The Return of the God Hypothesis

[WalterP]

https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/

 

Apparently there are three scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Return-God-Hypothesis-Stephen-Meyer/dp/0062071505

 

Meyer uses three scientific points to refute popular arguments put forward by the "New Atheists" against the existence of God:

 

1. The evidence from cosmology showing that the material universe had a beginning.
2. The evidence from physics showing that, from the beginning, the universe was been "finely tuned" to allow for the possibility of life.
3. The evidence from biology showing that since the universe came into being, large amounts of genetic information present in DNA must have arisen to make life possible.

 

As an armchair astronomer I'd be interested to see what evidence Meyer uses to make points 1 and 2.  I really hope that he isn't going to be building on William Lane Craig's understanding of cosmology and the Kalam Cosmological Argument that rests on that flawed foundation.

 

https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/book/notes/

 

Oh look, the KCA gets a mention in chapter 3.  (See Note 3a.)  And in chapter 12.  (See Note 12a.)  It looks like the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorems are dealt with in chapter 6.  As is the Borde-Gith-Vilenkin theory about the unavoidability of an initial singularity.  (See Note 6b.)  

 

Chapter 8 looks interesting because Meyer cites the work of someone called Miller, who has used the work of Roger Penrose to calculate the value of the entropy of our galaxy.  And from this value the entropic values of the solar system and the entire universe are then calculated.  (See notes 8a & 8b.)  Notes 8c and 8d focus on the Cosmological Constant and from this I glean that Meyer is using measurements of the CC to argue for the fine tuning of the universe.  Which he then infers to be evidence for the hand of god.

 

But I wonder if Meyer really understands that a CC with a positive value (as has been detected) invalidates the use of the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem?  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

You have to wonder why these guys keep reaching for long since falsified information to base their entire arguments upon????

 

Is it pure intellectual dishonesty where they know good and well that their foundation is flawed and falsified and intentionally try to deceive people into believing a known lie? 

 

Or are they completely ignorant of the facts on the table and go out trying to convince people of something that they themselves know very little to nothing about? 

 

Neither option bodes very well for the arguments or people in question. But one of the two options must be true considering the facts that do exist: 

 

 

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

You have to wonder why these guys keep reaching for long since falsified information to base their entire arguments upon????

 

Is it pure intellectual dishonesty where they know good and well that their foundation is flawed and falsified and intentionally try to deceive people into believing a known lie? 

 

Or are they completely ignorant of the facts on the table and go out trying to convince people of something that they themselves know very little to nothing about? 

 

Neither option bodes very well for the arguments or people in question. But one of the two options must be true considering the facts that do exist: 

 

 

 

Josh,

 

 

To give Meyer the benefit of the doubt, all I've been able to see are the Notes pertaining to certain chapters of his book.

 

I haven't been able to see the actual content and so its probably premature to condemn him for following WLC's line of mistaken argument.

 

Its possible that he might be saying something new.

 

Time will tell.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[☆ pantheory ☆]

19 hours ago, WalterP said:

https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/

 

Apparently there are three scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Return-God-Hypothesis-Stephen-Meyer/dp/0062071505

 

Meyer uses three scientific points to refute popular arguments put forward by the "New Atheists" against the existence of God:

 

1. The evidence from cosmology showing that the material universe had a beginning.
2. The evidence from physics showing that, from the beginning, the universe was been "finely tuned" to allow for the possibility of life.
3. The evidence from biology showing that since the universe came into being, large amounts of genetic information present in DNA must have arisen to make life possible.

 

As an armchair astronomer I'd be interested to see what evidence Meyer uses to make points 1 and 2.  I really hope that he isn't going to be building on William Lane Craig's understanding of cosmology and the Kalam Cosmological Argument that rests on that flawed foundation.

 

https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/book/notes/

 

Oh look, the KCA gets a mention in chapter 3.  (See Note 3a.)  And in chapter 12.  (See Note 12a.)  It looks like the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorems are dealt with in chapter 6.  As is the Borde-Gith-Vilenkin theory about the unavoidability of an initial singularity.  (See Note 6b.)  

 

Chapter 8 looks interesting because Meyer cites the work of someone called Miller, who has used the work of Roger Penrose to calculate the value of the entropy of our galaxy.  And from this value the entropic values of the solar system and the entire universe are then calculated.  (See notes 8a & 8b.)  Notes 8c and 8d focus on the Cosmological Constant and from this I glean that Meyer is using measurements of the CC to argue for the fine tuning of the universe.  Which he then infers to be evidence for the hand of god.

 

But I wonder if Meyer really understands that a CC with a positive value (as has been detected) invalidates the use of the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem?  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

All of the points below are BS.  

1)  The evidence from cosmology showing that the material universe had a beginning

Although I also believe that the universe had a beginning, not the same beginning proposed by today’s cosmology.

Present so-called evidence is both implied and circumstantial and bused upon speculation. There is no direct evidence as is presently believed concerning a beginning in time as is presently believed.

