Philosophy discussion

This is a discussion on the topic, ideas and concepts presented in the book,
From Void to Universe:
        Proposing a New Theory by which Science and Religion Can Get Along.

It's listed on goodreads at this link:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47551723-from-void-to-universe
                
The book is available from Amazon or Barnes&Noble online bookstores. I hope some of you might add it to your goodreads "Want to Read" list and read it soon. :)

---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,

This book develops an idea taking a position that for any theory about a supernatural creation of our universe to be valid, it must require the end result of such a creation include all the natural evidence that scientists find.

The arguments are based on a foundation of logic and critical thinking. I think it would be an interesting topic of discussion in a philosophy discussion group like this and so would like to invite anyone here to read the book.

*Section One* of the book builds a foundation to develop the central idea into the format of a scientific theory. The resulting "Void to Universe theory" can be applied to any mythology or creation story.

*Section Two* presents a series of essays that shares some additional related thoughts, and also applies the theory more thoroughly in the context of Genesis. The book uses the story of Genesis and Christian faith as examples throughout both sections because that is the most common basis for creationism theories in the U.S.

---------------------------------------------------------
ARC is available for reviewers upon request (in pdf, mobi, and epub formats).
Advertising blurb, "Look Inside" preview, and more can be found on publisher's website: https://voidtouniverse.com
        
From Void to Universe:
Proposing a New Theory by which
Science and Religion Can Get Along
Release date July 31, 2019 on Amazon and Barnes&Noble.
Ebook & 5x8 Paperback, 208 pages cover to cover, appx. wordcount 37000.

Paperback book or Kindle (mobi) ebook available on Amazon.
Paperback book or Nook (epub) ebook available on Barnes&Noble.

Can a literal interpretation of Genesis have resulted in a universe with evidence of a natural origin 13.8 billion years ago, and the natural evolution of life over the last 3.5 billion years?

"Literal" is the first hurdle to take... . How did you solve the issue of translations, redactions, physical damage etc? If you base your argument on a 'literal' interpretation, there really is no other option than to read the text in the original.

Well, the "Literal" hurdle was the easiest "to take..."
The "issue of translations, redactions, physical damage etc?" is solved by being irrelevant. This book puts forth a theory by which "Any" interpretation (from original texts or any translations) could have resulted in all the natural evidence in the universe. In fact according to the Void to Universe theory, it doesn't matter what interpretation of any supernatural creation story or mythology is considered, (for it to be valid) it would still have had to result in all the natural evidence of a natural origin because that's what evidence exists in the universe.

The argument isn't based on the interpretations of creation, it's based on the empirical evidence that exists within the natural universe. Any supernatural process of creation occurring at any date is possible, but whatever the method of that creation was, the end result must be the universe that exists. The argument is fundamentally based on a distinction between the concepts of natural and supernatural.

I could make many discussion posts explaining it more thoroughly, but that's why I wrote the book. It's the reason I'm offering a free ARC and recommend people read the book first. It would be easier to understand the theory that way, and then discuss the ideas after reading it. :)

Can a literal interpretation of Genesis have resulted in a universe with evidence of a natural origin 13.8 billion years ago...?

I take your last point, Lee - you're right of course. But I am still confused. My quote is from your blurb text. If any interpretation will do, as you clarify above, why did you deliberately narrow the number of interpretations down to "literal" ones in the blurb? Should you not have said "any interpretation of Genesis would have resulted in the current universe"?

Indeed, in your response you go further and say that interpretations of creation (I guess that means any central text of any religion) are irrelevant. Well. No matter. You're right. The answers may be in your book. Cheers - Mark.

That's a good point Mark.

The reason the blurb text references the "literal" interpretation of Genesis is because the only significant effort to deny science (or even discredit it whole cloth) comes from young-earth creationists. Their arguments make claim that all evidence and conclusions of science must fit within a 6,000 year time span because of their 'literal' interpretations of the Bible. In doing so they've developed a method of critical thinking in which fallacies are used as tools rather than understood as logical flaws (e.g., "If I believe something, I can just deny the truth or credibility of any facts that don't appear to support the belief.") Once that method of thinking is learned, it becomes problematic when applied to solving other real world problems and issues.

When I say that any religious interpretations are irrelevant, that's only in the fundamental context of this theory. They are only irrelevant in the sense that any such belief can be shown to be valid. The theory does accept that any specific texts do have relevance toward that particular faith. For that reason, it seems to me, discussion of the theory for most people is best narrowed to an example using a single religious belief. That might possibly seem a little condescending, but it's based on personal experiences of discussing this topic with others. Of course, in a philosophy group such as this one, more general discussions are possible.

The book proposes a logical theory that does apply to any supernatural belief, and then applies that theory to the most common creationist arguments against science. It does so in a way that shows their faith and beliefs can be logically valid and also that such beliefs don't require a denial or refutation of scientific evidence, the scientific process, or any scientific conclusions.


So far irl, four of the beta readers that I've been able to have discussions with include an atheist (who is an artist), and agnostic (with a physics degree, who was raised with a mixed Catholic and Jewish upbringing), a Catholic (retired teacher), and a Coptic Christian (art professor). All of them thought it made some thought provoking arguments, and none of them felt it was offensive to their beliefs. None of them could find any logical flaws in the arguments and found the ideas interesting. I received similar comments from other beta readers, as well.

The book also presents in the afterword, an argument against teaching any creationism theories in school science classes, but does so in the same manner as the rest of the book. Acknowledging that such beliefs may be valid, but are outside the paradigm of what science is teaching.

So, this book is completely different than anything else on the topic of creationism, but everyone that has read it tells me it's worth getting the ideas out in the world. Which presents a problem regarding how to promote it. I'm still working on that, and is partly why I'd like to get some people like yourself in here to read the book and possibly have some discussion about the ideas presented.

Hi everyone,

After reading my previous statements, I think I might be able to explain this more concisely. Well... still a little wordy, but maybe more clear than previous comments. lol.

