Fear and Trembling

Yes they do.  See the link here .

I have followed with interest much of what Paul Davies has written on the subject of science and the origins of the universe. He certainly writes many things which I do not agree with, but he is often eloquent and intelligent. Here’s a sample of him confronting the notion of an eternal universe : One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has al...

How do we know what we know? How do we know what is true? How do we evaluate one idea against another? How do we interpret the information our senses provide us? What do we see? Hear? Touch? Smell? Taste? These questions fascinate me. I first began to ask questions like this as I studied Human Factors Engineering (HFE) in graduate school. HFE is a branch of engineering that studies how a human being interacts with their environment, usually with respect to how we obtain information and how we perform work. We looked at basic types of mistakes that people make, the way we obtain information from our senses, the way we process that information, the way we decide to act, and the way we activate machine controls to act on that processed information. The field includes ergonomics , but it includes much more than that. One of the things we learned right off the bat was that the way we interact with our environment is a process. Think of a black box with arrows going into the left side fo...

Hawking and Mlodinow’s book The Grand Design  is fascinating. It is a look into theoretical physics that I appreciate. One comment on page 180 seems to be getting all of the press: “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to envoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” This problematic statement is seen as a major victory for atheism. But, I note the comment on page 181: “…perhaps the true miracle is that abstract considerations of logic lead to a unique theory that predicts and describes [the universe].” Note the reference to logic.  The abstract laws of logic shape the way all of us think. Take one for instance: the law of non-contradiction. It says that something can not be both A and Non-A at the same time, in the same relationship, and in the same sense. This law cannot be denied. To deny it is to affirm it. If you say, “The law of non-contra...

I checked a copy of The Grand Design by Hawking and Mlodinow out of the library yesterday. After all of the fuss around the internet and in the media, I had to have a look. (See articles here , here , here , and here . From what I have read on the subject so far, I have two basic questions for Hawking and his proponents. You have said that something comes from nothing. The cat is out of the bag. You have finally admitted your position. This is a violation of the most fundamental law of science: “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” Positing that the universe follows certain laws does not help because those laws describe the way the universe behaves. How do you have laws to describe what does not exist? What if we grant your argument? What if the universe came into being because it follows strict natural laws? Where did those laws come from? The best explanation for laws like that is design. The universe behaves in a predictable fashion because God designed it that way. It seems ...

I have cited several forms of the cosmological argument for God’s existence on this blog . One effective form of this argument comes from philosopher Norman Geisler. This argument begins from an undeniable premise: I exist. This is not always assumed to be true by modern philosophy. Geisler argues that God exists because I exist. Here’ s a rough outline: 1. Some things undeniably exist (e.g., I cannot deny my own existence). 2. My nonexistence is possible. 3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another. 4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence. 5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists. 6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect. 7. This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called “God.” 8. Therefore, God exists. 9. This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures. 10. Therefore, the ...

Two of my favorite modern parables are printed below. The first is one of my favorites not because I agree with its conclusions, but because I admire the way its point is made. From Anthony Flew: Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods." Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movement...

God establishes reason, and without Him, we have no reason to be reasonable. We reason by the laws of logic combined with facts we observe. For example, the Law of Non-contradiction, that A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. These abstract, conceptual principles must be accounted for if any discussion on any topic is to take place. Only God can account for these laws. His thinking upholds ours. If the laws of logic are based on human thinking, then we have to realize that people are different and the laws may differ from person to person. They are no longer absolute. Some particular examples follow. If the laws of logic are just social conventions, then they are not absolute, and they can be ignored at will. My social network is, after all, different from yours. How do we avoid the conclusion that all of our thinking is not the result of mere instinctive reactions to our environment? Since our environments are all different, we would all reach dif...

This is the second in a short series of posts that give arguments for God’s existence. These arguments complement each other. That is, one proves one aspect of God’s nature; another proves another aspect, and so on. My area of professional expertise is industrial engineering, also called “process engineering.” I have spent most of my life in the pursuit of process improvement. I have professionally applied myself to manufacturing processes in several industries. I have looked at ways to improve equipment, organization of jobs, the way human beings interact with machines, and the way humans interact with each other. The purpose of a manufacturing process is to produce quality products, when needed by customers, at minimal cost, in a safe manner. There is one thing I know: a process left to itself does not produce products like that. If we take our hands off the controls, neglect the equipment, or ignore the people doing the work, we get bad products, late shipments, high costs, and incr...

God’s existence has long been debated. Atheists and Christians alike argue forcefully for their position, but the argument I will give in this post is one of the arguments I find convincing. In fact, this argument has never been adequately answered. This post is my ‘spin’ on an argument put forth by both William Lane Craig and James Patrick Moreland , among others. God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. This is foundational for a popular argument for God’s existence. Reason demonstrates that something in the past must have always existed. It is not possible to count to the end of the series of real numbers. You can always count one more. It is an infinite series of discrete things. You can’t count to the end of a series like that. It has no end. There is always one more. Let’s assume the common understanding of time as an example (please see the note at the bottom on time). It is just as impossible to reach the end of time as it is to count to the end of a series of real numb...

