Either I have lost my mind, or materialists have lost theirs

_{Gil Dodgen

February 4, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

With what is now known about the fine-tuning of the laws of physics for the production of a universe that “knew” we were coming (Freeman Dyson), and with what is now known about the sophisticated information-processing systems and technology found in even the simplest living cell (not to mention the human mind), it is incomprehensible to me that this evidence would lead any rational person to the conclusion that it all came about by chance and necessity, and not by design.

Either I have lost my mind, or materialists have lost theirs.

There is no third option.

Comments

[There is, then, only one question to answer: Can the first/ causeless cause be a law or must it be an intelligent agent? We know that it cannot be a law because laws cannot produce novel or creative events; they can only do what they do. That leaves intelligent agency as the only other possibility.] ---eigenstate: "We don’t know that, and have no reason to suppose such a constraint – and in fact have all sorts of well attested physical principles that contradict that point." We do know that. The point cannot be contradicted. --"If we point out instruments at a radioactive isotope and watch for decay events, it’s very predictable and clockwork for large statistical samples, and half-life reduction is highly regular, but for individual decay events, physics is highly creative, totally unpredictable as to the timing of each decay event." Unpredictability does not equal acausality. No event, not even a quantum event, can be uncaused. ---"At the quantum level, you’re about as far wrong as you could be" The laws of logic do not cease to be the laws of logic either at the macro-level or the micro level. Evidence does not inform the rules of right reason; the rules of right reason inform evidence.StephenB_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

also of interest: Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This 'anomaly' is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/ A neurosurgeon confronts the non-material nature of consciousness - December 2011 Excerpted quote: To me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/he-said-it-a-neurosurgeon-confronts-the-non-material-nature-of-consciousness/ Neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander’s Near-Death Experience Defies Medical Model of Consciousness - audio interview http://www.skeptiko.com/upload/skeptiko-154-eben-alexander.mp3bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum Action confirmed in DNA by direct empirical research; DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows - June 2011 Excerpt: -- DNA -- can discern between quantum states known as spin. - The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team's results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure 'quantum form' is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement 'effect' in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) 'cause' when the quantum entanglement 'effect' falsified material particles as its own 'causation' in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various 'special' configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Yet it is also very interesting to note, in Darwinism's inability to explain this 'transcendent quantum effect' adequately, that Theism has always postulated a transcendent component to man that is not constrained by time and space. i.e. Theism has always postulated a 'living soul' for man that lives past the death of the body. Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 moreover a very high level of information processing is suddenly missing upon death: The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings yet quantum information is shown to be conserved: Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence moreover we find: Are humans really beings of light? Excerpt: "We now know, today, that man is essentially a being of light.",,, "There are about 100,000 chemical reactions happening in every cell each second. The chemical reaction can only happen if the molecule which is reacting is excited by a photon... Once the photon has excited a reaction it returns to the field and is available for more reactions... We are swimming in an ocean of light." http://viewzone2.com/dna.html Coast to Coast - Vicki's Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y Quote from preceding video: 'I was in a body and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head. It had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And 'it' was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.' - Vicky Noratuk The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences - Dr Jeffery Long - Melvin Morse M.D. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

--eigenstate: “Definitions are descriptive tools. The do not have metaphysical powers that shape reality.” The problem is what unethical people do with the descriptive tools. Epiphenominal materialists (monists) try to have it both ways by manipulating the language so that they can appear to be rational, acknowledging the existence of minds, while arguing on behalf of that which is irrational, characterizing minds to brains. On the one hand, they reduce everything to matter; on the other hand, they use the language of non-matter when reductionism is shown to be irrational. --“Even if we except your false claim, there, it wouldn’t matter, because “always been defined” exerts perfectly no bearing on reality. If the earth was always defined as “flat” or “square”, or supporting “corners of the earth”, that tradition would have no bearing whatsoever on facts of earth a (rough) sphere.” My claim is not false. The problem would be if, after we had defined the meaning of a sphere, and applied it to earth, someone would come along and argue that the earth is really a square because, as it turns out, the meaning of sphere has been changed to square. This is exactly what the epiphenominalst does with the words brain and mind. If I define a mind as an immaterial faculty of an immaterial soul, then redefining it as matter is a linguistic trick calculated to obfuscate. To the claim that immaterial minds exist, the materialist can respond honestly in only one way: He must say, “In my judgment, minds don’t exist.” It would be dishonest and illogical for him to say that minds do, indeed, exist, except that they are grounded in matter. By extension, it would be dishonest and illogical to say that the soul is grounded in the body. -- “Slaves to matter?” What is this strange voodoo you speak of, here??? Organs ARE matter, configurations of cells aggregated as tissues that form a structural element of the anatomy of higher organ. Why do you emphasize what is obvious and ignore what is relevant? Physical organs are slaves to physical laws. They have no power to redirect those laws, counteract them, or refuse to obey them. This is news to you? Or is this the part of the discussion where you claim not to know the meaning of the word “obey” in the present context. - “Immaterial mind” is not even grounded, semantically, let alone “true” or factual as a concept.” Is this the famous, “why-whatever-do-you-mean-by-spirit” ploy so favored by materialists? --“Materialists just deny that those definitions [soul, mind] and understandings are meaningful or grounded in reality at all.” Well, of course they do. It is the means by which they avoid arguments.StephenB_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