This book proposes a theory that is pretty much universal, applying a distinction between the concepts of natural and supernatural as they apply to the ideas of creation and origin. It then applies that theory toward the arguments of creationism theories in general and young-earth creationism in particular. It does so by acknowledging their belief in a six thousand year old universe, but refuting their arguments that scientific evidence and conclusions must be wrong. It does so in a friendly manner that's matter-of-fact conversational, but non-confrontational.

The book proposes and names the theory, "Void to Universe". It then makes the title's argument that "From Void to Universe" (i.e., from this theory) can be derived an argument in which both scientific conclusions of a 13.8 billion year old origin, and religious belief in a six thousand year old creation can both be accepted (i.e., science and religion can get along). It basically claims to solve the debate between creationism vs. scientific consensus.

As it says in the blurb, the book renders the debate meaningless. More than that, though, it shows that a proper application of logic can be applied to the issue. It establishes a set of rules based on both science and religion, and results in a conclusion that accepts both. A lot of people intuitively come to similar conclusions without giving much thought as to why? None of the individual ideas are unheard of, but the connections this book makes between them aren't usually considered or presented in this particular way.

Because the topic includes both natural and supernatural elements, the arguments made in the book move back and forth between Aristotelian and propositional logic. In doing so every effort is made to keep the logical progression consistent with proper critical thinking. It attempts not to make any claims past what has been logically proven by the argument. Many (if not most) of the arguments can be reduced to functions for truth tables. It attempts to be clear between what is proven, what might be possible, and what cannot be possible in all the proposals throughout the book.

Since the book's arguments are based entirely on logic and critical thinking, I hope it might be a good topic of discussion for the people in this group. It's as much an exercise in logic and critical thinking as it is about the topic itself. I hope some in here might read it and let me know what they think. Possibly find any flaws I missed in the logic, or maybe find some fresh ideas.

Thanks,
Lee

I don't know, Lee. The idea of defending a 6,000 year old universe appears to me to have nothing whatsoever to do with logic or critical thinking. Fancy words are not going to change that it flies totally in the face of science.

Jimmy wrote: "I don't know, Lee. The idea of defending a 6,000 year old universe appears to me to have nothing whatsoever to do with logic or critical thinking. Fancy words are not going to change that it flies ..."

Thanks for your reply Jimmy. The first readers of the book were an artist that considers himself an atheist, an agnostic grad student physics major, a devout Catholic with an academic background and some other people in her bible study group, an art professor that is a devout Coptic Christian, and some other non-devout people with various beliefs.

So far, no one that's read the book has found flaws in the logic. Whether they agreed with all the propositions in the book or not, they all considered the book had provided them some new ways to think about the topic.

I expect more scrutiny in a philosophy group such as this one, but I would expect that scrutiny to come after having read the book. I don't mean this to sound in such a harsh way, but it's a serious question. How can anyone possibly evaluate any arguments without reading them first?

What make you think this isn't defending science? Did you get so stuck on the mention of creation that you ignored where it says in the blurb that it supports the scientific conclusions of a natural origin 13,8 billion years ago? It actually supports all other scientific conclusions about the natural universe as well?

This book takes a new approach to the creationism debate. It shows that people can be allowed to believe their faith-based religious beliefs, but in doing so there is no reason not to believe all the scientific conclusions about the natural universe. It is an argument against any theories that try to adjust the scientific evidence and conclusions to make them support any religious beliefs. It makes that argument without denying the validity of anyone's religious belief, and does so without any logical contradictions.

Your reply sounds as though you probably haven't read the book? Do you have any idea of what the premise of the argument presented in the book actually is? Do you typically decided on the validity and soundness of arguments without knowing what the premises and conclusions actually are?

Let's see if you got some of the main points in the book without having read it. This book promotes the following positions.

*The scientific method and peer-review process are the most rigorous use of critical thinking for determining the nature and physics of the universe.
*People with religious beliefs should also accept the validity of scientific conclusions about our natural universe. There is no reason for them to deny or dismiss science.
*Creationism or any other supernatural beliefs should not be included or taught in science classes.
*People with religious beliefs should not remove their kids from schools to protect them from learning science.
They should definitely not use alternative "faith-based" science textbooks that try to rewrite scientific conclusions to fit the religious beliefs.

How well did your "not reading of the book" do as to knowing those are the positions taken in the book?


The goal of the book is to present an argument against the alternative faith-based pseudo-scientific conclusions about scientific evidence promoted by young-earth creationsists.

It shows that even if there was a supernatural creation at any time, it would still have had to result in the actual universe that scientists have determined we live in.

It also does accept that there is no way to prove a negative. If someone feels the have had a spiritual experience that leads to their belief in a greater spiritual world beyond the natural, there is no way for science to disprove such a belief to the satisfaction of people who feel they've had such spiritual experiences. Since such a belief is about something beyond the natural reality, there is no way for science to prove or disprove it.

So, what this book actually does, is to use logic and critical thinking to prove that even if such spiritual beliefs are true about supernatural things, the beliefs in such things do not change the scientific facts that can be discovered about the natural universe we live in.

This phrase stuck out for me, Lee:

both scientific conclusions of a 13.8 billion year old origin, and religious belief in a six thousand year old creation can both be accepted

You can accept them both but it would be illogical and unscientific to do so.

But I guess such a belief would be a step better than denying science totally. And unfortunately, I know plenty of people around here who do that.

Jimmy wrote: "This phrase stuck out for me, Lee:

both scientific conclusions of a 13.8 billion year old origin, and religious belief in a six thousand year old creation can both be accepted

You can accept the..."
Jimmy, that phrase you quoted is both valid and sound. The reason both events can be accepted is because the belief in a 6,000-year-old creation is about a supernatural happening, and the belief in a 13.8-billion year-old naturally occurring universe is about the evidence within the natural universe. If there is a supernatural reality, then the supernatural creation and the natural origin would be two distinctly separate things.