The recent return of A. N. Wilson to the faith has prompted much discussion (see here , here , here and here ). Here is a quote I appreciate: "My belief has come about in large measure because of the lives and examples of people I have known - not the famous, not saints, but friends and relations who have lived, and faced death, in the light of the Resurrection story, or in the quiet acceptance that they have a future after they die." – A. N. Wilson

Thanks to Apologetics 315 for a link to the Plantinga – Dennett debate on God’s existence. An anonymous first-hand account of the same debate is found here. From that account: In my estimation, Plantinga won hands down because Dennett savagely mocked Plantinga rather than taking him seriously. Plantinga focused on the argument, and Dennett engaged in ridicule. It is safe to say that Dennett only made himself look bad along with those few nasty naturalists that were snickering at Plantinga. The Christians engaged in no analogous behavior. More engagements like this will only expand the ranks of Christian philosophers and increase the pace of academic philosophy's desecularization.

“What is the greater miracle: the raising of the dead man in Lazarus, or the mere existence of the man who died and of the witnesses who swore to his revival?” - William F. Buckley, Jr.

Conversations with Kevin over at HeathenZ inspired me to write this post. I have tried to expand the comment I posted at HeathenZ and make it a little more understandable. It is a cogent argument for God’s existence from God’s creation, a cosmological argument . I exist. I must exist in order to deny my own existence. This may seem an obvious point, but some make much of the idea that everything we see is an illusion. Even if that is the case, I must exist in order to have the illusion. I was caused. There was a time when I came to be. My own self-awareness and the empirical evidence that I find support this. There must have been a cause of my existence. Something must have existed before me in order to bring about my existence. Out of nothing, nothing comes. There is something now, so there was never nothing. Remember this is about causing to be. It is about existence itself. If I trace back from the cause of my existence to the cause of the cause of my existence, and so o...

Skeptic magazine gives a summary of possible explanations for the universe we live in. The article (“Why This Universe?: Toward a Taxonomy of Possible Explanations,” Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Skeptic, Volume 13, Number 2, 2007 .) starts with the question “Why is there something rater than nothing?” and notes many of the alternatives scientists and philosophers put fort as possible answers. This listing, or taxonomy, is intended to promote useful discussion about the alternatives. The article states that each of the alternatives given is “logically permissible.” This is a misnomer; “logically permissible” implies that there is a cogent argument in support of the explanation. Since many of the explanations are contradictory, this cannot be the case. To imply otherwise makes no sense. The author does note that these possibilities “should not be mistaken for scientific theories or even scientific possibilities.” I agree, but would add that logic in and of itself excludes all of the poss...

Here’s a second post on Victor J. Stenger’s book. I’ll focus on his idea of lack of structure at the universe’s beginning. I’ll then look at some of the implications of his interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (Stenger, Victor J. God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does not Exist , Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2007) He is clear and easy to understand here: “At [the beginning] the universe had no structure. That meant that it had no distinguishable place, direction, or time. In such a situation, the conservation laws apply.” (131) Elsewhere he writes, “…an expanding universe could have started in total chaos and still formed localized order consistent with the second law [of thermodynamics].” (118) First, as I have noted before , there may well be structure and order in the universe that we cannot yet identify. Vast complexity is difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend. The ever increasing body of knowledge held by science is apparent in his...

I have followed with interest much of what Paul Davies has written on the subject of science and the origins of the universe. He certainly writes many things which I do not agree with, but he is often eloquent and intelligent. Here’s a sample of him confronting the notion of an eternal universe : One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has alwa...

I have been a subscriber to Charles Colson’s Breakpoint newsletter for a long time now, and I find it helpful. The commentary and intights are almost always worth the time to read. This week’s was especially interesting as it begins a series on modern, militant atheism. Here’s a sample: In a recent issue of Scientific American, arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins and physicist Lawrence Krauss discussed the relationship between science and religion. Dawkins, whose latest book, The God Delusion, is only one of a slew of recent books attacking religious beliefs, prefers an "in your face" approach. He once wrote that "if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane." He then added "or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." In his discussion with Krauss, Dawkins stood by his statement, calling it "a simple and sober statement of fact." … All of this begs the question: "Is faith, in partic...

I was raised in a Baptist church in a small, West Tennessee town. Many times, I have heard the “wonderful testimony” of a person who has been radically and completely delivered from the awful, evil sins they once committed. I have often questioned the miraculous deliverances purported in these testimonies, especially when the speaker implies that my life must assuredly be changed in the same way if I truly repent of my sins and come to Christ. I do not intend to post a long, rambling account of my personal sins and the way I have set them aside. I have found in my own experience that my besetting sins have persisted, or even begun, after I became a Christian. The difference in my life is not a dramatic reversal of my behavior. The Holy Spirit has helped me to get better over time, but no power has been available to make me perfect or to radically and instantly deliver me from particular sins. Perfection and/ or instant deliverance are not promised in the Bible. The change in my l...

God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. This is foundational for a popular argument for God’s existence. Reason demonstrates that something in the past must have always existed. It is not possible to count to the end of the series of real numbers. You can always count one more. It is, in one sense, an infinite series of discrete things. You can’t move to the end of a string like that. It has no end. It is similarly impossible to through an infinite series of moments of time, if time is in fact a discrete series of real moments. For example, if time extends forward out to infinity then it is obvious it will never end. Reversing the process, if time extends infinitely into the past, time would never have arrived at this moment. (See note below on time.) Similarly, we cannot expect that an infinite regress of finite causes exists either. That is, if we move backward from ourselves to the things that caused the things we perceive in our world now, then backward to the things that c...