Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
A Universe from Nothing
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
A Universe From Nothing
date
newest »
newest »
Hey Chris. Yes, I am definitely interested in reading and discussing the book, just downloaded a copy. I know that the biological theory of spontaneous generation was discounted some years ago; am interested in exploring any theory expounding the spontaneous generation of the constituent matter of those biological organisms. Should be interesting. I have found it better in other groups to have members read and discuss material at the same rate, do you plan on waiting a few days to see if others will be interested? And perhaps stating a reading schedule? Looks like an interesting book, thanks for pointing it out.
Chris Warns wrote: "I was recently watching a debate with christian apologist William Lane Craig and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss. Krauss came up with a theory on "nothing" and how it supposedly created every..."Thanks for sharing this, Chris. I'm very interested.
Peter
Chris - theoretical physicists have been playing this game for years. Regarding the Big Bang Theory, they theorize it originated from "something infinitely small and infinitely dense". This is supposed to fool us into thinking it is neither matter nor energy. Unless they want to dismantle the first law of Thermodynamics that states: "energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it merely changes forms" then they really can't logically maintain the "something from nothing" weirdness.
I agree Robert.There seems to be a lot of semantic wordplay coming from "scientist" who are in the field of theoretical physics, in order to get others to praise their works. With this praise I believe these "scientist" become more confident in their own theories. Not because these theories are true by any means, but because it is what they WANT to believe. This is not only sad in the realms of science but also in a pursuit for truth.
Chris - I don't see them being very confident at all. Quantum mechanics thoroughly set them back on their heels. I see them mostly clutching at straws recently.
I've been listening to all the William Lane Craig podcasts about this debate with Krauss. Very entertaining.The problem is Krauss's Nothing - is actually a very specific SOMETHING. So funny...and people wonder why I question scientists. (although everyone and their grandma claims to be a scientist of the highest order nowadays.)
Antipodes-Yes, I was hoping we could have a discussion so i could look at other Christians, other then myself, perspective on Lawrence Krauss's theory. A reading schedule also may be helpful, maybe 2 chapters a week?Robert-You are probably right Robert, confidence is a poor choice of word. Willingly and almost passively ignorant is far better, becoming more and more numb by any confrontation with truth.
Rod-It IS very interesting! I find Krauss to be very deceiving but also desperate to gain approval from the people. Richard Dawkins, of course, aids him up by praising his theory of LITERALLY nothing. By any chance did you listen to the podcast from Unbelievable? I would also hesitate on calling Krauss a scientist, although he actually did define science correctly in the debate. Funny.
Chris - 2 chapters sounds doable, do you want to wait to see if anyone else finds the thread? Maybe 1 more week, or we could start now, your call.As far as the scientist part goes, I already know that the author is, at the least, not a good one. I have read the first chapter, and here is a quote: "Everyone (with the exception of certain school boards in the United States) now knows that the universe is not static..."; a logically false contention on its face - 'everyone'?!!?! Which certain school boards? So we can see that the author appears to be pandering to a certain audience and does not mind using hyperbole-laced vague generalities to that end. Not the writing of a scientist in my book. But then again, that old joke about doctors applies: "What do you call a med student who graduates at the bottom of his class?" "I don't know, what?" "Doctor." The author also made an unrelated jab at other US resident's intelligence, Tennessee and Ohio, if memory serves me correctly, so methinks he definitely has an Axe to grind there. But then there is this quote, which just defies description, so I won't even try: "These myriad stars sacrificed themselves, if you wish, so that one day you could be born. I suppose that qualifies them as much as anything else for the role of saviors."
I'm in for the read as I just downloaded a copy. I've been looking for a book to see what the other side of the fence has to say as my dad and I were briefly discussing the matter. He'd said there is math to prove that something did come from nothing, and my little mind said otherwise. I'm good with two chapters, and can't wait. Wait...what did I just get myself into?
I jumped the gun and read the preface...chomping at the bit to get this train rolling!
Lets wait till Saturday for those who have not made a decision yet, and we will go through 2 chapters a week. Hopefully more will be joining in the read by then.
Guys, I would enjoy this book, but am swamped with required reviews right now. I read a couple books a week though, so may be able to catch up and join in after a few weeks.
I'm doing research for a new book I'm planning, but am like Lee - if I can join you later, I will.
My least favorite areas of apologetics are science - with academic philosophy a close 2nd. I'll happily read all your posts about it, but i'm busy with a mountain of Islamic propaganda and theology.
This week we can begin the first two chapters. Ill do my part to post a thread every saturday morning (or friday night, depending on my schedule) on the next two chapters. There are 11 chapters, an epilogue, and an afterword by Richard Dawkins. Should be fun! We will probably be done discussing around 6 weeks. So far the first chapter was more on history rather then any theory, but I wont spoil anything for those who have not read. Hopefully by the end of the book we will see some theory to examine. I'm not excpecting much from him tho. Nevertheless, its good practice to show how Christianity is the only worldview that stands triumphant in a world surrounded by many philosophies. I pray we may grow together in defending what God has showed us to be true through his Word.
