38 Replies to “What Richard Dawkins knows about how nothing causes something

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Now Now News, quit picking on poor little Dickie D. You should help atheists like him understand how nothing can create everything like this following guy was willing to do:

    When Nothing Created Everything – JOE CARTER
    Excerpt: In the beginning was Nothing, and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it expand. The expansion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.

    For no particular Reason – for Reason is rarely particular – Time and Chance took a liking to this little, wet, blue rock and decided to stick around to see what adventures they might have. While the pair found the Earth to be intriguing and pretty, they also found it a bit too quiet, too static. They fixed upon an idea to change Everything (just a little) by creating a special Something. Time and Chance roamed the planet, splashing through the oceans and sloshing through the mud, in search of materials. But though they looked Everywhere, there was a missing ingredient that they needed in order to make a Something that could create more of the same Somethings.

    They called to their friend Everything to help. Since Everything had been Everywhere she would no doubt be able to find the missing ingredient. And indeed she did. Hidden away in a small alcove called Somewhere, Everything found what Time and Chance had needed all along: Information. Everything put Information on a piece of ice and rock that happened to be passing by the former planet Pluto and sent it back to her friends on Earth.

    Now that they had Information, Time and Chance were finally able to create a self-replicating Something which they called Life. Once they created Life they found that it not only grew into more Somethings, but began to become Otherthings, too! The Somethings and the Otherthings began to fill the Earth – from the bottom of the oceans to the top of the sky. Their creation, which began as a single Something, eventually became millions and billions of Otherthings.

    Time and Chance, though, where the bickering sort and were constantly feuding over which of them was the most powerful. One day they began to argue over who had been more responsible for creating Life. Everything (who was forever eavesdropping) overheard the spat and suggested that they settle by putting their creative skills to work on a new creature called Man. They all thought it was a splendid plan – for Man was a dull, hairy beast who would indeed provide a suitable challenge – and began to boast about who could create an ability, which they called Consciousness, that would allow Man to be aware of Chance, Time, Everything, and Nothing.

    Chance, always a bit of a dawdler, got off to a slow start, so Time, who never rested, completed the task first. Time rushed around, filling the gooey matter inside each Man’s head with Consciousness. But as he was gloating over his victory he noticed a strange reaction. When Man saw that Everything had been created by Time, Chance, and Nothing, his Consciousness filled with Despair.

    Chance immediately saw a solution to the problem and took the remaining materials she was using to make Consciousness to create Beliefs. When Chance mixed Beliefs into the gray goo, Man stopped filling with Despair and started creating Illusions. These Illusions took various forms – God, Purpose, Meaning – and were almost always effective in preventing Man from filling up with Despair.

    Nothing, who tended to be rather forgetful, remembered her creation and decided to take a look around Everything. When she saw what Time and Chance had done on planet Earth she was mildly amused, but forbade them to fill any more creatures with Consciousness or Beliefs (which is why Man is the only Something that has both). But Nothing took a fancy to Man and told Time and Chance that when each one’s Life ran out, she would take him or her and make them into Nothing too.

    And that is why, children, when Man loses his Life he goes from being a Something created by Time and Chance into becoming like his creator – Nothing.
    http://www.catholiceducation.o.....sc0120.htm

    Verse and Music:

    John 15:5
    I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

    Billy Preston – Nothing from nothing 1975
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    Richard Dawkins is not alone, we also have KeithS, Dr Liddle, Alan Fox, WD400, all suffering from the same delusion that something can just magically “poof” into existence from nothing. Hell they even believe that nothing can create specified complexity! It’s true look up their responses!

  3. 3
    Mark Frank says:

    And I gladly add my name to that list. The beginning of everything, which includes time itself, is so utterly beyond our imagination that appeals to common sense just reveal a lack of imagination.

  4. 4
    Andre says:

    Yeah Mark Frank, anything but God will do right? Why is that?