eigenstate, I watched the video, contrary to your false accusations to the contrary (as is normal for you) and the evidence presented in the video stands on its on merits. For you to attack the man, without apparently watching the video or examining the evidence, is also par for the course for you and reveals that you could care less about the truth in this matter but only about your advancing your atheism no matter what evidence you have to ignore nor lie you have to tell in order to do so.bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

BA77, You should watch the videos you post before you post them. I can see a relevant title match from your spam catalog -- "The Mind Is Not the Brain" -- but you've linked to this Sheldrake guy, the guy advancing "morphic fields", "morphic resonance", dog telepathy (IIRC) and other creative manifestations of crackpot pseudoscience. Thought that name was familiar. But by all means if you want to hold this up as the Christian, ID, or just BA77's own personal theory of mind, be my guest. If someone were going to hack into your account and put up a post to discredit you, this would be a good choice of video for the trickster. That's what you get for not checking what came up in your search box...eigenstate_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

eigenstate proclaims his false beliefs as if true,,, and yet the actual verified empirical evidence contrarily states; The Mind Is Not The Brain - Scientific Evidence - Rupert Sheldrake - (Referenced Notes) http://vimeo.com/33479544/ So Who are you going to believe? Eigenstate or your own eyes?bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

I tried to respond, but my answer got erased. Don't know what was happening. I will try to answer your reply quickly. 1. You proposed a computer program as an "agent with no free will who could make a rational decision". This is an absurd argument. Computer programs do not make rational decisions. They are not even "agents" as they can not decide to run. The minute that computer programs make their own decisions is the day that I am out of a job. 2. You had some problems with my definitions of "random" and "necessary" or "contingent" events, and my use of the word "correlation". I admit sometimes I don't use precise statistical vocabulary, but a random process is simply one which each trial is independent. Saying that the trials don't correlate over time is essentially the same statement with different words, why the objection. With all respect Elizabeth, you have never answered adequately how rational choices can be made in a materialistic world. This is the main point. The only way you can conclude that a rational choice can exist in a purely materialistic world is to obfuscate the train of events with such non-meaningful words such as "emergent". I would really like to understand your arguments, but each time I see your real, concrete, examples ( such as proposing that a computer or its program is an example of something that makes rational choices without having free will ) I find everything about the example wanting. Please feel free to try again, but I am convinced that you are only deceiving yourself. I am very sorry if this statement feels judgmental, but I think I should be able to understand a clearly made argument. I have yet to see something that is not either too vague to apply to real objects, or easily dismissed as just wrong.JDH_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Thus, as audacious as this proposition is, the proposition that God created the universe, and that we are made in the image of God, and that we therefore can rationally understand, and comprehend, the universe to a deep level, has stunning confirmation for its validity on many levels of science. Moreover, on the other hand, the counter proposition that this universe was not created by God, and that we are not made in God’s image, and that there is no particular reason why we should comprehend reality, has some very strong arguments against it. In fact these arguments are so strong that they have rendered the atheistic position completely absurd. The following references reveal the bankruptcy of the atheistic mindset as to explaining why we should comprehend reality so deeply: ,,,This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
Further notes;
Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature – Presuppositional Apologetics – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139 BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027
Last power point of preceding video states:
The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
Atheistic materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place. This absurdity extends all the way into Darwin’s evolutionary theory itself:
Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? – Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k
The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth he is giving in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);
Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html
Here a Darwinian Psychologist has a moment of honesty facing the 'hard problem' of consciousness;
Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem" Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.' David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/post_33052491.html “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...” CS Lewis – Mere Christianity "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881 “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