Thanks for this Chris. This should make for an awesome discussion.Craig's appeal to Homer's "Odyssey" about "Noman" and the absurdity that literally no-thing could be something was hilariously pertinent. Scientists usage of nothing as an equivocation is wholly misleading.
Like Aquinas, there has to be something to generate something. God is that great prime mover, and first uncaused cause.
So let me clarify: We are reading this book not to open our minds to new possibilities, but to reinforce what we already believe by searching out portions which may be debunked. To this end, we begin by praying for the strength to not be deceived, should anything we read prove a little too convincing. This should be fun ... I feel like I'm finally learning what apologists do!
Speaking for myself only, I am reading to learn anything new that is factual and hope to be able to sift scientific fact from scientific speculation about observed phenomena that may or may not dovetail with accepted scientific theory. The bible is not a scientific treatise and therefore should have little to say regarding an open-minded discussion of the validity, or lack thereof, of A Universe From Nothing. As I understand it, it purports to be a work of scientific fact, not philosophy or metaphysics - we shall see whether or not the author can maintain his claim. The necessity, or lack thereof, of a prime mover is a philosophical question that is beyond the scope of both scientific and biblical inquiry.
Ah, Antipodes, how boring. Facts, schmacts.
God deals only in facts. His advantage over us, in that regard, is that he already knows them all.
But the book which tells us He knows them all is the same book which tells us the earth is 6,000 years old. Are we to interpret the promise of God's omniscience literally but not His claim of how the earth was made?I don't know everything, but my grandson probably thinks I'm omniscient ... especially when I explain that the sky is blue because it rained the day they painted the Blue Mountains, and the paint bled into the sky.
You all don't know me well enough yet, but for me to say we need to be willing to go where the science leads us, is a first for me; I don't think science has followed their own rule in regards to the origins of the universe. This being my first "science" book since high school, I'm looking forward to learning something, and I have no real notion of what that might be - but I'm open to it. My bias is that I believe science has precluded deity from the conversation, which is certainly frustrating, if not wrong.My motivation comes from the idea that the science community isn't asking enough of the right questions about the origins of the universe, and is in fact squashing the professional careers of those that do ask (Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed"). I suspect this book is an attempt to answer the question of the origin of the universe, but I simply can't fathom the idea that something came from nothing, matter just doesn't come from no matter (another bias I bring to the reading). If the science/math prove otherwise then I have a new thing to ponder AND pray about.
Kurt, I presume the argument relies on the balance of matter and antimatter, energy and dark energy. They sum to nothing. It's a little like digging a hole to make a hill. But who does the digging?
Lee wrote: "Kurt, I presume the argument relies on the balance of matter and antimatter, energy and dark energy. They sum to nothing. It's a little like digging a hole to make a hill. But who does the digging?"I guess it is a me issue until I learn differently, but I go on the assumption that there is no such thing as nothing, but you're right about the hole. Who's digging? It is the greatest question there is, and the believer has a lot more than just faith rest in. I really can't wait to get into all this.
I haven't looked at this book, but I'm beginning to fear for your expectations. From this discussion, I'm starting to think this book may be written by a scientist for scientists, in which case few here will understand a word of it. I hope, so you don't waste your money, that it's a scientist writing for layman.
I know what you mean Robert. The upside is that I think the book was supposed to be written for guys like myself, and if it isn't then I feel comfortable that answers will present them selves from within the group. The other consideration is that I got word from Amazon that I got myself a few nickels from some class action lawsuit, so the book is essentially on the house!
Curiosity got the best of me so I browsed the reviews for feedback. The consensus seems to be that the author covers complex issues, but in a way that is comprehensible. We are dealing with a full-blown atheist here so read this fully aware of his biases.
Nothing cannot be something, Lee. If scientists use the euphemism "nothing" to describe something, then what was antecedent to that? The best cosmological model, "big bang model" admits that time and space literally came into being a finite time ago. From whence? Out of nothing nothing comes. Kraus is a brilliant physicist, but a baffoon of a philosopher. Science cannot answer philosophical questions because it is OBSERVATIONAL! Even theoretical science is based on laws, but again, people that are militant against an Intelligent Designer will concoct theories prejudice towards metaphysical naturalism so as to avoid God. Krause admits this in the three debates against WLC in Australia.
I believe that the author will display obvious bias. My focus is going to be to try to not get sidetracked by that bias, to recognize it for what it is and sift it out of his argument. My interest is to discover if there is any new hard science presented. From the comments so far I don't think that any of us would have too much difficulty defending against false bias.
