Andrew J Wise

The chapter was a little mind-blowing and difficult to summarize.

Chapter 8

How the God Hypothesis predicts Time

According to the God Hypothesis, God invented time.  He was there “before” it and exists outside it; it is part of the created material order.

The fact that God can survey all of time at once implies that all time still exists.  The theory of relativity concludes that the whole of space-time must have a real and continuing existence, regardless of our perception of time as past-present-future.

We can move freely backwards and forwards in any of space’s three dimensions, but we can only move forward in time.  Strictly speaking time is not moving; we are moving through the pre-existing landscape of time.

This unique uni-directional nature of time is called the “arrow of time”.

Almost all the equations and theories of science are symmetrical with respect to time – they hold true whether events are running forward or backward theoretically.  The exception is the second law of thermodynamics, because entropy (disorder) must increase or not change and can never decrease with time’s passage.  The arrow of time is a property of entropy alone.

The more ways there are to arrange the components of a system, the higher its entropy.  You have to work hard to decrease entropy (pumping a tire, stretching a rubber band).

Example:  The Rubber Band

In an unstretched band, the rubber molecules are coiled randomly into balls.  There are a large number of ways the molecules can be arranged in this coil fashion, so entropy is very high.  When the rubber band is stretched, the molecules uncoil and elongate, lining up parallel to one another.  There are only a small number of ways this arrangement of molecules can work, so entropy is low.

There must be an injection of energy to go from the unstretched (high entropy) state to the stretche (low entropy) state.  Not only this, but the energy must have direction and control, because just zapping the rubber band in a microwave won’t do.

In an isolated system like the universe, low entropy (highly ordered state) cannot “just happen” any more than a rubber band can stretch itself.  But, a state of low entropy can “unwind” to high entropy, releasing energy in the process.

The only way science can explain the phenomenon of time is by assuming that the universe began in a highly ordered (low entropy) state.  In order to set the universe in motion, something had to have supplied energy that was not already present.

The Hypothesis of God Predicts This

The scientific scenarios above validate the biblical concept of eternity, because before the universe existed, time could not exist.  Until the universe was there, it could not be in any particular entropy state.

An energetic act of creation must have occurred before time could begin to run.  This fits well with God’s creation.

As entropy began to increase (and time began to exist) the universe changed and evolved.  This progressive development is clearly assumed by the Bible in passages that speak of the unfolding of creation (Genesis) as well as the “wearing out” and “fading away” of the universe.  The Bible also assumes that the universe will have an end; this fits the idea that the universe’s entropy will increase up to a maximum state, and the universe will collapse.

None of this proves the existence of God, but the hypothesis of God does make correct predictions about the findings of science in relation to the origin of time and the universe.

Getting Rid of Time

Some scientists, aware of the theological implications of the beginning of time, have tried to get rid of the concept.  One theory has been an eternal recurrence of expansions and contractions of the universe.  However, if the universe has a net energy total of zero, then the collapse would leave no energy to recreate a low entropy state.  Even if energy is left over, this would cause time and entropy to continue to increase to a maximum state, and time would have stopped.

It is almost taken for granted by many cosmologists that we exist in a “multiverse”.  Some theorize that our universe could be from an eternally prior universe, we could be unbounded by time, if the mathematical concept of “imaginary time” replaces real time.  But we live in real time, so this remains just a mathematical concept not applicable to the real world.

Chapter 7

The Big Bang and Creation Ex Nihilo

Four scientifically inexplicable things:

1)    The origin of the universe

2)    The origin of the laws of nature

3)    The origin of life

4)    The origin of mind and thought

If the God of the Bible exists, the first consequence we would expect is that the ultimate origin of material things would never be explicable in material terms.

Some will object by saying what seems scientifically impossible could be explicable with new discoveries.  But the claim that, given time, science will explain everything is the atheist’s version of “the God of the gaps.”  This faith that science will explain everything is known as promissory materialism.

The Bible consistently identifies God as the one who created the heavens and the earth.

Acts 17: 22-31

Victor Stenger proposes that the natural state of affairs is “something” rather than “nothing”.  An empty universe requires supernatural intervention, not a full one.  (This is an argument against creation ex nihilo).  However, Stenger is confusing the pre-creation “nothing” which lies outside of space-time with the “nothing” of vacuum in space-time.

