Download Cornell papers on origin of biological information free

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 14, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Proceedings of the Symposium

Cornell University, USA, 31 May – 3 June 2011
edited by: Robert J Marks II (Baylor University, USA) edited by: Michael J Behe (Lehigh University, USA) edited by: William A Dembski (Discovery Institute, USA) edited by: Bruce L Gordon (Houston Baptist University, USA) edited by: John C Sanford (Cornell University, USA)

I learned a lot. Hope you will too. – Denyse O’Leary

Comments

I started to discuss “A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search” at my blog - there, I'm not held in moderation :-)DiEb_{June 24, 2013
June
06
Jun
24
24
2013
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PST}

Since every conceivable possibility of universe exists, then one exists in which a civilization has developed technology that can destroy the multiverse. Since we're still here, there is no multi-verse (of an infinite nature). Right? :Drevelator_{June 17, 2013
June
06
Jun
17
17
2013
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST}

JW, I still fail to see anything above the trivially obvious as to your overall point. i.e. In a fantasy world which is not constrained by any logic, rhyme or reason, in the first place, being 'not confused' by obvious logical contradictions is given to the premise of the fantasy world!,,, see, 'Last Action Hero (1993)' starring Arnold Schwarzenegger in which a young movie fan gets thrown into the movie world of his favourite action film character. In the movie the boy could not use logic to prove that he was in a movie for in the fantasy world of movies he was in anything can happen. 'Last Action Hero (1993)' - video http://ffilms.org/last-action-hero-1993/bornagain77_{June 16, 2013
June
06
Jun
16
16
2013
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PST}

@bornagain77:
And then by this concession you argue that the neo-Darwinists are not confused in this case? :) And your overall point being???
Obviously the villains of this movie are not confused about the truth of neo-darwinism, if neo-darwinism in their universe is true.JWTruthInLove_{June 16, 2013
June
06
Jun
16
16
2013
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PST}

If you're talking about possible universes in the context of Superman, remember that the DC multiverse still exists. Readers of "Crisis on Infinite Earths" will understand.Barb_{June 15, 2013
June
06
Jun
15
15
2013
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PST}

This following video deals with many of the technical objections that atheists/materialists have tried to raise to the ontological argument: The Ontological Argument (The Introduction) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68bornagain77_{June 15, 2013
June
06
Jun
15
15
2013
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PST}

JW, in talking about 'possible universes' ('possible worlds' in philosophical parlance) in which perhaps men leap over buildings in a single bound and are more powerful than a locmotive, it is interesting to note that Atheists have conceded the necessary premise to the ontological argument in their appeal to a multiverse (an infinity of possible worlds) to 'explain away' the fine tuning of this universe we live in, thus making the probability of the existence of God 100%:
God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4
The materialist/atheist, without realizing it, in his appeal to an infinity of possible worlds to explain away the fine tuning of this one, ends up conceding the necessary premise to the ontological argument and thus guarantees the success of the argument and thus insures the 100% probability of God’s existence! supplemental notes: I like the concluding comment about the ontological argument from the following Dr. Plantinga video:
"God then is the Being that couldn't possibly not exit." Ontological Argument – Dr. Plantinga (3:50 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ
And as weird as it may sound, this following video refines the Ontological argument into a proof that, because of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’, God must exist in more than one person:
The Ontological Argument for the Triune God - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGVYXog8NUg
More technically oriented refutations of the multiverse are here:
The Multiverse Gods, final part - Robert Sheldon - June 2011 Excerpt: And so in our long journey through the purgatory of multiverse-theory, we discover as we previously discovered for materialism, there are two solutions, and only two. Either William Lane Craig is correct and multiverse-theory is just another ontological proof a personal Creator, or we follow Nietzsche into the dark nihilism of the loss of reason. Heaven or hell, there are no other solutions. http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/06/30/the_multiverse_gods,_final_part.thtml "The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping "meta-laws" that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained - eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given." Paul Davies, physicist, SETI director
bornagain77_{June 15, 2013
June
06
Jun
15
15
2013
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PST}

So in a fantasy universe where it is given that nothing is really real then evolution might be true? And then by this concession you argue that the neo-Darwinists are not confused in this case? :) And your overall point being???bornagain77_{June 15, 2013
June
06
Jun
15
15
2013
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PST}

^^ It's a fantasy movie. In their universe evolution might be true; and in this case they are obviously not so confused.JWTruthInLove_{June 15, 2013
June
06
Jun
15
15
2013
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PST}

But only notionally intelligent, intelligent designers...Axel_{June 15, 2013
June
06
Jun
15
15
2013
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PST}

"So they are both: neo-darwinists and intelligent designers." i.e. severely confused neo-Darwinists!! :) ,,, But doesn't that pretty much go without saying? :)bornagain77_{June 15, 2013
June
06
Jun
15
15
2013
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PST}

@bornagain77: From the podcast we can also conclude that the villains use genetic engineering to design life. So they are both: neo-darwinists and intelligent designers.JWTruthInLove_{June 15, 2013
June
06
Jun
15
15
2013
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PST}

OT: podcast - Intelligent Design and Superman: Lessons from the New Movie “Man of Steel” http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-06-14T17_04_25-07_00bornagain77_{June 14, 2013
June
06
Jun
14
14
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PST}

OT: Got to love it, In the new Superman movie released this weekend, "Man Of Steel", the arch villains are played by neo-Darwinists! :) In Man of Steel, Superman Is Pursued by Darwinian Bad Guys - w/trailer http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/in_man_of_steel073281.htmlbornagain77_{June 14, 2013
June
06
Jun
14
14
2013
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PST}

In the interest of discussing the data and the evidence, could we have posts on various articles of the book? I’d be quite interested in a thread on Chapter 1.1.2 “A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search” by William A. Dembski, Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II. I hope that the authors are still reading this blog: this way, we could have a productive discussion, and perhaps some questions could be answered by the people involved! And for the sake of a swift exchange of ideas: could someone please release me from the moderation queue?DiEb_{June 14, 2013
June
06
Jun
14
14
2013
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply