Discoveroids Have Proof of a Creating Deity

This one at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute will shake you to your blasphemous Darwinist core. It’s titled Oxford’s John Lennox: Why Science and the Universe Itself Call for a Creator, and it was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Oxford mathematician John Lennox is a star of the new Science Uprising episode [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], “Big Bang: Something from Nothing?” [Link omitted!]

It certainly sounds exciting. As our regular readers know, Lennox is a creationist mathematician. Here’s his Wikipedia write-up: John Lennox. He’s not officially a Discoveroid, but they like him. Klinghoffer gushes about him:

He’s also priceless as a character: brilliant scientist, the Irish grandfather you wish you had, amiably listing off fact after fact about the universe to confound any scientific atheist.

What a great guy! Klinghoffer tells us:

In bonus material from the episode, Professor Lennox discusses problems including that the universe has a beginning [Gasp!], that it was wonderfully fine-tuned for our existence from the start [Egad!], or indeed before the start.

You’re shocked, aren’t you? Don’t deny it, dear reader. We know you’re shocked. Klinghoffer continues:

Also that there is something at all rather than nothing, a truth that atheists Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and others have sought to smooth other. Lennox tells here why they fail.

Wowie — why is there something rather than nothing? Oh wait, the Discoveroids already answered that question — see Casey Admits the Designer Is the First Cause. Let’s read on:

None of this is what you would expect given a materialist picture of reality. But a Biblical one? That’s a different story.

Ooooooooooooh! The Discoveroids seem to be moving ever closer to ol’ Hambo. Surprised? Anyway, here’s the end of the Discoveroid post:

Watch Episode 7 of Science Uprising [Link omitted!], if you haven’t already, and then enjoy more from Dr. Lennox as he explains why science and the universe call for a creating deity: [video embedded in the post].

Well, dear reader, if that doesn’t persuade you that the creationists are right and you’re nothing but a hell-bound fool, then nothing will.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

24 responses to “Discoveroids Have Proof of a Creating Deity

  1. The one thing that can safely be said as a increasing goal of the universe of nature is entropy.

  2. They’re like gap parasites. See a gap, latch onto it like a leech, and ride that baby for all it’s worth. Nobody can say their god had a beginning because there is no evidence that it did. And then in their heads they quote-mine their selves “no evidence that it did…nobody can say it…nya nya nya take that you naysayers, you can’t say nay this time now can you.”

  3. “Dr. Lennox … explains why science and the universe call for a creating deity”.

    Sigh. No, he doesn’t. He asserts that he has “reasons for believing that the Biblical revelation is true”, but he never says what those reasons are or what he means by “the Biblical revelation”. What revelation? Trees of knowledge? Talking snakes? Man created from clay, woman from his rib?

    Instead he wanders on to a further assertion: that the statement “God created the Heavens and the Earth” can be tested, and was tested by LeMaitre, Hubble, Pensius, Wilson and others. That is a lie. Lennox knows it’s a lie. No such test was ever made. No such test is possible.

    He inveighs at length on the logical contradiction that the Universe could create itself. How could something that didn’t exist bootstrap itself into existence? Primordial law? Gravity? Where does that come from?

    Leaving aside the fact that this question is an attack on a strawman – for nobody says the Universe arose from absolute nothing – the answer to it is “I don’t know”, not “God”. As for the rest, in a Universe where particles exist and don’t exist, both at once, and can be in two places at the same time, and appear from vacuum and disappear into it with no apparent cause, l find logic insufficient.

    So I don’t know why or how the singularity arose, or time and space began. Nobody knows. Lennox doesn’t know. He wants there to be a God; I want there to be a God. The difference between us is that I know that wanting and having are not the same thing.

    The rest is the “fine-tuning” argument. Yes, well. The Universe is fine-tuned for us? Is it? Or is it that we are fine-tuned for the Universe? If we couldn’t exist, we wouldn’t. The fact that we do exist only demonstrates that we can. It doesn’t demonstrate that there is any plan or design to our existence.

    But this is really old stuff. All of these ideas were run into the ground many years ago. I’ll admit that the discovery that the Universe began at a point is consonant with the Genesis stories – and with the creation myths of every people, everywhere, at all times. But the rest is silence.

    As is standard for the DI, this video is nothing more than hot air. Stale hot air. Of course their headline is a lie. Science and the Universe itself do not call for a creator. Lies, said Jesus, have a source. Given Dr Lennox’s assertions that he is a Christian, I think he needs to reflect on that.

    Meanwhile, as I write, I hear the beating of mighty wings. The flocks of pigs are flying south to their winter feeding grounds.

  4. @Dave Luckett
    Yes, this is the same old stuff. (And I will not repeat it. Except to note that the Bible is not determinative on there being a beginning to it all. Nor is modern scientific cosmology.)

  5. I think @TomS may be the best person to Critique what I’m about to say. It seems to me that the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is inherently unanswerable. For if X is proposed as the answer, then either X is part of the something, in which case it is part of what needs to be explained, or else X is not part of the something, in which case it requires its own special explanation. At this point, if I understand correctly, people like William Lane Craig say that my argument is refuted if X is necessary, which seems to me a hogwash concept, or restrict the original argument to things that had a beginning, and say that God did not have a beginning. (As TomS just pointed out, we could add that we do not know if the universe had a beginning, since on current thinking information about what happened before the initial expansion is inaccessible.)

