The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning and the Universe Itself? Part 3

Part 3 of my review of the book: “The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning and the Universe Itself,” by Sean M. Carroll. Part 2 is found here.

Naturalism

Carroll defines naturalism saying it comes down to three things (p.20) and that “the only reliable way of learning about the world is by observing it”. But how can he know that if he is not God. Suppose for a minute that there really is a Creator God and He gave us a revelation in His written Word. But because man cannot, by definition, observe God, since He is a spirit and outside the realm of detectability by science, how can he know that what God has written is not a reliable way of learning about the world? And this is another self-refuting claim: what observation did he make, or even could he make, that reliably showed that observation is the only reliable way of learning?

His form of naturalism – poetic naturalism (after David Hume) – is just standard atheistic naturalism, but he adds that man has responsibility and freedom (p.21).

“The world exists; beauty and goodness are things that we bring to it.”

He means there is nothing intrinsically good or beautiful. He writes that there are

“No causes, whether material, formal, efficient, or final” (p.29).

Extending the idea of Laplace’s Demon, he writes

“Realistically, there never will be and never can be an intelligence vast and knowledgeable enough to predict the future of the universe from its present state.” (p.34)

In the chapter titled “Reasons Why” he says that Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason is a mistake. That principle states that “For any true fact, there is a reason why it is so, and why something else is not so instead” (p.40). And he points out that

“Hume noted that conceiving of effects without causes might seem unusual, but it does not lead to any inherent contradiction or logical impossibility.” (p.41)

This leads to his belief that the universe needs no reason to be; it simply is.

“… there are facts that don’t have any reasons to explain them”. (p.42)

He implicitly believes a big bang origin for the universe 14 billion years ago, and says that there are some questions for which we may not get answers. Continue reading

An eternal quantum potential or an eternal Creator God

JGH1As a teenager I co-authored a book comparing the competing cosmologies in 1968. They were the Big Bang Theory (BBT) and the Steady State Theory (SST). Even though the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation provided a big boost to big bang theories at that time, I preferred the SST because it had no origin in time. You see, I was an atheist then and I reasoned that if the Universe had no beginning then it didn’t need a Creator and thus I had no God that I needed to obey.

The fact that the BBT has an origin in time—a unique past boundary—has been particularly vexing for the atheist believers in that cosmogony. Using various approaches the BB theorists have been trying to eliminate the beginning, by replacing the Creator with an eternal quantum potential, which existed for eternity past, and then 13.8 billion years ago exploded into the big bang universe, … or, so they say. For now though, they are stuck with the universal origin in a singularity, which in itself has led them to worshipping the Universe itself.

The explanation given in the Bible I now find so much more satisfying. Any cosmogony, which attempts to correctly describe real history, must be consistent with and follow not only the biblical time scale but also follow the sequence of events in the Genesis account. I present a very brief summary of a few biblical creationist models. These models acknowledge the eternal Creator God as the source of everything in the Universe.

An illustrated talk presented at the Creation Ministries International 2016 Creation SuperCamp at The Tops Conference Centre, NSW, 9:45 pm Wednesday January 6, 2016.

Video of Powerpoint presentation

Continue reading

Piercing the ‘Darkness’

—The bankruptcy of big-bang thinking and its ‘dark’ fudge factors

JGH1Six important questions are asked in regards to the alleged big bang origin of the Universe? These questions highlight the bankruptcy of big bang thinking, about the origin of the universe that needs numerous fudge factors.

Embracing the ‘darkness’ has led man to develop unprovable fudge factors to plug the holes in his failed theory. I deal with each of these:

  1. Where did the Universe come from?
  2. How did nothing explode?
  3. How did stars and galaxies form?
  4. Why does CMB ‘light’ cast no shadows?
  5. Why the ‘Axis of Evil’?
  6. What about expansion of space?

…. 14 more problems are listed but not discussed in any detail.

Six major fudge factors are highlighted as a result but there are many more. The big bang needs these unverifiable fudge factors; so why hasn’t it been discarded? The answer is simple. The alternative, for the atheist–a Creator God–is unbearable, and for the compromised theist or deist, who accepts a big bang origin for the universe, the Creator as described by a straightforward reading of the Bible, is unbearable.