Where is Rod when you need him. You do realize, I hope, this is THEORETICAL Physics. Nothing needs be proven or even remotely the truth. It is all conjecture based on models that are often themselves conjecture. I'm not saying just be skeptical of the theism; as you say, Antipodes, that's a given with this group, but be critical of false assumptions and faulty algorithms, too.
Brent - it's truly amazing how prescient the Bible is: to paraphrase, the Universe developed from something smaller than a mustard seed. Right on target!
His argument must be verifiable, logical, mathematically consistent. I do not expect the math in this volume. Theoretical physics, if presented as fact, (which I understand to be the author's claim), must conform to all known observed phenomena. It is not philosophy, nor is it metaphysics.
Brent, here is a simple way to make something out of nothing. We are talking mathematical models, so note the equation: $1 + -$1 = $0, nothing. So borrow a dollar, invest it, then pay back the dollar. Pocket the difference. I agree it's counterintuitive to imagine this model as a means for creating matter, but in this age of mysteries concerning antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, who knows what will shake down. The theoretical singularity of a black hole is still beyond my comprehension.
HAHAH, do you think this is a viable model? Nothing is literally "no-thing." In your example you don't have nothing creating something....you're still starting with something, or a lack thereof. You cannot have a deprivation of something and call it nothing if literally nothing exists! Antimatter and dark matter however swirling they are in quantum fluctuations is NOT nothing....it is something.
Brent, do you understand that a bit of energy can create matter and antimatter from nothing? Then when you squish them (positive and negative) back together again into nothing, it returns the energy?Do you understand there are alternative types of matter and energy that we see evidence of, but so far can only speculate about?
I think you're laughing at something you know nothing about. Here's something for you to laugh at if you feel the need: Some idiots try to philosophically make room for an eternal God, but make no room for an eternal anything else (presumably unconscious) which might just as easily serve as a catalyst for creation, forming matter and antimatter from nothing in much the same way we do with our energy.
Lee, I kind of see where Brent is coming from. In the examples you gave there was always something that created the "thing" described, be it a dollar or any kind of energy. I won't speak for Brent, but as for me, I'd be lying if I said I can comprehend something from nothing, and I wonder if science and theology use two different definitions of "nothing"? It's clearly a heady issue while at the same time an easy one. That is in part why I'm reading this book - to hopefully discern the debate.
Wow, Lee, lot's of competing "God's" struggling for dominance in the eternity business. I'd laugh and say that's unimaginable, but that's precisely what we've got in a pluralistic world.
Yeah, I agree, Kurt. As Hawking opines, "why is there something instead of nothing?" That's why the only rational stance is agnosticism. ;)Anyway, the book should be given a fair shake IMO. There's no point in reading it if your mind is already made up. I guess I better pick it up and read it, put my money where my mouth is.
Robert, pluralistic isn't suggesting multiple gods. It's suggesting believers experience multiple facets of the same God.
Lee, you're getting roped into reading a book you said you don't have time for! I need to learn about rationalism, as I would say the opposite is true, but I also haven't the foggiest about rationalism. I at least know what I don't know, so I've got that going for me ;)
I was including the scientific "Gods", Lee.
In the aforesaid debates between Krause and Craig, Krause admits, after bring pressed by Craig, the way he uses "nothing" is still something. When asked what was prior to that. Krause got defensive and said "well no one knows that!" Exactly my point.
When most of you read Apologetics books I read books like Kraus', although generally more geared toward genetics and biochemistry than theoretical physics. Do you get bored with the sameness in Apologetics books? Well, it's the same with theoretical physics. Since the advent of quantum mechanics, they're seriously bogged down. Few of the classical physics "laws of nature" have any certainty about them anymore. Largely the discipline has currently abandoned hope for understanding the universe on a grand scale and sought refuge in finding the smallest particles to jump-start their stalled progress, Hence, all the rave about the Higg's Bosun (a number, not a thing). If you are hoping for any "Ah-Ha" moments from reading this book, you are apt to be seriously disappointed. That doesn't mean it's not good reading as an insight into some pretty heady subject matter. While physics is treading water, oraganic chemistry (ask Peter about this), and recombinant genetics are charging ahead. Findings in these fields, interestingly, give religious folk like Craig, on the forefront of scientific thought, fodder for a provable, creational God, that can be used AGAINST the traditional atheistic physicist. We truly do live in interesting times.
Robert quote: "Where is Rod when you need him."You don't need me. I'm just watching from the sidelines on this one.
The reason Im posting this is because i have not read the book and as Christians i find it beneficial to understand the arguments of the world. So I was wondering if anyone would like to join in reading this book and discuss Krauss's theory.
And if anyone is just interested in discussing the debate, here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82uG...