The logic actually isn't unscientific, the topic is just beyond something that science can define. We're actually having this discussion in a philosophy forum, though. :)

The argument is a philosophic argument. Science is designed to study the natural universe, the possibility of a creation is a supernatural concept so it's outside the scope of what science can determine. The logic is still sound though; I've posted it a few paragraphs below.

The whole point of the book, "From Void to Universe," is to show that while one's beliefs in religion can be valid, they are not based on science and therefore should not affect scientific conclusions. The philosophic arguments are not intended to be taught as part of a science curriculum. They are intended to show why such creationism beliefs should be taught in church or as part of teaching one's faith at home instead. It is also an argument against the alternate pseudo-scientific text books that are used for homeschooling by many families.

The Void to Universe theory can definitely be considered a creationsim theory, but it's more of a philosphical theory than a religious one. This theory is different than most previous one's because it shows how the creation has to be considered part of a supernatural reality outside the natural universe that science studies. For that reason, even people with religious faith should not be afraid to let their children learn actual science. There is no reason for them to dispute or deny the scientific conclusions about the natural world, because if they believe in creation then the actual natural universe that exists must be what was created.

Most importantly it is a counter to the type of critical thinking that has developed amongst believers of the existing pseudo-scientific creationism theories that try to bend science to fit their beliefs by just denying scientific facts they don't want to believe. That has been taught to them as an acceptable method of argument. Children taught that way of thinking at home and church, later become adults that apply that same flawed reasoning to social and political issues that have impact well beyond any religious debate.

Since you mentioned that you don't see how logic and critical thinking can be properly applied to this topic, I've written the logic out in syllogistic form. It can also be broken down into symbolic logic proofs or even truth tables, but I'll leave that for someone else to do if they want. :)

In the book "From Void to Universe" I present the same logic, but with a more conversational style intended to get past any closed mindedness.

-----------------------------------------------------
Philosophic logical argument (in syllogistic form) regarding creationism and the possibility of 13.8-billion-year-old universe having been supernaturally created 6,000 years ago:

(a) Science is the study of natural evidence.
(b) Natural evidence only exists within our natural universe.
(c) Scientists can only make conclusions about existence within our natural universe.

* A and B, therefore C

(d) Discussion of a supernatural reality is about something beyond the existence of our natural universe.
(e) Scientists can not make conclusions about things that might happen within a supernatural reality.

* C and D, therefore E

(f) Scientists can make conclusions about existence within our natural universe.

* C therefore F

(g) A possible supernatural creation of our universe would have to result in all the natural evidence scientists have found.

* E and F, therefore G

(h) Space, matter, energy, and time are all aspects of evidence within our natural universe.
(i) A possible supernatural creation would have to result in all space, matter, energy, and time within our universe.

* G and H, therefore I

(j) Our natural universe could have been created at any moment if the supernatural creation included all evidence of its past timeline.

* I therefore J

(k) Scientists have concluded based on evidence found thus far that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and resulted from a natural origin.
(l) A supernatural creation could have happened 6,000 years ago if it included a 13.8-billion-year-old past timeline and evidence of a natural origin.

* J and K, therefore L

(m) The evidence within our universe is the same whether it occurred naturally or was supernaturally created.

* C and E and G and I and L, therefore M

(The logic leading to M is the foundation of the Void to Universe theory)

(n) So, science can't prove that any religious story might be true or not (even the literal story of Genesis), but if true it must have resulted in only the natural evidence scientists can find.

* E therefore N, but only if G

(o) So, Such a creation would have to have been a supernatural occurrance that left no supporting evidence within the natural universe.

* M therefore O

(p) So, its pointless to try proving or disproving anyones religions beliefs. Religious beliefs are based on personal spiritual experiences that are outside of what science is designed to study.

* E therefore P

(q) The only goal in a debate about creation vs. origin should be to to claim that the conclusions of science are the same in either case.

* M therefore Q

(r) There is no contradiction between someone's belief in a creation 6,000 years ago and a natural origin of the universe 13.8 billion years ago. A supernatural creation at any determined time, and the natural origin and age of the universe are not the same thing.

* J therefore R
-----------------------------------------------------

I just took a few minutes to write it out, so in case I made any logical errors in that presentation, the error is only in the form and can most likely be corrected. Any errors (if there are any) would only be regarding clarity between what are facts and what are merely possibilities.

The book "From Void to Universe," gives all of this a more in depth explanation and analysis to show how it applies to creationism and other aspects of people's faith-based beliefs as well.

Let's just take this one example, Lee:

(l) A supernatural creation could have happened 6,000 years ago if it included a 13.8-billion-year-old past timeline and evidence of a natural origin.

How is that a logical statement? How does it show critical thinking? A supernatural creation could have happened at any time in history, I guess. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence of such an occurrence. Why waste time on it without evidence?

Jimmy wrote: "Let's just take this one example, Lee:

(l) A supernatural creation could have happened 6,000 years ago if it included a 13.8-billion-year-old past timeline and evidence of a natural origin.

How ..."
Because J and K together lead to L
J and K, therefore L

Proposition (j) Our natural universe could have been created at any moment if the supernatural creation included all evidence of its past timeline.
AND
Proposition (k) Scientists have concluded based on evidence found thus far that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and resulted from a natural origin.
THEREFORE
Proposition (l) A supernatural creation could have happened 6,000 years ago if it included a 13.8-billion-year-old past timeline and evidence of a natural origin.

According to J - The supernatural creation could have happened at any time. (preceeding statements already made this conditional on whether a supernatural reality actually exists.)

According to K - Scientists have concluded there's evidence of a natural origin approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

6,000 years ago meets the criteria of "any time" so it meets the requirement of J.

K requires that the natural origin must be 13.8 billion years ago because scientists have found evidence of such.

So, the statement "A supernatural creation could have happened 6,000 years ago if it included a 13.8-billion-year-old past timeline and evidence of a natural origin." is valid because it meets the requirements of both J and K.