The classic formulation is that “mind is what the brain does”. But that’s too glib, I think. A mind is property of a person, and a person is an organism. I am not my brain, nor am I my legs or my arms. “I” is the name I give to myself as an organism, and my “mind” is the property of that whole, not of any one part, nor, IMO, of some added on bit of something else.
The mind is not the brain. The mind is a property of the brain, and the connected body. The human mind is not a human mind as just a brain; a 'brain in a vat' does not have the physical sensors and stimuli that make the human mind what it is, or the neurotransmitters that exist by the millions in our gut. All of which I'm sure you are aware. But just so it's clear all around, "mind" refers to the cognitive platform for humans, which is "headquartered" in the brain, but incorporates input and feedback from the entire body. A human brain, in isolation, cannot operate as a human mind.eigenstate_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

But a more mysterious question to the issue, is the fact that this seemingly foreign, even outrageously bold, proposition of the rational intelligibility of the universe, that could even be dared to be comprehended by mere human minds, should be so successful as a proposition of thought. For why should it be that mere human minds, human minds who happened to have the audacity to believe that their minds were, of all things, created in the image of the Being Who had created the entire universe, would be so successful as to establishing a solid foundation for modern science, unless this seemingly outlandish idea of being made in God’s image were actually true? In other words, why should science be so successful unless the seemingly outrageous propositions underlying the foundation of modern science were actually true? Dr. Meyer reflects on the success of that outrageous proposition here in this video:
Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998
Moreover, modern science has actually revealed that this outrageous proposition, (that the universe was created by a rational Mind, and that our mind is created in the image of that rational Mind, and that therefore we can comprehend the universe to a deep level), is confirmed on many levels by science. Here Eugene Wigner reflects on the effectiveness of mathematics for understanding reality:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner Excerpt: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Granville Sewell, Professor of Mathematics at the University of El Paso, reveals that mathematics actually governs reality, not just passively describes reality, here; Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation – Granville Sewell – audio http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012
At the 4:00 minute mark of the preceding audio, Dr. Sewell comments on the ‘transcendent’ and ‘constant’ Schroedinger’s Equation which governs the basic actions of the universe;
‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+bi, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’. Granville Sewell PhD.
i.e. the Materialist is at a complete loss to explain why this should be so, whereas the Christian Theist ‘naturally’ presupposes such ‘transcendent’ control of our temporal, material, reality,,,
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
of note; ‘the Word’ is translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’. Logos happens to be the word from which we derive our modern word ‘Logic’. In this following video, Dr. Richards and Dr. Gonzalez reveal that the universe is ‘suspiciously set up’ for scientific discovery:
Privileged Planet – Observability/Measurably Correlation – Gonzalez and Richards – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431 The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole. - Jay Richards Extreme Fine Tuning of Light, and Atmosphere, for Life and Scientific Discovery - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/7715887/
This following video is in the same line of thought as the preceding videos:
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History – Hugh Ross – video http://vimeo.com/31940671
But, as impressive, suspicious, and persuasive, as the preceding ‘hints’ are that the universe was created by the Mind of God and can be understood by the mind of man, since we are made in God’s image, the deepest correlation, of our mind to the Mind of God, finds its most concrete proof of correlation from looking at consciousness itself through the lens of quantum mechanics. There are many famous quotes that throw a little light on just how surprised people are when the first encounter quantum mechanics. Here are a few.
Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it. Neils Bohr “The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks” Albert Einstein
And indeed, one of the prime reasons why quantum theory has looked so ‘silly’, to so many top scientists, is that consciousness is found to be integral, even central, in many of the experiments of quantum mechanics. This following quote nicely sums up exactly why consciousness would throw someone, who is used to thinking of reality in materialistic terms, for a complete loop, after looking at some of the experiments of quantum mechanics:
What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! - UD Blogger https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/another-atheist-checks-out-of-no-consciousnessno-free-will/comment-page-1/#comment-411601
Moreover, because of the correlation of our mind to the Mind of God, we can develop a very strong argument for God from consciousness, and even provide strong empirical proof for the argument:
The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either precedes 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.
Here is the empirical proof for the argument;
Dr. Quantum – Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
i.e. In the experiment the ‘world’ (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a ‘privileged center’. This is since the ‘matrix’, which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is ‘observer-centric’ in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