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Mr. Frank, I guess the closest one can get to the ‘nothing that equals something’ that Dawkins would like to appeal to as creator of the universe, rather than God, would be the outer darkness which Mickey Robinson describes at the 3:20 minute mark of the following video, which he saw during his Near Death Experience:

    Near Death Experiences -video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HExYnwzLaw4

    a bit longer testimony from Mickey:

    ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’
    Mickey Robinson – Near Death Experience testimony – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544

  6. 6
    Alan Fox says:

    …we also have KeithS, Dr Liddle, Alan Fox, WD400, all suffering from the same delusion that something can just magically “poof” into existence from nothing. Hell they even believe that nothing can create specified complexity!

    I can’t speak for others of whose views you claim intimate knowledge but it is not correct for me, if I interpret your colourful phraseology correctly. I provisionally think it is correct to say that the sum total of matter and energy in this universe is a constant. So “nothing can create specified complexity” is either true (if you think, as I do, that it is not a scientifically measurable quantity – i. e. it is a human construct, a reification) or false if “specified complexity” can be given an operational definition, in which case it cannot indeed be “poofed”. You can live in hope that such an operational definition may emerge, one day. Me, I’m not so confident.

  7. 7
    Andre says:

    Alan Fox then by all means please enlighten us why you are not so confident, that may clarify your position much better.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Me, being much more curious in my endeavor to understand where everything might have come from than to propose that ‘nothing created everything’ and leave it there and hope that no one notices the sheer intellectual laziness I devoted to the question, I propose a rather much more modest endeavor in that we try our best to understand where a single photon of energy might have come from so that we may warrant, however weak, any further conclusions as to where the entire universe might have come from. And in that regards,,,

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    It is found that a ‘uncollapsed’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as a ‘infinite information’ state:

    Wave function
    Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ctor_space

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1)
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
    Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    Thus every time we see (consciously observe) a single photon of ‘material’ reality we are actually seeing just a single bit of information that was originally created from a specific set of infinite information.

    Job 38:19-20
    “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?”

    “When I consider what marvelous things men have understood, what he has inquired into and contrived, I know only too clearly that the human mind is a work of God, and one of the most excellent.” Yet the potential of the human mind “… is separated from the Divine knowledge by an infinite interval.”
    (Poupard, Cardinal Paul. Galileo Galilei. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1983, p. 101.)

    Also of note:

    Single photons to soak up data:
    Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201

    It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the quantum wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?

    Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon
    Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once,,,
    http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html

    Information in a Photon – Robert W. Boyd – 2010
    Excerpt: By its conventional definition, a photon is one unit of excitation of a mode of the electromagnetic field. The modes of the electromagnetic field constitute a countably infinite set of basis functions, and in this sense the amount of information that can be impressed onto an individual photon is unlimited.
    http://www.pqeconference.com/p.....td/013.pdf

    Information In Photon – Robert W. Boyd – slides from presentation (slide 17)
    http://www.quantumphotonics.uo.....-InPho.pdf

    Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as ‘physically real’;

    Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction – June 2011
    Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....10120.html

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiments and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities, in quantum mechanics, particularly incongruities with quantum entanglement, that arose from a purely statistical interpretation of the wave function.

    Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011
    Excerpt: Action at a distance occurs when pairs of quantum particles interact in such a way that they become entangled. But the new paper, by a trio of physicists led by Matthew Pusey at Imperial College London, presents a theorem showing that if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other. As that seems very unlikely to be true, the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.,,, “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says.
    http://www.scientificamerican......vefunction

    The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011
    http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

    Further evidence was forthcoming in 2012

    On the reality of the quantum state – Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett & Terry Rudolph – May 2012
    Abstract: Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is therefore surprising that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state truly represents. One possibility is that a pure quantum state corresponds directly to reality. However, there is a long history of suggestions that a quantum state (even a pure state) represents only knowledge or information about some aspect of reality. Here we show that any model in which a quantum state represents mere information about an underlying physical state of the system, and in which systems that are prepared independently have independent physical states, must make predictions that contradict those of quantum theory. (i.e. Any model that holds the Quantum wave state as merely a abstract representation of reality, i.e. as not a real representation of reality, must make predictions that contradict those of quantum theory.) http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo.....s2309.html