So, "J and K, therefore L." is a valid argument.

The argument is also sound because we know that scientists actually have found evidence that supports their conclusion that the universe is appx. 13,8 billion years old. And the only assertion about the 6,000 year old creation is that "IF" the supernatural exists, then such a date of creation is possible.
Since J is conditionally possible and K is definitely true, then L is also conditionally possible.

So, J and K, therefore L is also a sound argument.

The argument doesn't prove or even try to prove that the supernatural exists.

It simply proves that if it does exist then a supernatural creation 6,000 years ago and a natural origin 13.8 billion years ago are not inconsistent with each other. In such a case the supernatural creation and the natural origin are two separate events.

It also shows that whether the supernatural creation happened or not, the evidence is still the same about there having been a 13.8-billion-year-old natural origin of the universe.

😊 delightful, Lee. I must admit I did enjoy reading through this. I agree with (p) although you could have written this down immediately, without the superstructure of ideas on which you claim that statement rests. Still, I agree. I have long thought that religion and science are not at odds with each other, they just do different jobs. Religion does not create knowledge. Science does. Science does not deliver a spiritual sense of purpose. Those who need this can find it potentially in one of the existing religions, or create a new one.

Also I particularly loved statement (I). The idea of a naughty deity who creates the universe 6 millennia ago but makes it look as if the origin happened 14 million millennia ago makes me chuckle. This is almost like something the late Terry Pratchet might have dreamt up.

Of course I know that you take these matters seriously and wish to discuss them seriously. It's just that the canvas on which we would need to do that is exceedingly large, and the topic complex and involved. For starters, my take, and I believe some of what I am saying may echo your own thoughts:

Religious statements are non-falsifiable. As such, they are epistemologically void. I am simply stating a quality, this is not in itself a shortfall.

Scientific statements ARE falsifiable. That is the essence and strength of the scientific method. It also delivers a subtle insight into the quality of the concept of "truth". A statement that has consistently resisted potential falsification is "true" in the sense that it has NOT YET been falsified. That is the closest to "truth" that the human mind can get to.

So the quality of religious statements is only an issue if they try to do the job the scientific method is there to do. If they don't, there should not be an issue. Those who are interested in finding out how the world works, use the scientific method. Those who look for spiritual guidance turn to one of the religions. The two groups need not be mutually exclusive. But those interested in discussing these concepts need to do so on an enlightened, intellectually mature basis. Claiming the universe was created 6k years ago with manufactured evidence thrown in pointing to an earlier origin? Well I am not afraid to say that that is just daft, and does not deserve to be the subject of intelligent discourse.

Mark Hebwood wrote: "😊 delightful, Lee. I must admit I did enjoy reading through this. I agree with (p) although you could have written this down immediately, without the superstructure of ideas on which you claim that..."

[ Edit 8/15/2019 - also just to be clear, the reason that proposition (p) wasn't stated sooner is that the superstructure of of ideas was intended to support proposition (n). That's the proposition necessary to support the "Void to Universe theory." The other propositions after (n) are just some additional observations that can be deduced from the propositions (a) through (n). So while (p) is a fairly important concept, it wasn't the main point of the syllogism. ]

Mark, the part that I take seriously is that somehow the flawed system of critical thinking that has developed in which facts can just be tossed out if they are inconvenient can't continue unchecked. My personal belief is that it developed at the scale it did based on this particular argument about whether scientific evidence disproves religious belief. My solution is to provide a better explanation as to why people that do have a religious belief don't have to be concerned about whether science proves their belief or not.

I'm 60 years old and grew up in a very religious city at a time when going to church was common even for the non-devout. This book is not written to convince anyone to change their religious beliefs or non-beliefs, I'm fine with anyone believing or not believing anything they want about a supernatural reality, this book is just an attempt to "stir up the hornets nest", so to speak, in the science vs. religion debate... to introduce some logical thinking into the arguments. For the last 30 years I've seen science make great strides and yet at the same time politicians have caused creationism to be reintroduced into science classes. I've seen politicians in just the last few years still campaigning on the claims that science, the big bang, and evolution are the works of the devil. This book is my attempt to counter that.

(if you liked the parts you said made you chuckle, you'll probably really like that in my preface I actually make an argument that "Maybe claiming that science, the big bang, and evolution are the work of the devil might actually be the devils greatest deception. Since God is the only creator, the devil cannot have created any of those things. The devil's only power is that of deception, so maybe the politicians claiming such things are the ones doing the work of the devil." It is stated a little more eloquently in the preface, and the statements are better formed, The rest of the book doesn't really talk about the devil much if at all, but yeah... that's in there. lol.

Anyway, your right that the logical structure isn't necessary for many people to get the main idea. For most agnostics, I'd say the main statement of the Void to Universe theory is all that's necessary and they could intuitively glean everything else I've written because it all follows from that. They don't need logical structure that leads to the theory, because the logic is pretty pragmatic anyway.

Void to Universe theory:
A supernaturally created universe brought into complete existence at any moment by any means would be indistinguishable from a universe that progressed from a natural origin to the same moment in time.

But for seriously commited athiests, they need more convincing to see exactly how someone can presume to claim that it's okay for other people to have religious beliefs even if they themselves think its ridiculous. Just suggesting that any supernatural existence isn't actually proven false by scientific evidence is a bit much for many. The fact that a negative can't be proven has somehow been turned around to claim that lack of evidence is proof of non-existence. The first part of the book tries to address that, and the second part of the book is unnecessary for any atheists because it just addresses how the theory affects anyone's religious beliefs.

For fundamentalists, they need to have every objection answered. The claims that science is wrong have been taught to many of them as "first learning" and so their entire world view is built on that foundational learning. So, in my book I start out by reviewing lessons about science at about a 3rd grade level, and examine the creation story from a Sunday school level taught at about the same age. I go over some basic concepts about the distinctions between the supernatural and the natural. Break down some of the flaws in existing creation theories, especially young-earth creationism, but also intelligent design, God theory, etc. Use some ideas from simulation theory to show what would properties would be necessary to have a created universe consistent with religious beliefs, and then build to the theory.