There was a beginning

The Biblical hypothesis of God predicts that the universe did indeed have a beginning:

1)    It is not eternally old.

2)    Before its beginning, nothing of a material nature existed.

The equations of general relativity require that the universe be expanding or shrinking; it could not be static.  Instead of accepting this, Einstein created a fudge constant called the “cosmological constant” because of his belief in a static universe.  Eventually he discarded it.

The Expanding Universe

1912 – Leavitt finds a way to measure intrinsic luminosity of stars

The distance to a Cepheid variable star could be measured by comparing true luminosity with apparent luminosity.

1915 – Einstein and his equations of relativity (as mentioned above)

1929 – Hubble realizes that red shift of some stars was directly related to their distance from earth.  Not only were the stars moving away from earth, but they were moving away faster the further away they were.  This established the expanding universe.

1948 – Gamow, Alpher, Herman:  developed the Big Bang Theory, the idea that the universe began expanding from an ultra-hot singularity.

1963 – Penzias and R.Wilson found that microwaves were beaming in on us from space equally from all directions.  This “cosmic microwave background” was believed to be the cool-down radiation from an earlier ultra-hot universe; convinced most astronomers that the Big Bang Theory was correct.

Final Notes

The Big Bang is only a scientific model.  It is highly convincing, but it remains a model that might not, in the end, correspond to reality.

The Big Bang was not an explosion in space.  If it was, the universe would have to be expanding away from some central point, that point being Earth itself.  Also, explosions typically don’t blast equally in all directions, yet the Big Bang does.

The expansion of the universe that we observe is not the traveling of galaxies through space, but an expansion of space itself.

Analogy:

Think of a deflated balloon.  The two dimensional surface of the balloon represents three-dimensional space.  Imagine stickers on the balloon.  As the balloon inflates, the distance between the stickers increases, and more rapidly the further away from each other they are.  From the point of view of any sticker, you would see the same expansion taking place equally in all directions.  The universe is expanding in exactly this way.

What lies outside of the universe?  Nothing, in the truest sense of the word.

Genesis 1:1 records the beginning of the universe, with no reference to how long ago this was.

Genesis 1:2 then focuses in on the earth, and describes phenomenologically what would have been seen by an observer of creation.

Introductory Post.

Chapter 6

Defining God

When employing the “hypothetic” approach, one doesn’t have to be “right” in adopting one definition of God over another.  The validity of the definition adopted (the hypothesis) will depend not on initial assumptions, but on how well the hypothesis fits human experience.

False Definitions of “God”:

The God of the Gaps

God is not simply an explanation that fills gaps in scientific knowledge.  When Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion, he didn’t exclude God from this realm but claimed that he was discovering the “thoughts” of a transcendent Deity.  This was traditionally and historically how the majority of scientific discoveries were viewed in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The “complementary” God

Says that science and religion are two totally distinct and self-contained realms that must not be allowed to overlap.  They provide separate and complementary descriptions of reality that are equally true but cannot interact.

Agrees that science cannot make declarations about the existence or nature of God, but also wrongly says that religion and God can tell us nothing about the nature of science.

Example:  Francis Collins and the “theistic evolutionists”;  Pure complementarity is inconsistent with theism because it imprisons and binds God by the natural laws and processes that he has ordained.

The hand-wringing God

God has nothing to do with natural disasters and suffering; God has no more prior warning of such events than we do and can do nothing to stop them.  He wishes these things wouldn’t happen but isn’t powerful enough to stop them.  This is contrary to the God who “works all things according to the counsel of His will.”

The absent-landlord

Deism.  God is the prime mover who created the universe and set it in motion but then withdrew and no longer takes the slightest interest in his handiwork.  Contrary to theism, which says that God is not only creator but also sustainer of a universe in which he is closely involved with everything that goes on.

View matured during the age of enlightenment.  Popular figure was Thomas Paine, American revolutionary, and several other revolutionary figures.  Paine elevated reason above revelation, rejected miracles, and viewed the Bible as ordinary literature.  He argued that the creator could be known through reason alone.