eigenstate states, after dancing around in a materialistic fantasy land trying to get around the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang (just as materialists/atheists have been doing since Hubble's discovery of a expanding universe in the 1920's):
'Physicists and scientists can’t make headway on natural knowledge in the intuitive and superstitious framework you call your ‘rules of right reason’. They are non-operative for demonstrative, natural knowledge building."
Yet contrary to eigenstate's deeply, but falsely, held belief: Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? Science and engineering, as foreign as it may sound to some people, was born out of a purely Judeo-Christian worldview. To be certain, other cultures, during the history of the world, have given fits and starts to science and engineering, but never did these foreign cultures bring science and engineering to a robust maturity through a sustained systematic development. It was only in the Judeo-Christian worldview, and in that worldview alone, that modern science was brought to the sustainable level of maturity that it has now reached. Several resources are available that document this seemingly mysterious, yet undeniable, fact of history. Here are a few.
Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html The Origin of Science Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper By Nancy Pearcey http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2005/09/post_4.php Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD - Tihomir Dimitrov http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/18/18 A Short List Of The Christian Founders Of Modern Science http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153
Several more resources are easily available on the internet, and through Amazon, for those who would like to learn more about the Judeo-Christian founding of modern science and engineering. But the main thing I want to focus on in this article is on the particular question of ‘exactly why should it be that the Judeo-Christian worldview is so fruitful to science and engineering, whereas, in the other cultures in the history of the world, science and engineering were stillborn?’ I think Dr. Koons does an excellent job of summing up exactly why the Judeo-Christian worldview is so fruitful to modern science and engineering:
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
As well, Dr. Plantinga does a very good job in summing up exactly why the Judeo-Christian worldview is so fruitful to modern science and engineering here:
Philosopher Sticks Up for God Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Here are some quotes reflecting that prevalent Judeo-Christian worldview present at the founding of modern science:
To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge. Nicolaus Copernicus "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” ??????????? [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”… The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book "Principia"
Even Albert Einstein, although he was certainly not thought of as a particularly religious person, reflects how the Judeo-Christian worldview influenced his overall view of reality in this following quote;
“I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.” Albert Einstein
bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