    The following establishes the quantum wave function as ‘real’ from another angle of logic;

    Does the quantum wave function represent reality? April 2012 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: “Similarly, our result that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the wave function and the elements of reality means that, if we know a system’s wave function then we are exactly in such a favorable situation: any information that there exists in nature and which could be relevant for predicting the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is represented one-to-one by the wave function. In this sense, the wave function is an optimal description of reality.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ality.html

    Now, I find the preceding set of articles to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, can be encoded with information in its ‘infinite dimensional’ state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0? state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction to its particle state. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, “Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon?

    John 1:1-5
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    As well, in support of the notion that God, rather than ‘nothing’, created the universe, I offer one of the most accurate theories in science, Quantum Electrodynamics:

    “It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?”
    – Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics)
    Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw

    Feymann referred to the renormalization of infinity in QED as “brushing infinity under the rug.”

    I don’t know about Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:

    John1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is the root word from which we derive our modern word logic
    http://etymonline.com/?term=logic

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    footnote:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    Colossians 1:17
    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner’s Friend – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....aM4#t=510s

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    In regards to the November 2011 paper which found the wavefunction to Be Real Physical Entity, it turns out the actions of the infinite dimensional wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics is even more ‘unlimited’, in regards to time and space than what they had assumed in that paper:

    Qubits that never interact could exhibit past-future entanglement – July 30, 2012
    Excerpt: Typically, for two particles to become entangled, they must first physically interact. Then when the particles are physically separated and still share the same quantum state, they are considered to be entangled. But in a new study, physicists have investigated a new twist on entanglement in which two qubits become entangled with each other even though they never physically interact.,,
    In the current study, the physicists have proposed an experiment based on circuit quantum electrodynamics (QED) that is fully within reach of current technologies. They describe a set-up that involves a pair of superconducting qubits, P and F, with qubit P connected to a quantum field vacuum by a transmission line. During the first time interval, which the scientists call the past, P interacts with the field. Then P is quickly decoupled from the field for the second time interval. Finally, F is coupled to the field for a time interval called the future. Even though P and F never interact with the field at the same time or with each other at all, F’s interactions with the field cause it to become entangled with P. The physicists call this correlation “past-future entanglement.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-q.....ement.html

  12. 12
    groovamos says:

    Alan Fox:
    So “nothing can create specified complexity” is either true (if you think, as I do, that it is not a scientifically measurable quantity – i. e. it is a human construct, a reification) or false if “specified complexity” can be given an operational definition, in which case it cannot indeed be “poofed”. You can live in hope that such an operational definition may emerge, one day. Me, I’m not so confident.

    OK so it seems that something scientifically measurable can be put in a glass case and said to be not constructed by humans (NCBH) – got it. Surely that something designated as THAT type of something gets some benefit from being in the display case if we are to understand. But wait – someone asks – science itself goes into which glass case? Oh- that’s the CBH case you might say, unless you happen to consult Steven Hawking – with him saying that the “laws of science” govern the universe. Dang, what a slap in the face. But what did paleontology look like to the dinosaurs someone asks? Well unfortunately for them they had to wait for humans to put them in the NCBH glass case, if we are to understand. Poor dinosaurs just could not understand their own paleontology without the humans around to put them in a glass case. They just couldn’t get the laws of that science on their own, if we are to understand.

