Gerald Schroeder, the author of many books arguing for religion, has a short video that shows that science has irrefutably discovered the God of Genesis in the Big Bang. Checkmate atheists, it's all over now for disbelief, get down on your knees.

Schroeder has also disproved evolution:

There are a few logical problems along the way in both of these, but I have a quibble first. The headline lists him as an "M.I.T. scientist." No question he got his Ph.D. at M.I.T. and worked there for five years afterwards. However, he has not been at Tech since 1970—forty-five years. Does that make him an M.I.T. scientist? Why would you say that? Because now he teaches the Torah in Israel at a small, relatively unknown institution?

Now the biggest logical problem in the Big Bang discussion is his claim that the laws of nature precede the Big Bang. But wait, the Big Bang is when time began. There is no time before the Big Bang, so how can the laws of nature precede. And what does that mean? How do laws and natural forces exist before the material universe, and even if they could, how could we know that they did?

The argument in the evolution article is an old one—that random evolution cannot produce the complexity we see in the world. It has been debunked many times.

Views: 1040

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What I believe is that theists will do anything to say "this major scientist has proven that god does exist, blah, blah, blah," and produce anybody they can, but you find out they just do not have the credentials. How can someone state for a fact something that just is not known? It's impossible. This is how we got "creation scientists" in the first place.

I suspect that they think they will keep messing with this until they get one of their own in office in such a way that they can make something a "law" and then that will settle the matter. Not for me it won't. God and creation would have to be proven by the Bible. Why? Without the sacred writings you have no claim of anything and you don't even know about god. That should be the end of the story. The diehards go on. In my lifetime the search for god has been an endless shell game. It's almost as ridiculous as trying to find Bigfoot.

Now the biggest logical problem in the Big Bang discussion is his claim that the laws of nature precede the Big Bang. But wait, the Big Bang is when time began.


Some of the theists who actually have more than a handful of neurons inside their nanoscale crania, do ask a somewhat deeper question than it sounds.

When they say that the laws of nature precede the big bang, they might not be referring to temporal causality as you imply. It's something like natural numbers preceding fractions.

Of course that's a nonsensical argument for the existence of Zeus, Ra or Quetzalcoatl or whatever they worship. 

In fact the Multiverse hypothesis is also based upon natural laws preceding the Big Bang. So do current models of cosmology. Ever watched Lawrence Krauss' videos entitled A Universe made on Nothing, on Youtube? He consistently refers to quantum level fluctuations in pure nothingness causing the Big Bang.

In fact the Multiverse hypothesis is the best (i.e. simplest, most parsimonious) explanation behind the existence of the universe.

According to the Multiverse hypothesis (at least the Max Tegmark version of it), anything that is mathematically possible, also does exist

So why does our universe exist? Simply because it is driven by a mathematically consistent set of natural laws. No Sky Daddy required to establish those natural laws!

In other words, there is nothing special with our own universe. We exist because we are (mathematically) possible! The Level-4 Multiverse is the set of all mathematical possibilities. Its building blocks are simply logical True and False

Amazingly elegant hypothesis, if you ask me!

At this point physics seems to be having an outbreak of hypotheses, many of them difficult to test experimentally. Schroeder ends up with a God that is identical with the set of natural laws. That is theologically unsatisfactory in many ways, but perhaps close to what Einstein meant when he said he believed in Spinoza's God. However sensible this may be physically, it doesn't seem to be close to what believers actually believe.

There is a quote which I've known for some time which speaks to this whole "proving god" business:

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
-- George Santayana

The arguments posed in the above article are not new, and indeed, they weren't new 10 year ago.  They've been offered by religious apologists for almost as long as apologetics has been around.  The problem appears to me to be that apologists DON'T LEARN.  They apparently either cannot or will not educate themselves as to the positions which oppose them, or if they do, they cherry-pick those arguments even as they pick and choose their supporting "evidence".

The reason is simple: if they were seriously interested in learning, they would ultimately learn that all their words are little more than incoherent noise, that their suppositions hold no water ... and that their god is illusory.  Yet for reason which we know too well - fear, indoctrination, and the investment fallacy, among others - they will not let go of this illusion.  They continue to offer the same arguments, over and over again, expecting someone to acknowledge them.  This repeated behavior was defined some years ago with one word:


Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
-- George Santayana

And those who know history are condemned to say that people who don't know it are condemned to repeat it.

--A Committed Skeptic

Dunning-Kruger, yet again.

What we learn from history is that we do NOT learn from history.. Hegel.

The "MIT scientist" happens to be an instructor at some Jewish seminary in Israel, "Aish HaTorah".

He is NOT a professional scientist.

He has NO qualifications in paleontology/evolutionary biology and yet devotes much of his time dissing the theory of evolution.

He has NO refereed publications on this topic.

He bases his 'research' on extremely superficial, high school level mathematics to argue that the laws of probability make it impossible for the universe to have been 'fine tuned' for humans.

(By parallel reasoning, how likely was I, SkyDaddy, to be posting in a message board called AtheistNexus when Charles Babbage was designing his Analytical Engine? Does it mean that 'god' was involved in the process?)

Then he fits the qualifications that most theists find for their "scientists."

A universe fine-tuned for humans?

I'm surprised that Schroeder finds mathematics necessary to deny that.

Well, Tom, it's like this. When you buy a car you know that GM (or whoever) built that damned thing to run just perfectly. Yet, the car doesn't do that, so you have to buy it from the dealer and then take it home to "fine tune" it. Only at this point does the car run properly.

Is this what the "universe fine tuned for humans" people are trying to say? If god did fine tuning he really was experimenting wasn't he? I'm looking for those passages in my Buybull right now.  :)

Schroeder can assert anything he can imagine. I'm sure he has followers.

You asserted that the Big Bang is when time began. Is it true that you have followers?


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service