In Chapter 3 - What is Science, for example, I go over the same things you described in this statement:
"Scientific statements ARE falsifiable. That is the essence and strength of the scientific method. It also delivers a subtle insight into the quality of the concept of "truth". A statement that has consistently resisted potential falsification is "true" in the sense that it has NOT YET been falsified. That is the closest to "truth" that the human mind can get to." Basically I get into how scientists don't try to prove theories to be true, the come up with a theory they think can explain whatever it's about and then continually try to prove it wrong after that. The longer it can withstand that peer-review process the more validity it holds. So, a scientific theory has to be predictive in nature, because that predictiveness is what makes it falsifiable. Then it has to withstand the scrutiny of other scientists indefinitely, and the most it can ever hope to achieve is to be considered valid until a possible someday in which a condition is found that might prove it wrong. :)

Like I said those particular concepts are pretty much third grade level stuff, but its intended for people that learned some kind of alternative ideas about science instead. The book isn't written at a third grade level though, most of the writing is at a level that can be understood by a 10th grade (16yo) reading level. (supposedly equivalent to New York Times articles.) :)

Some parts would be easier to comprehend for someone in college, but they're short enough that I think most people could get through them. :) Like there's one part that uses the chicken and egg question (which came first?) as an example to show how time can be seen to flow into the past as easily as it can be seen to flow into the future. It's part of the explanation in Chapter 4 - What is Supernatural?, that can be slightly confusing for some, but it can be skimmed through and then make more sense after the part about the old Clockwork Universe theory.

I also deal with concepts like Is God outside of Time, Freewill vs. Determinism and Prophesy (there's a radically different conclusion about that, freewill wins but it just moves the possibility of the prophesy further into the future), Faith vs. Belief, Science and Religion, Age of the Universe, Correlative Timelines, and in the Afterword it deals with the issue of why alternative faith based science text books should not be used for homeschooling and why creationism should not be taught in school.

Throughout the entire book though, I accept the religious beliefs as valid possibilities, although I state several times that the same can be said of any religious belief or faith. The only determining factor as to the validity of any religious faith is whether such belief can result in the actual universe we live in.

Based on your comments, I would bet that you would enjoy reading the book. There are parts that you would find funny, although they might not all be intended as humor. and there are parts that you might think are thought provoking.

Mark Hebwood wrote: "Also I particularly loved statement (I). The idea of a naughty deity who creates the universe 6 millennia ago but makes it look as if the origin happened 14 million millennia ago makes me chuckle. This is almost like something the late Terry Pratchet might have dreamt up."

As you mentioned in your post, my book is intended for serious consideration, but that doesn't mean the ideas and concepts can't be useful for entertainment projects as well. I just watched the Good Omens miniseries on Amazon a few weeks ago, David Tennant, Michael Sheen as Crowley and Aziraphale were wonderful. While I was watching it I was also thinking about how well the ideas in my book could have fit as background within the premise of that story. LOL.

Since you mentioned how that proposition (l) made you chuckle, it occurred to be that you might also like this excerpt from the middle of Section Two chapter - Faith vs. Proof...

"Faith is belief in the unseen. From the morning of the first day, until the events following the destruction of the tower at Babel, there was no need for faith. God was not unseen; the first people didn’t have to rely on faith to believe in Him. Even though God was seen, Adam and Eve still defied Him. By the time of Noah, people had become wicked in spite of God’s presence. For all their achievements after the Flood, people still became arrogant and prideful even with proof of God’s existence.

"Humanity failed its test in the world three times, even when there was proof of God’s existence. Maybe that’s why God decided to remove any proof. Mankind was given a chance to believe without needing faith, and we failed; now, we must have faith without proof. So, we’re now expected to rely only on faith, but we don’t; not if we demand scientists ignore or deny evidence that doesn’t support proof of Genesis or proof of God’s existence."


The concepts in the book actually apply to any creation story or mythology for any religion, but the book is somewhat intended to offer an alternative for "young-earth creationism." It provides a way they can continue believing the Genesis creation story, but stop feeling the need to deny scientific evidence in order to do so.

So, while I could describe the concept equally well using any creation story, I chose to use the story of Genesis as the primary example in the book.

Dear all. Great discussion. Will read the book.
But then something is quite clear:
Data are falsifiable while information is not. Information in the process of sensemaking is interrelational, intersubjective. Rules that apply to data are different from the rules that apply to sensemaking activity (information creation).
This would prove that the theory of two not oberlaping magisteria is not onlyvalid but logically possible. This book as I understoods widens NOMA thesis of Gould, and many other simmilar approaches like that one of Ullanowicz. We could go even further: Einstein views in his last phase, when he added wisdom to his cleverness.

Andrej wrote: "Dear all. Great discussion. Will read the book.
But then something is quite clear:
Data are falsifiable while information is not. Information in the process of sensemaking is interrelational, inter..."
Hi Andrej, I just looked up NOMA, and yes it looks like the concepts put forth by Gould would support many of the propositions leading to the Void to Universe theory. The theory is much more specific in that it deals directly with the debate about a supernatural creation vs natural origin. It does so by showing that the distinctions between the natural and supernatural create a condition by which both the supernatural origin and the natural creation are both possible without contradiction. It looks like Gould's theory could be used to support the arguments the book uses to reach such a conclusion. The "Void to Universe theory" basically renders the debate meaningless by removing the dichotomy between a creation and an origin by logically determining them to be separate things that can both exist together.

This book was written independently of any knowledge of Gould, but it looks like NOMA could also be used to support many of the other specific propositions put forth in the book regarding things like "Free Will vs. Prophesy and Determinism", "Faith vs. Proof," "Is God Outside of Time," etc..