  13. 13
    Johnnyfarmer says:

    Nothing came from something fairly simple !!!

    of related interested;

    Billy Preston “Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing…. but you gotta have something”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:
    Quantum Computing Update: Ray Laflamme at TEDxWaterloo 2013
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlstZ_xsTD4

  15. 15
    Johnnyfarmer says:

    And for many other examples of extreme quote mining visit:

    http://www.pandasthumb.org

  16. 16

    “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing…” (1Corinthians 2: 6…)

    Scientism’s reached consensus…
    We know Nothing brought us here!
    It’s the truth that Science teaches;
    We know Nothing’s there to fear!

    We are smart and getting smarter,
    As our wisdom so expands!
    Truth’s advancing…..fast approaching.
    Nothing’s what we understand!

    Yes, it’s all becoming clearer…
    Nothing really came alive!
    It’s so simple!…. Nothing to it!
    Knowing Nothing has arrived!

    We have stared into the darkness,
    Through our Hubble-Eyes we’ve seen….
    There!…No Matter!…..Nothing happens!
    And we all know what that means!

    In the Church of Scientism,
    We’ve got calculated charts;
    We’ve got measurements to prove it,
    And String Theories to impart!

    Knowing Nothing’s our Foundation!
    Knowing Nothing sets us free!
    Yes, the only thing with meaning’s
    Knowing Nothing, don’t you see?

  17. 17
    RexTugwell says:

    Tom G., brilliant! Krauss’s book “A Universe from Nothing” stays true to its theme by offering nothing by way of end notes or bibliography. Dawkins and Krauss are smart guys; they can’t really believe in such nonsense. “By nothing, I don’t mean nothing, I mean nothing!” I can see Dick and Larry now, laughing all the way to the bank while singing “What a bunch of simpletons” to the tune of Camptown Races.

  18. 18
    Axel says:

    ‘Richard Dawkins is not alone, we also have KeithS, Dr Liddle, Alan Fox, WD400, all suffering from the same delusion that something can just magically “poof” into existence from nothing. Hell they even believe that nothing can create specified complexity! It’s true look up their responses!’

    We are dealing, folks, remember with a set of people who not only consider themselves competent scientists, but the only ones, as atheists, with a handle on the metaphysics underpinning science.

    The only trouble is that quantum physics, the ultimate paradigm, actually mathematically proven to be unimprovable, has now established beyond all peradventure, the truth of theism.

    This universe is subsidiary, relative to the source of an absolute reality in the form of non-local, supernatural photons, yet instead of finding this a game-changer, it has, if anything, made them more rabid than ever in their determination to push their hobby-horses of Evolution and Common Descent, and materialism, generally.

    Were it not for the need to fight them politically, this forum would be the most insane exercise in.. well… insanity!

    What could be more foolish than to seek to enlighten putative scientific thinkers, who refuse to accept the manifest conclusions presented so unequivocally by physics and mathematics, of these cardinal truths of quantum mechanics? Trying to enlighten an audience of teletubbies aficionados? I don’t think so. It would be a no score draw.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Axel, well said!

  20. 20
    Alan Fox says:

    Groovamos:

    OK so it seems that something scientifically measurable can be put in a glass case and said to be not constructed by humans (NCBH) – got it. Surely that something designated as THAT type of something gets some benefit from being in the display case if we are to understand. But wait – someone asks – science itself goes into which glass case? Oh- that’s the CBH case you might say, unless you happen to consult Steven Hawking – with him saying that the “laws of science” govern the universe. Dang, what a slap in the face. But what did paleontology look like to the dinosaurs someone asks? Well unfortunately for them they had to wait for humans to put them in the NCBH glass case, if we are to understand. Poor dinosaurs just could not understand their own paleontology without the humans around to put them in a glass case. They just couldn’t get the laws of that science on their own, if we are to understand.

    I’m sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say, here.

  21. 21
    Alan Fox says:

    What could be more foolish than to seek to enlighten putative scientific thinkers, who refuse to accept the manifest conclusions presented so unequivocally by physics and mathematics, of these cardinal truths of quantum mechanics? Trying to enlighten an audience of teletubbies aficionados? I don’t think so. It would be a no score draw.

