cause of these events, they often resorted to ascribing these events to god. We have subsequently learned, through science, that these events have very natural causes.<br /><br />I suggest we wait until "the jury is in" before we reach a verdict on the origin of the universe. Jumping to "a god did it" seems premature, based on past human experience.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-32826507499892880912017-06-21T18:25:10.132-05:002017-06-21T18:25:10.132-05:00Hello,
I have two questions about the origin of t...Hello,<br /> I have two questions about the origin of the universe. I know we don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet, but, do you think that we can still say the universe had a beginning? If you had to make a wager, would you bet that the universe will still have a beginning when we have a full theory of quantum gravity (even without a beginning "point")? This paper seems to think so and I wanted your thoughts - https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5513 Second, when you talk about the universe having a beginning, do you mean only the parts that are observable, or do you think that the whole universe (even beyond what we can see, the observable universe) also had an absolute beginning? Sometimes people disagree about whether or not the evidence points toward only the observable universe having a beginning or if it is the whole thing. Thank you for your well reasoned posts. Ferinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07552551132983722994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-21588894591069058822017-06-04T16:04:37.094-05:002017-06-04T16:04:37.094-05:00Thanks for your comments. One of the reasons I beg...Thanks for your comments. One of the reasons I began this blog was to dispel some common misconceptions about the relationship between science and Christianity. Your statement that "Before Darwin,,,Christianity claimed...the Earth was under ten thousand years old" is a common, but incorrect idea. The many meanings of the Hebrew word "yom" which is translated "day" has been known for thousands of years and biblical scholars, both Jewish and Christians, have realized that the time scale of creation is not described in the creation account. I have commentaries in my personal library from before Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species that describe the "days" of creation as unknown periods of time and the earth as "ancient". Of course there were many people, both religious and secular, that thought the earth was thousands of years old before evidence of its age was discovered, but it is a myth that the biblical record was strictly interpreted as supporting a universe that was only thousands of years old at any time in recorded history. <br /><br />The same can be said of your statement about the "how" of human creation. Basically, all people both religious and non-religious, believed that humans were formed in their present form. To say that belief is a "religious" belief that has been discarded, is simply false. And now, there are religious and non-religious people who believe that humans developed through the process of evolution. <br /><br />You seem to be ascribing physical processes that work well to evidence against God, and you are, therefore, implicitly appealing to God of the gaps arguments which, I believe, are not the best arguments to support a theistic worldview. I encourage you to read my post on "Finding God in Nature."Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-53446238555956454562017-06-04T08:46:28.666-05:002017-06-04T08:46:28.666-05:00It must be remembered that before Darwin all relig...It must be remembered that before Darwin all religions including Christianity claimed their God had created humans and everything living in the form as it is living today and it was also believed the Earth was under ten thousand years old.<br /><br />Many enthusiastic religions and a minority of Christians still believe these things, however science has unquestionably eliminated those beliefs as being creditable and pushed the realm of God into the last bastion of creation, the universe.<br /><br />I predict this will also fall to the scrutiny of science over time, however the downfall may not just come from cosmological investigation but neurological specialists and Cognitive psychologists who are constantly discovering what our brain is capable of. It has already been claimed that that human concepts of spirits and Gods are derived from the mechanics of our brain.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055882988103522599noreply@blogger.com