Thanks for sharing your insights. I hope you will add the book to your "to read list" and that you might read it soon. Your immediate observations based on the conversation here were interesting. I'm looking forward to reading what other thoughts you might have regarding the various ideas put forth in the book. :).

Another thing that I assume is apparent, but might be worth mentioning anyway.

The book, "From Void to Universe", was not written as an academic paper. It was written for a general audience by an artist sharing his thoughts about a particular topic of debate among both laymen and academics. As an artist and craftsman, the author (me) is able to bring the insights of someone-who-creates-things to the topic of creationism. The ideas are well thought out and presented to address the discussion of "creationism vs. natural origin" in an organised and logical manner.

The information could still be presented in an academic work, but would need a few changes in the format and structure. At this point in the work's progress, a grad student would format it as a thesis proposal. It would then need to be supported by additional research to be presented as a thesis paper. Then even more research studies for it to become a dissertation. Such a process would take several years to complete as it's part of a process for achieving academic degrees.

Since this is not an academic work, the presentation to the public is a little easier, but the logic for the argument is sound nonetheless.

As it stands, the sub-title lets the reader know that this is a proposal, "From Void to Universe: Proposing a New Theory by which Science and Religion Can Get Along." The ideas are then presented in a logical and organised way to build an argument for others to consider as well.

Someday. I may consider it as the basis for an academic paper, but my assertion in writing the book now is that the proposal is complete enough to already be worth presentation for public consideration. Potentially, it might even provide ideas for academic research by others. :)

Lee wrote: "This book is available from Amazon or Barnes&Noble online bookstores. I hope some of you might add it to your goodreads "to read list" and read it soon. :)

Paperback book or Kindle (mobi) ebook on..."

Creationism is speculation, and it holds no more merit than the notion that the universe was created by tomato beings.

Numi wrote: "Creationism is speculation, and it holds no more merit than the notion that the universe was created by tomato beings."

Whether you agree that there's any validity to the belief in a spiritual or supernatural reality misses a more important point, the fact remains that such a belief system does exist and is a major factor in our society.

There are religious institutions that still exist after hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. Simply not accepting the same system of belief, does not change the impact of those institutions and belief systems at all. For that reason, discussion on topics such as creationism (including a philosophical consideration of the possibility) does hold merit, because it addresses the more immediate societal issues of how the institutionalized religious concepts affect real world issues such as morality, ethics, politics and education.

There are millions of people that feel their own personal experiences are enough to convince them the truth of their spiritual beliefs. Those experiences are not empirical, they aren't duplicable, and meet no scientific criteria for testability. For the people who have had such experiences, though, their individual experience is enough to convince them that the non-scientific evidence is real.

For anyone who has had no such 'spiritual' experience, or attributes such experience to the functions of brain chemistry and psychological factors, they might not accept such experiences as valid evidence.

So, in the real world we end up with two points of view about whether only empirical scientific evidence is acceptable for determining qualities about reality or not.

Currently, one result of those opposing viewpoints as it applies to societal concerns, is that one group with such a belief system (young-earth creationism) continues to put forth a theory in which they claim scientific conclusions are biased by their lack of belief. They propose that accepting religious texts and individual non-empirical evidence of other people spiritual experiences should be included in the scientific conclusions.

To address this the young-earth creationists have created an industry that produces entire sets of alternate faith-based science text books, for the faithful to use in home-schooling their children. At the same time, they lobby politicians to have the faith-based theories about science required in public schools as well. They also make many other attacks against the validity, and credibility of science, scientists, scientific methodology, and scientific conclusions.

The most successful at indoctrinating people and lobbying legislators to dismiss science in favor of their beliefs has been the fundamentalist young-earth creationism theorists. They claim that any scientific conclusions about evidence of species as a product of evolution, and any evidence that the world is older than 6,000 years is contradictory to their spiritual evidence and therefore the scientific evidence and conclusions are wrong. The education they propose instead, not only teaches alternate scientific conclusions, but also teaches an alternate way of critical thinking in which they think it's valid to deny or dismiss any evidence or conclusions that contradict what they believe.

They don't see the flaw in that method of critical thinking because they feel that scientists are doing the same thing by denying and dismissing their spiritual evidence and so by their thinking they're just using the same rules of logic. There is no way to convince them why that is incorrect because they're using that same flawed method of critical thinking to evaluate even their method of critical thinking.

It may be impossible to convince people that already believe in such things to abandon their beliefs, but it might be possible to address how it leads to them to that flawed method of critical thinking.

By using science there's no way to actually prove any beliefs in a supernatural existence are wrong. The most science can say is that there is no evidence of any supernatural creator or creation, but that doesn't actually prove such things don't exist and didn't happen. What science can do, though, is say the empirical evidence it does find is true. If the supernatural belief is that something else happened in the universe, whatever that thing might be it can only be possible if the evidence left in the universe is the actual evidence that's been found.

So, to battle the flawed method of critical thinking that existing creationism theories promote and require, the first thing that scientists need to do is not make the one mistake that provides creationists a justification. Don't claim anything beyond what the science can prove. Don't claim the lack of evidence is sufficient evidence to support the non-existence of a supernatural reality. That cannot be concluded with absolute certainty, no matter what the probability might be.

What can be concluded though, is that even if any such supernatural reality exists, the evidence and physics in our natural reality are the same as if a supernatural existence does not exist.

The people who believe in religion, or any other spiritual or metaphysical reality have had personal experiences that they feel are sufficient evidence for themselves. There are so many people that fall into that category that the effort many people make to dispute those beliefs or convince the believers to abandon that belief are pointless. You won't convince someone that their own personal experience is not sufficient evidence for what they believe.

Instead, the logical first-step course of action for scientists should be to prove that even if the personal beliefs are true, the evidence and scientific conclusions about our natural reality would be the same. Instead of trying to attack their beliefs, just try to support the actual scientific conclusions.