    Your point, if there is one, also eludes me, Axel.

  22. 22
    JDH says:

    “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”

    The bigger fools do it and then post it on the internet.

  23. 23
    Axel says:

    Turn down the Teletubbies, Reynard. You can’t hear yourself think. Arguably a blessing, generally, but not helpful when you’re trying to chew gum at the same time.

    But seriously, Reynard, when English is not your first language, you must expect occasional lapses in comprehension. It’s not the longer words, so much as the distinctively English turns of phrase with the smaller, mostly Anglo-Saxon prepositions, conjunctions, etc, isn’t it?

    Never mind. All come out in the wash.

  24. 24
    Axel says:

    That chap, Durston laid it out beautifully, Philip, didn’t he? Top marks for posting that link.

    Watch it, Alan, and it should change your life. (But it won’t, we know.)

  25. 25
    Alan Fox says:

    …Durston laid it out beautifully…

    Possibly. However, if you think that Durston has found an evidential flaw in the evolvability of proteins, then you are exciting yourself prematurely. Durston has said to me in a comment here

    Structural domains occupy what we can refer to as clearly bounded islands in sequence space. Each domain can be regarded as a ‘fold-set’ which can actually be capable of 2 or 3 unique, distinct folds depending upon meta-stable states in folding, (itself a design masterpiece), but each island is surrounded by unstable folding space…

    and goes on to quote a research paper from the Hecht Lab in support. The paper, far from supporting Durston’s assertion, confirms functionality in unknown proteins. This paper, being a review paper, is even more explicit.

  26. 26
    Alan Fox says:

    But seriously, Reynard, when English is not your first language, you must expect occasional lapses in comprehension. It’s not the longer words, so much as the distinctively English turns of phrase with the smaller, mostly Anglo-Saxon prepositions, conjunctions, etc, isn’t it?

    It was Renard (which translates as fox in French, geddit?)! My first language is English English, which probably explains my inability to comprehend the irony-free rants of my rude colonial friends. Language is often a barrier to communication. On this site, I sometimes suspect language is intended as a barrier to communication. 🙂

  27. 27
    Axel says:

    It’s great to have it so comprehensively synthesized by you, Philip, for those apt to understand the science, and especially for technical illiterates, like me, what you are driving at metaphysically:

    ‘Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, “Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon?

    John 1:1-5
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.’

    So, not to detract from the value of your extraordinary overarching proofs, I would reiterate that once the absolute speed of light was verified all those years ago, theism was conclusively established, exposing atheism as ‘a busted flush’, (though I would designate it, ‘a busted pair’, Salvatore). If I’m mistaken, would someone please point out where? It’s important to know, isn’t it?

    The reality of space-time is relative, subsidiary, to that of light and its ultimate source. The speed of light has to be personalized, personally calibrated to be always be measurable by its Observer at its absolute speed. Except, mysteriously, that it would seem, rather, that, somehow, the relationship of the Observer is adapted so that light remains at its absolute speed. Reminiscent of Francis Thompson’s Hound of Heaven: ‘I fled Him down the nights and down the days, I fled him down the arches of the years.

    Also, the words forming part of a prayer in the breviary, ‘Oh God, true light and creator of light…’ seem to me to suggest light, as a spiritual-physical continuum.

  28. 28
    Axel says:

    Ah, your #5 is all very well, Reynauld/Reginald/Reynard, but I was referring, not to nitty-gritty bits and pieces, but to Durston’s proof of theism, via the non local, i.e. super natural nature of photons.

  29. 29
    Axel says:

    ‘ My first language is English English, which probably explains my inability to comprehend the irony-free rants of my rude colonial friends.’

    It seems you’re not as green as you’re cabbage-looking, Mr Fox!

  30. 30
    Alan Fox says:

    Is this this what you are talking about, Exlax?

  31. 31
    jerry says:

    The paper, far from supporting Durston’s assertion, confirms functionality in unknown proteins.