  6. @Paul Braterman
    I suggest that we do not always know the answer to the question “why?״
    “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” may be one of those questions. It is up to the questioner to address the need for answer.
    There is also the issue of the nature of time. Is it always measured by a closed segment of the real line, and thus having a beginning, or infinite? Or can it be an open interval, with no beginning, or not even linear?
    I don’t know. And I must admit my ignorance, and admit that I do not have a chance of discovering the answer, alas.

  7. Why is there something rather than nothing?
    Why is Aunt Minnie in the hospital?

    Feynman goes down the “why” rabbit hole in this great video.

  8. Dr Braterman, TomS is undoubtedly better able to respond to that argument than I. I would only point to one word, “why”, and suggest that a close examination of its several meanings might demonstrate that the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” actually assumes part of an answer – one to which the framer wishes to direct the hearer.

  9. If it’s so easy for a god to not have a beginning then gods should be like a dime a dozen. There should be a sh[BLEEP] ton of them.

  10. @DL, @TomS, I always assumed that “why” in this question meant “what is the physical or logical cause”, rather than “what purpose does it serve”. I know there are further refinements within these

  11. @Paul Braterman
    Whatever. I don’t think that we can assume that any question has an answer. We don’t know everything. Why is there something, rather than nothing? I don’t know.
    I don’t even know what it means to say that there is something, or what it would mean that there would be nothing. (If there is nothing, what about the state of there being nothing, what status does that have?)

  12. In that video recommended by docbill1351, Feynman considers “why” to mean only the “What is the physical or logical cause” version rather than “What purpose does it serve?” Yet his comeback question “Why is Aunt Minnie in the hospital?” is just as well fitted for a “purpose” answer: “to treat her broken hip.” Daniel C. Dennett distinguishes the two versions with the English paraphrases “How come?” and “What for?”

    The ambiguity in the question “Why?” can allow True Believers to have it both ways. When they say they believe everything happens for a reason, they are speaking within the big-picture frame of God’s Plan for Salvation, even if they are satisfied for the moment with a “how come” answer. To other believers, they are flashing a virtue signal, but if called out by one of us vile materialist skeptics, they can dodge behind the cover of “a train of causes and effects.”

  13. I think the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is answerable. To ever get a satisfying resolution to it, we have to start with the idea that there was “nothing”, but now there is “something”. Obviously, “nothing” cannot be changed into “something”, so the only way to do this is if that “nothing” were somehow not a “nothing” but a “something” in disguise. And, there are mechanical ways this can be. That’s my vote. Thanks

  14. Ambiguity, the plausible deniability refuge of the scoundrel. Or just plain desperate. Or a politician. Okay scoundrel might be a little harsh.

  15. Roger: to the best of anyone’s knowledge, there never was a moment when there was nothing. Therefore, nothing never had to be changed into something.

  16. Dave: Hi. I’m not suggesting that nothing was changed into something. I’m suggesting that if we think about nothing differently, we can see that it’s an existent entity, or a something.

  17. Well, I suppose so. That would imply that there never can be nothing – it’s a contradiction in terms. But that would imply, in turn, that we do not have to explain why there is something now. There always was something. That is, the question, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” is simply meaningless.

  18. Dave: I agree that there always was something even if that something is what most think of as nothing. But, figuring out why nothing is a something and then figuring out the properties of that something will help us understand physics at a deeper level, IMHO. Of course, that’d be a long time away, but I think it can help.

  19. Dave: Hi. I agree that something has been here forever even if that something is what we used to think of as nothing. But figuring out why nothing can be a something and then figuring out the properties of this most fundamental of somethings can help us make progress towards a deeper understanding of physics, IMHO. That’d take a long time, for sure, but I think it can help.

  20. Is time (or space-time) something? Is it possible for there to be a time when there is nothing (not even time)? There is work to be done on what the question means.

  21. FWIW, if there is nothing then there is no such thing as time. Talk of a time when there was nothing is meaningless. On Hawking’s analogy, it’s like talk about being north of the North Pole.

  22. TomS asks: “Is time (or space-time) something?”

    Time is the sequence of events, as measured by some other sequence used as a standard of reference (or “clock”). So if literally nothing exists, then there’s no time.

  23. If you saw the delightful movie, Yesterday, in which a cosmic rift created an alternate timeline where the Beatles never existed as a band (nor Coca Cola or cigarettes) then you know a scene was cut, but you can find it on YouTube. In the scene, musician Jack Malik who remained in the previous universe by a quirk, appears to create Something out of nothing on the James Cordon show.

    Long introduction, but in Krauss’ book, A Universe from Nothing, he points out that in reality, or what we perceive as reality, that is the space-time universe, nothing is not the same as the semantic, idealized concept of “nothing.” Nothing in reality is actually a different form of something.

    I will bet 10,000 Quatloos that the overwhelming population of Bible thumpers who expound on this subject have no clue about Krauss, his book or the real understanding of nothing, and so they’re simply talking out of ignorance. The fraction who have read and understood Krauss are trying to pull a fast one, lying through their teeth, when they replace the nothing of reality with the nothing of philosophy; they rely upon the lay person’s understanding of nothing which is, literally, nothing like the cosmological nothing. I know, it’s much ado about …

    Here’s Jack Malik.

  24. Agreed that there’s no time if there’s nothing. But, if nothing can be thought of differently as a something, then I don’t think there’s a temporal change from nothing to something. Instead, the mind changing its way of visualizing nothing to being a something is mistaken as a temporal change, when it’s really just switching between ways of thinking about the same thing.