The fight against the inclusion of alternate faith-based scientific theories that dispute or dismiss actual science hasn't been successful by just arguing that the faith-based beliefs are wrong. In the U.S. there are still in 2019 several states that require the inclusion of some form of creationism instruction to be included in their school science curriculum.

That's what the book "From Void to Universe" is about. It moves the creationism debate toward a completely different direction. Instead of just claiming that the faith-based alternate science books are wrong, it shows why they are unnecessary. This new book presents an alternate to their creationism theory instead. It presents a new theory that shows how even if all the religious and spiritual stories and beliefs are correct, the scientific evidence must still be evaluated independently of those beliefs, and the scientific conclusions must be based on just the evaluation of empirical evidence found within the natural universe.

It shows that even if creationist beliefs in a supernatural reality in which the universe was created has any possibility, it still had to result in the natural universe that actually exists. It shows that whether there was a creation or not, the scientific evidence and conclusions are the same either way.

It removes the debate about whether there was a creation or not, and instead it concentrates on the fact that the natural universe is what it is. It shows that even if creationism is true, then science is still the best method we have to determine the natural physics and properties of such a created universe.

So the book presents a theory that will not change anyone's belief about whether a creation actually happened or not. But it might convince some people that do believe in such a creation that there is a way to still accept the validity of science.

For someone that has no belief in a supernatural existence, it provides a way of understanding that it's okay for others to believe in their own spiritual experiences. But it also provides a sound and valid argument they can used in a debate to prove why those spiritual experiences don't make a difference to anything that science finds.

If someone has a belief in the supernatural then this book can be read as completely non-fiction and presents many new ideas that haven't been considered before.

If someone has no belief in the supernatural then this book can be read as containing some interesting fictional ideas, but also provides some good arguments as to why none of those ideas change the scientific conclusions that can be determined about the natural universe.

That single change in view regarding an acceptance of science (independently from religious ideology) might be enough to affect critical thinking (for some people) in the right direction, at least as it's applied to non-spiritual topics.

I realise I am late to the party, but I wonder, Lee, if you have come across the ideas of Philip Henry Gosse, the father of Edmund Gosse? Edmund describes his strange childhood and his need to break away from the Plymouth Brethen (the fundamentalist group of which Philip was a devout member) in Father and Son, well worth reading. Philip Gosse was an observational biologist of distinction in the time of Darwin. He published a book Omphalos whose ideas mirror your own, if I am understanding you correctly.

For example, God created the Garden of Eden complete with trees. If you chopped one of the trees down, would you have found tree rings? Undoubtedly, but the rings would not measure the age of the tree, which was made in an instant, but give "scientific" evidence of a prehistory it never actually had. Did Adam have a tummy button (omphalos)? Again yes, because he was a complete man, although he had no mother -- hence the book title. Similarly the whole earth, with fossils and rock evidence told the story of a prehistory which had not happened. What had really happened is what you read in Genesis.

Alas, the book was not well received! Scientists thought it falsified their findings, fundamentalists Christians thought it made God into a kind of trickster, doing one thing and fooling people into thinking he'd done something else. The book was forgotten, and is now very rare.

(Father and Son was turned into a BBC Play, Where Adam Stood by Dennis Potter. It used to be on youtube, but no longer. Again, well worth watching if you can find it.)

So the universe can actually be only a few thousand years old, if we allow that God provided us with fake evidence of billions of years of history which never really happened?

What can be concluded though, is that even if any such supernatural reality exists, the evidence and physics in our natural reality are the same as if a supernatural existence does not exist.

Interestingly, this cannot be concluded :-)... Your reasoning distinguishes two possible scenarios, one with a deity (or many) and one without. So let me focus on the two in turn:

1/ The godless reality. This reality does not contain any deities. The laws of nature play out as they do in this reality, and there are rocks and mountains and other things in it.

The hypothetical alternative to this reality is one with gods in it. I cannot tell what such a reality would look like. I don't know what type of reality the gods might have created. They could have created any type of reality.

2/ The god-infused reality. This reality contains deities. The laws of nature play out as they do in this reality, and there are rocks and mountains and other things in it.

The hypothetical alternative to this reality is one with no gods in it. I cannot tell what such a reality would look like. I don't know what type of reality would have developed with no gods in it. Anything might have happened.

I think I know what you mean, of course. You are saying that we observe our reality and it is what it is. We don't know whether there are any gods in it, but whether there are, or not, our reality would still be what it is.

But that is only so because we can only observe one reality. We can't do a lab experiment and observe what the alternative would look like (and that's not just because we can't run reality on the alternative assumption but also because we don't know what parameterisation we start out with - god or no god).

...fundamentalists Christians thought it made God into a kind of trickster, doing one thing and fooling people into thinking he'd done something else.

That's lovely, Martin! That's exactly what I was joking about in my msg 13:

The idea of a naughty deity who creates the universe 6 millennia ago but makes it look as if the origin happened 14 million millennia ago makes me chuckle. This is almost like something the late Terry Pratchet might have dreamt up.

Thank you for referencing this book. Sounds quite interesting. Although we will never know what Adam might have found had he chopped off that tree. I have visions of the following chat in paradise:

Adam: "Whoa! Cool! There are no rings! We really are at the beginning here!"
Eve: "Stop being anachronistic. Dendrochronology wont be developed for another few thousands of years."
Adam: "Yea. 6000 years, to be exact"
Eve: "What now you are being precocious AND creationist?"
Adam: "You are being argumentative..."
Eve: "Oh I am argumentative am I?"

And so it starts... :-)

Martin wrote: "have [you] come across the ideas of Philip Henry Gosse, the father of Edmund Gosse?"

Just read the wikipedia entry on Omphalos: Gosse chose to explain why Adam (who would have had no mother) had a navel: Though Adam would have had no need of a navel, God gave him one anyway to give him the appearance of having a human ancestry.