    Of the two papers, one uses the term “design” 55 times and the other 89 times. This says nothing about how rare or common these types of proteins are. But is sure does say they are intelligently designed.

  32. 32
    Alan Fox says:

    Of the two papers, one uses the term “design” 55 times and the other 89 times. This says nothing about how rare or common these types of proteins are. But is sure does say they are intelligently designed.

    I’ll take your word for it about design. The word “intelligent” appears not once in either paper. But the point I was making is that it is premature to assume protein sequence space is not rich in functional proteins.

  33. 33
    jerry says:

    But the point I was making is that it is premature to assume protein sequence space is not rich in functional proteins.

    What in the paper or anywhere led you to that conclusion?

  34. 34
    Johnnyfarmer says:

    Slightly OT but

    I hear by way of the grapevine that a movie based on Dawkin’s new book is being produced with soundtrack by Stevie Wonder !!

  35. 35
    Axel says:

    Exlax, eh? Well, there’s an awful lot of bullsh*t that needs expelling from the brains of you dumbos, so I’ll take that happily.

    Re your sad link, I don’t argue logic with nitwits, Reynard. You should know that by now. It would make two fools when there had been only one. But you’d still beat me for downright folly, just from your ‘wealth’ of your experience.

  36. 36
    Axel says:

    ‘And I gladly add my name to that list. The beginning of everything, which includes time itself, is so utterly beyond our imagination that appeals to common sense just reveal a lack of imagination.’

    No, Mark, in the absence of a belief in a Creator, the least modicum of common sense could prudently evoke nothing more than mute wonder. Nothing more at all.

    Mark, you’re doing a PZ on us! ‘…utterly beyond our imagination’… ‘just reveal a lack of imagination.’ If It’s utterly beyond our imagination, why venture where angels fear to tread?

    The mainstream religions have always taught this. It’s only the folly of materialism hat has prompted often otherwise fairly sane individuals to have a mental breakdown, when the end of physics has finally gained traction, and you’re all up a gum tree.

    It was utterly predictable that when science reached an interface with the spirit of God, its competence would cease; and was so predicted both by theism and deism – of the latter, Einstein being a prime adherent – the scientist who stated that he rated imagination higher than intelligence; something a materialist could never do, since if you are an exemplar, they would be mercifully ridiculed for failing to attach imagination to knowledge….. other, perhaps, than knowledge of nothing.

    You are, in effect, deploring Einstein’s lack of imagination – evidently scientific imagination, to boot; which, particularly coming from a materialist, just sounds a tad anomalous.

    Take a look at your two references to imagination. Does a phenomenon utterly beyond our imagination really give an intelligent person ‘carte blanche’ to fantasize about a multiverse or as atheist school-kids put it, pink pixies and unicorns?

  37. 37
    Axel says:

    It’s visceral with you people, Mark. It’s not rational at all to discount a sovereign creator, a priori. Least of all, today. And certainly not because of a monomaniacal hankering to be able to cash your ‘promissory note’. As if such a hankering justified seeking its hegemony to the exclusion of higher realms of knowledge than empirical science.

    At least, you have tacitly responded to the imponderables associated with the non-locality of photons at the very core of physics in your statement that the beginning of everything is so utterly beyond our imagination. I believe you may be the first one to have responded at all. Durston’s references to non-locality seem to have gone straight over Reynard’s head.

    So, in effect, you are saying that YOU ARE NOT A MATERIALIST, because you are fundamentally agnostic. Be agnostic honestly, cease to argue with Creationists and IDers, and turn your guns on the materialist ostriches. Say, ‘How about if we follow the logic of science, listen to what it is telling us; even about what it cannot tell us.’

  38. 38
    Johnnyfarmer says:

    JF @ 32 Posted in wrong thread (sorry about that …. I would not intentionally interrupt a serious thread with nonsense… remark intended for the Dawkins “wonder” thread)

Leave a Reply