An illustrated talk presented at the Creation Ministries International 2016 Creation SuperCamp at The Tops Conference Centre, NSW, 7:30 pm Monday January 4, 2016.

Video of powerpoint presentation

Continue reading

A question on ad hoc in my cosmologies

Hi John,

Here are quotes from two of your articles that I’d like to ask a question about:

  • “My first model (2003)1 employed no gravitational potential well, but a supernatural causation only. During Creation week, God miraculously slowed Earth and the solar system clocks in comparison to cosmic clocks. The model doesn’t need an expanding universe, but it is rather ad hoc. That is, it invokes a miracle.” quoted from STARLIGHT AND TIME: IS IT A BRICK WALL FOR BIBLICAL CREATION?
  • “This means placing the earth at the centre of a truly vast spherical universe, where the most distant galaxies were first created tens of billions of years before the first day of creation of Genesis 1 (figure 1),2 and subsequently created closer and closer towards Earth at the constant speed of light c such that the light from all the galaxies arrived at the earth on the fourth day, for the first time.” quoted from THE ANISOTROPIC SYNCHRONY CONVENTION MODEL AS A SOLUTION TO THE CREATIONIST STARLIGHT-TRAVEL-TIME PROBLEM — PART I.

In the first case, God miraculously slowing local vs cosmic clocks is deemed ad hoc; however, in the second case God is required to do trillions of smaller miracles (creating all the stars in a certain order, over billions of years). How is the second any less ad hoc than the first?

Blessings, BKH 

Continue reading

From a Christian to a disciple of Jesus Christ

I tell more of my story of how I continued to seek the Lord and of my journey around Australia, in 1974, which led me out of the Roman Catholic Church. I sought for the baptism and power of the Holy Spirit because I desired to be a witness for my Lord. I outline my meeting with other Christians and the Children of God and finally my infilling of the Holy Spirit. This involved my commitment to the Lord to forsake all else to serve Him and Him alone. All the glory to God.

Hymn DR Oct 21 M


Related Viewing

Related Reading

Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, the Movie

I just watched this documentary. It is powerful. Buy it! You won’t be disappointed!

Promo here.

The movie has been available since October 20th 2015. Order it now. More Information

Creation Ministries International (CMI) undertook a major new offensive to take even more ground in the battle to proclaim the truth of the Bible. The aim was to simply and concisely expose evolution’s fatal weaknesses.

It culminated in 2014 with the completion of a milestone book, and a 96-minute DVD documentary, both called Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels.

The Achilles’ heels of evolution are often in the very areas widely considered to be impregnable strongholds of this belief system. These areas are the topics systematically covered in both the book and the documentary. They are:

  • Natural Selection
  • Genetics and DNA
  • The Origin of Life
  • The Fossil Record
  • The Geologic Record
  • Radiometric Dating
  • Cosmology
  • Ethics and Morality

We believe evolution theory has no answer to these weaknesses, once properly explained and understood. The book is like no other work that we are aware of, in that it is authored exclusively by nine Ph.D. scientists, including myself, to produce a coordinated, coherent, powerful argument. The documentary involves even more PhD scientists, 15 in all, and features striking footage and brilliant computer animations. All of these scientists received their doctorates from similar, secular universities as their evolutionary counterparts. Each is a specialist in various relevant fields.

Review by Examiner.com

Continue reading

On the origin of universes by means of natural selection

—or, blinded by big bang blackness

The origin of our universe is a vexing problem for the atheist. The very state of the observable universe today presents serious problems for them, as it demands a Creator. Why did the universe begin in such an organised state, where laws are finely tuned for life to exist, and where irreversible processes occur producing the forward­­ march of time?

In thinking on the nature of the universe and our existence within it, the Greeks developed the philosophies of rationalismand empiricism2, two different approaches they believed could determine truth from the world. The former involved deduction,3 and the latter, induction.4 No reference to a Creator God was considered relevant.

The modern cosmologist, one who attempts to explain the origin of a rational universe, with laws derived from observation, is one who believes he can, by inductive reasoning alone, discover its origin without the Creator.

The atheists say the rational mind concludes that there is no God, therefore the universe is the outcome of pure materialism.5 Then how do we explain how the universe came to be? How do we, by induction alone, explain the origin of the laws of physics? And how do we test if our explanations are correct? These are fundamental epistemological6 questions that need to be answered. Continue reading