I dont know whether wikipedia fairly reflects Gosse's idea, but if it does, Gosse's statement makes no sense whatsoever. In the origin story supported by Abrahamic religions (do Muslims believe this, too - I must admit I dont know) Adam features as the first man. The - first - man. Adam has one role in the narrative, and that is to be first. Being first is what defines him. If he wasn't first, he'd have no function in the story. So to allege that Yahwe gave him a belly button to create the illusion of ancestry is completely stupid. I am hoping Gosse came up with a better idea and wikipedia was a bit shoddy in its representation of the book...

Yes, to continue Mark's soap opera, we can image,

Abel: Dad, why have you got a belly button if you didn't have a mum?
Adam: Well, we've all got belly buttons haven't we?
Cain: Yes, but you never needed yours.

But I think P Gosse would have said, that Adam had a belly button not to create an illusory ancestry, but to make him a complete man. Similarly, bones, teeth etc hold signs of an earlier physical development.

Actually I think Lee's message 20 is basically correct: the antagonism between creationism and science would go away if scientists conceded that despite their evidence, the world had, or might have been, created along the lines of Genesis I.1 - II.4. The problem is, it is so much to concede. We would not concede that the world might have been created 5 minutes ago, complete with history books and human memories. Or that the mormon bible might be true, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

A difficulty, I think, for Europeans like me, Mark and (I assume) Feliks is that we don't live in societies where creationists, in the narrow U.S. sense, form a powerful group, so it is hard to take their ideas seriously. What happens if you point out to a creationist that there are two creation stories in Genesis, deriving from the P and J sources of the book, which to some degree are contradictory? So in P God creates man by fiat in I.26, and in J by kneading the earth in II.7? Admittedly the P and J sources are a hypothesis, but it is accepted universally by almost all Old Testament scholars now. An how does a creationist think the bible came to be written? Did God hold the pen? If the author was human, where did the information come from?

Well... as I said in msg 13, creationism is simply daft, and does not merit any intelligent discourse. We can explore why creationism exists, what its effects on an adolescent's formative years might be, but we cannot discuss its tenets as if they were serious hypotheses.

As I have also said in many instances here on the site, I consider any conflict between science and religion to be misplaced in the first place. Religious statements are non-falsifiable, scientific hypotheses are. The former is not a shortcoming of religions, it simply means religions do a job entirely different from science and I do not turn to religion for epistemological insights.

The latter is the strength of the scientific method, but the fact that a scientific hypothesis needs to be tested (and be testable) by experiment and can therefore not be used to reveal divine messages through a process only accessible to the believer is not a weakness of science. If I need such dynamics, I turn to religion.

The two simply do different things. Measuring one by the standards of the other is not only pointless and inappropriate, it also diminishes either field. It seems to me that any 'antagonism' between the two would disappear if people started to appreciate the unique qualities of either 'discipline'. Science, broadly, is a consequence of human curiosity. Religion, broadly, is a consequence of the human need to be comforted. At the most fundamental level, that's basically it.

...if scientists conceded that despite their evidence, the world had, or might have been, created along the lines of Genesis I.1 - II.4.

Actually, Martin, can I ask what you mean by this? How can a scientist concede this? Outside a specifically Jewish-Christian religious context, the genesis story (and any other stories in the Bible) have no meaning.

Yes, a good question, and it has got me thinking. I had in mind certain details recalled from childhood, such as the whales of the sea and birds of the air being made before all the creepy crawlies on land, which if we believe the common assumptions of today is the wrong way round. But reading it again, and trying to read it literally, whatever that may mean, I cannot find in it any sense at all, and I am inside the "Jewish-Christian tradition". What is a "firmament"? What are these waters over the surface of which the spirit of God moves? Where are "under" and "above" (verse 7).

You get the impression that the author was a flat-earthist, his sky was solid, and when it rained, holes appeared in the sky to let the outside water in. Heaven was above the solid sky, we are under it, we have a sun and a moon hanging up like lanterns, which do not define the day, but help us measure it -- "signs for seasons, days and years".

It acquires sense when read poetically. Just as one reads,

Heaven's light forever shines, Earth's shadows fly,
Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass,
Stains the white radiance of Eternity . . .

But you are right, neither a scientist nor anyone else could concede that Genesis chapter 1 might be true in any literal sense.

(So where is Lee C T Ransbury? I think he may never return.)

Well, anybody who aims to gather insights from a literal reading of the Bible is in for a monumental task. Literal then needs to be taken literally and we need to go back as closely as we can to the original source. In the case of the creation myth narrated in Genesis, we need to find the original sources for that book in the Pentateuch. There are generally four sources associated with the Torah, and the Yahwist source is thought to have been produced during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC. My point is, I'd have to be fluent in Classical Hebrew to claim that I am able to read the book of Genesis with anything approaching a claim to do it 'literally'.

The next problem then is this: If I indeed proceed to read it 'literally', I have explicitly dispensed with any possibility to interpret its meaning in any way. I then actually have to believe that the Jewish god (btw - the Jewish god, not God, that is the name of the Christian god - that one came later) created the world in 7 days. Days, not anything else. Certainly not 6000 years. That is simply wrong. It says "7". Not "6000". It says "days". Not "years".

But the world picture you are describing is simply the Babylonian world picture. The world is a disc swimming on a body of water. This one is connected with a body of water above the firmament. There are indeed doors in this firmament, which open and let the water out. Famously, these opened for a long time at the time of the deluge... . The firmament can be taken literally (for once, although I am aware that the word is derived from the Latin translation of the Classical Hebrew word). It means "stuff that is fixed" and indeed it is the canoply to which the stars are fixed - this represents the fact that far-away stars appear fixed when the Earth moves, while close ones (our star) do not. The Babylonians were pretty good astronomers and mathematicians, so these things were known to them.

My point is simply this: Religion does a job that transcends simple stories. Men make up their gods and their stories because they wish to derive a benefit from them. But religion will only conflict with science if people insist that religious stories have epistemological value.