The LCD God (Least Common Denominator)

As long as there is only one God, all who worship him must by definition worship the same God.  Different civilizations, cultures, races, etc. have all formulated their own individualistic perceptions of this singular God, but these cultural accretions have no real substance and are unimportant; rather, they simply contribute to the “grand religious tapestry” enriching human culture and life.

Ignores the fact that even the basic details of various major religions contradict each other profoundly.

The God of the Bible

This is the definition of God that will be adopted throughout the remainder of the book.  As a scientist, the author will seek to demonstrate that this hypothesis explains human observation and experience far better than atheism or even science can ever do.

The claims of Gen 1:1

1)    God exists outside the universe and was prior to it

2)    God was capable of creating the universe out of nothing

3)    God did create the universe out of nothing

Revelation is a key concept in filling in our definition of God.  Because we weren’t in the beginning, God, who was there, must tell us about these things; otherwise, we could never know.  And if there is no God, we shall never know.

The hypothetic approach allows us to embrace revelation in formulating our definition of God because we are simply using it to form a hypothesis, not prove anything.  The Bible presents progressive revelation – a gradual unveiling of the nature and purposes of God.

Throughout the rest of the book, the author will work through the implications of this definition against the background of alternative opinions and pragmatic human experience.

Introductory Post.

Chapter 5

Responding to the Claim that Science Disproves the God Hypothesis

(Responding specifically to Victor Stenger)

Stenger: The God Hypothesis should be able to be tested through scientific models, measurements, and methods.

Response:

On models:  It’s not surprising that scientists choose not to invoke God when constructing scientific models, because God is not a material entity subject to model building.

On measurements:  Our five physical senses, no matter how much enhanced by scientific instrumentation, remain physical – adapted to explore material and physical objects and processes, not spiritual ones.

On methods:  Stenger assumes that the God Hypothesis must be a scientific hypothesis, and this leads to his first fallacy.

Fallacy 1 – “All hypotheses are scientific”

He claims that every hypothesis is scientific, and so must be the God Hypothesis.

His chain of reasoning is as follows:

1)    The hypothetic approach is applicable to God.

2)    The hypothetic approach is integral to science.

3)    Therefore all hypotheses are scientific hypotheses.

4)    Therefore the hypothesis of God is a scientific hypothesis.

5)    Therefore it can be tested by scientific experiments.

6)    The data gathered by scientific experiments do not reveal God’s existence.

7)    Therefore God does not exist.

Key fallacies in italics.

Fallacy 2 – Biblical assumptions contradict basic science.

Example: The Bible says the earth is flat (the firmament)

Response: The Bible speaks phenomenologically, not scientifically.  It describes the sun in the sky because that is how we as humans observe it.  We can speak this way without being deceptive.

Fallacy 3 – Simplicity produces complexity.

Stenger responds to Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity argument, which says:

Complex functional biological systems cannot evolve by natural selection.

Natural selection can only work by preserving or selecting fortuitous improvements in some functional aspect of an organism.  Behe’s point is that complex biological systems cannot evolve step-by-step as taught by neo-Darwinianism because until they have become functioning systems they serve no purpose and natural selection cannot operate on them.

Example:

Rabbits being caught by foxes may adapt to become faster, as only the faster rabbits survive (natural selection).  Their speed is a functional system.

Cabbages which gain a “flight reflex” by mutation still won’t be able to avoid being eaten by rabbits because they cannot physically run away (natural selection doesn’t operate on this non-functioning system).  Therefore, they won’t be able to evolve.

Stenger’s rebuttal focuses on the argument that evolution is still possible because component parts of the complex system might be “waiting in the wings”  – they might have already evolved for a different purpose, and now various parts come together for a new purpose.

Response: This is just as ridiculous as buying a piece of furniture with parts that fit perfectly together and assuming that it will come together by itself if moved around randomly.

Even if all the component parts are present but are busy fulfilling different roles, the probability that an irreducibly complex biological system will spontaneously self-assemble is comparable to the chance of a whirlwind in a Boeing components warehouse creating a 747.  All the necessary components are there, but it takes something intelligent to put them together.