2)  The evidence from physics showing that, from the beginning, the universe it has been "finely tuned" to allow for the possibility of life.

Yes, it is true that some physicists believe this BS is true. Their false assumption is that the related so-called variables could have been different. Instead they are not variables at all IMO.

3)  The evidence from biology showing that since the universe came into being, large amounts of genetic information present in DNA must have arisen to make life possible

There is zero evidence in biology since the beginning of the universe, or in any area of science, especially concerning DNA and biology, concerning life on Earth, that it has been evolving since the beginning of the universe.

I do agree that the present hypothesis that the most elementary life first evolved here on Earth may be wrong, and that the universe is far older, but not infinite in age or scope. 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Pantheory,

 

Christian apologists like Meyer do not employ your theories to make their arguments.

 

They usually employ mainstream cosmology to make their arguments.

 

Ex-Christians like myself do not employ your theories either, when we make our counter-apologetic arguments.

 

We employ mainstream cosmology, because that's what the Christians use.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

The three points don't stand up to mainstream thinking in the first place, without getting into alternative theories. 

 

The return of the god hypothesis being little more than the return of old, long since debunked apologetic's by the looks of it. 

 

10 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Josh,

 

 

To give Meyer the benefit of the doubt, all I've been able to see are the Notes pertaining to certain chapters of his book.

 

I haven't been able to see the actual content and so its probably premature to condemn him for following WLC's line of mistaken argument.

 

Its possible that he might be saying something new.

 

Time will tell.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

To be fair, sure. 

 

But what in the world new could he possibly bring to the table? The only new things I've seen brought to the table are examples like the double-slit jesus apologetic's recently discussed. New, yeah. Substantial or tough to argue against, not so much. I have very little faith in any apologist offering a substantial argument for god. After having been around the block so many times. 

 

I have to try and imagine what that would even entail?

 

 To have a serious argument that 'goddit!' With credible or substantial evidence backing the claim. Extremely Difficult to off the table impossible if you ask me. And extremely difficult is being kind. 

[WalterP]

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The three points don't stand up to mainstream thinking in the first place, without getting into alternative theories. 

 

The return of the god hypothesis being little more than the return of old, long since debunked apologetic's by the looks of it. 

 

 

To be fair, sure. 

 

But what in the world new could he possibly bring to the table? The only new things I've seen brought to the table are examples like the double-slit jesus apologetic's recently discussed. New, yeah. Substantial or tough to argue against, not so much. I have very little faith in any apologist offering a substantial argument for god. After having been around the block so many times. 

 

I have to try and imagine what that would even entail?

 

 To have a serious argument that 'goddit!' With credible or substantial evidence backing the claim. Extremely Difficult to off the table impossible if you ask me. And extremely difficult is being kind. 

 

I agree with much that you say here, Josh.

 

But I am somewhat bemused (in a teasing way) that you have any faith at all in any argument for god presented by any Christian apologist.

 

Surely, as die-hard skeptics, we reject faith in favour of evidence?

 

Not looking for a fight here, just teasing!

 

 

 

Walter.

[Clizby_Wampuscat]

On 6/7/2021 at 5:32 PM, WalterP said:

• The evidence from cosmology showing that the material universe had a beginning.
• The evidence from physics showing that, from the beginning, the universe was been "finely tuned" to allow for the possibility of life.
• The evidence from biology showing that since the universe came into being, large amounts of genetic information present in DNA must have arisen to make life possible.

1.  I believe the universe had a beginning.  However, that does not show what the cause was.

2. How can you tell it was finely tuned?  What other universe are you comparing this universe to determine if any of the constants could have been something else? Almost all of the universe is hostile to life.  How is it finely tuned for life?  

3. How does this show a god exists?  

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Clizby_Wampuscat said:

1.  I believe the universe had a beginning.  However, that does not show what the cause was.

 

Clizby,

 

The universe may have had a beginning, but as far as I'm aware the jury is still out on whether it did or not.  You are quite correct that if it did have a beginning, that fact does not identify what the cause of that beginning was. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Clizby_Wampuscat said:

2. How can you tell it was finely tuned?  What other universe are you comparing this universe to determine if any of the constants could have been something else? Almost all of the universe is hostile to life.  How is it finely tuned for life?  

 

I can't tell if the universe is finely tuned for life and that's not a claim I'm making.  That is a claim made by Christian apologists.

 

5 hours ago, Clizby_Wampuscat said:

3. How does this show a god exists?  

 

It doesn't.  But that doesn't stop the apologists from asserting that a cosmic beginning and fine tuning specifically identify Jesus as the creator god.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Clizby_Wampuscat]

 

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Clizby,

 

The universe may have had a beginning, but as far as I'm aware the jury is still out on whether it did or not.  You are quite correct that if it did have a beginning, that fact does not identify what the cause of that beginning was. 

 

I agree that we don't have good evidence to determine if the universe did have a beginning or not.  I should have said I lean toward that it did have a beginning.