@StephenB,
Actually, it is the other way around. You a committing a linguistic error in two ways: First, you attribute material qualities to mind, which has always been defined as an immaterial and eternal faculty of an immaterial and eternal soul. If there are no souls, then there are no minds (or wills)– only brains. To call the material brain a mind, then, or to suggest that matter in motion can generate a mind, is to distort the language and commit a logical error. Temporal matter in motion cannot produce immaterial eternity
Definitions are descriptive tools. The do not have metaphysical powers that shape reality. Nevermind that materialism is the oldest philosophical tradition in the western world (dates back to Epicurus and Democritus in 4thC BCE), and Epicurus' materialism specifically focused on theory of mind, his Identity Theory of Mind which held that mind was bodily substance (see here for example). Even if we except your false claim, there, it wouldn't matter, because "always been defined" exerts perfectly no bearing on reality. If the earth was always defined as "flat" or "square", or supporting "corners of the earth", that tradition would have no bearing whatsoever on facts of earth a (rough) sphere. So long as we understand that we redeploy words with new meanings and implications to accomodate new information and circumstances, this is not distortive at all. "Flat earth" definitions, like an "immaterial mind" are just fine as useful concepts of philosophy, but at odds with our accumulated knowledge, distortions of natural knowledge. That's the way language evolves and interacts with new evidence and experience. I'm not sure what the reference to "immaterial eternity" connects to. "produce" and "immaterial" are incoherent together, as "produce" relies on stolen concepts from the material world. If something (material concept) is produced (material concept), you have a material something, by definition. "Produce" doesn't have any semantics for "immaterial", so far as I'm aware. If you don't this, maybe you can suggest how we might test for something (material concept!) to "produced immaterially".
Second, you are confusing an organ (brain) with a faculty (mind). Neither can do what the other does. Physical organs are slaves to matter for the simple reason that they are part of the material world of physical cause and effect that is the primary determinant of their activity. A faculty, on the other hand, is endowed with powers that are absent from organs. Among many other qualities, faculties can change the direction of their goals or even reflect on themselves.
"Slaves to matter?" What is this strange voodoo you speak of, here??? Organs ARE matter, configurations of cells aggregated as tissues that form a structural element of the anatomy of higher organism. A "faculty" is an ability. Walking is a faculty, as is thinking. Walking is no more superstitious or supernatural or immaterial than thinking is; it's just a concept we deploy that describes those abilities. "Walking" like "thinking" is a phenomenon of action, a coordinated set of actions performed by the organism. These are not my definitions. These are just dictionary/descriptive usages. If you want to insist on some superstitious definition, then fine, but we are stuck, as these will produce what superstition and theology produce, nothing by way of performative knowledge, nothing to test, nothing predictive, nothing falsifiable, nothing distinguishable from its negation. Or, we can use terms with grounded semantics, and the system works. The epistemology holds, and we have heuristics that can contemplate hypotheses, test them, dismiss them, hone them and validate them based on models that use these grounded semantics.
In keeping with that point, matter can only follow in the direction that the laws of nature direct. It certainly cannot reflect on itself or anything for that matter. Obviously, only an immaterial mind can get the idea of a physical cosmos billions of light years across inside of itself.
OK, so "laws" here, in physics, are descriptive. The word is not used in a prescriptive sense -- that is an exercise in personifying nature. We do understand that the descriptions we build, and the models we build that work, work because there are effective dynamics. Mass actually exerts an accelerating gravitational force on mass; it's effective beyond its description. But either way, there is no warrant for the conclusion that nature cannot reflect on itself in some cognitive way. On the surface, that sounds like a pantheistic construct, which isn't a view I find supported by the evidence, but it's not something you can exclude as a possibility. Evolved humans, and other sentient creatures, wherever they might be, if they be, are just that, though, on naturalism: parts of nature contemplating and interacting in a cognitive way with nature. There's no contradiction or logical problem there at all. Your "Obviously" there, then, is conspicuously out of place. Not only is that not obvious, it's not even coherent. "Immaterial mind" is not even grounded, semantically, let alone "true" or factual as a concept. It's not concrete enough to be judge 'true' or 'false'. It's a divide by zero. You have matter interacting with matter all around you everyday, and thus the pervasive precedent for naturalist understanding of mind as physical phenomenon; it's just a richly textured and complex set of natural interactions, but not ontologically different from your hand hitting the desk. On the other hand, though, you find an inchoate concept -- immaterial mind -- obvious.
It makes no more sense to define a mind as a brain, or an extended brain, that it would be to define a soul as a body, or an extended body.
That's another term that can be (and has been) put to good use with natural semantics. If you read the works of Douglas Hofstadter (Gödel, Escher, Bach, I Am A Strange Loop), you will find a very effective redeployment of 'soul' in materialist terms. Distinct from 'mind', which refers to cognition, 'soul' refers to the personality traits and features of mind that distinguish that person as an individual, intellectually. The semantics are clear, grounded, effective. It works.
Soul, because of its nature, cannot be grounded in body;, mind, because of its nature, cannot be grounded in matter. One may deny souls and minds to their hearts content, but they have no logical warrant for conflating the two or suggesting that one can be the cause of the other.
Materialists just deny that those definitions and understandings are meaningful or grounded in reality at all. The terms aren't coherent in the first place, and where we understand (if vaguely) what is conceptually aimed at, the referents are imaginary, non-existant. Perfectly synonymous with 'unreal'. So the warrant would just be repurposing those terms to definitions that are grounded in nature, concrete in their semantics. Words are descriptive tools. They serve us, we don't serve them. So long as we can agree on the referents, the concepts they point to, we have the basis for good communication. Words do not confer reality upon reality, they are handy labels we use to coordinate invocation and manipulation of concepts. Conceptually, below the "naming" level of words, is where you're getting wrapped around your axle. "Immaterial mind" is a good example of a "dangling term" -- it has a spelling and is pronouncable and otherwise seems like a lot of other words that point to grounded concepts. But this one doesn't. There's no referent for that term. It can't be shown, tested, described, falsified, engaged or otherwise distinguished from the competing (and I say identical) concept of "imaginary".eigenstate_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

The Big Bang seems pretty well confirmed.EndoplasmicMessenger_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Stephen: I fully agree that a mind is not a brain. But that doesn't make me not-a-monist. The classic formulation is that "mind is what the brain does". But that's too glib, I think. A mind is property of a person, and a person is an organism. I am not my brain, nor am I my legs or my arms. "I" is the name I give to myself as an organism, and my "mind" is the property of that whole, not of any one part, nor, IMO, of some added on bit of something else. The idea that a whole has properties not possessed by its parts (and indeed may lack properties possessed by its parts) is a perfectly familiar one. An ocean wave has properties not possessed by either the water or the air between which it forms the interface. But that doesn't make it immaterial. We, as intelligent organisms, are capable of choosing our actions in line with both personal goals and ethical principles. Those capacities are properties of the organism as a whole, not of any one part. I don't see why that should require the positing of some immaterial extra something. In fact, what would be the point of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body if it did? Monism seems to me to be a concept perfectly compatible with traditional theism tbh. In fact I learned it from a catholic theologian.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

@StephenB, Second to last paragraph should look like: I think you will have to define 'novel'? What is your test for 'novel'?
There is no way around it. Any scientist, therefore, who claims that a contingent universe can exist without a necessary Creator is simply ignorant about or antagonistic toward reason’s rules.
eigenstate_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

The big bang is, by definition, an singular event that requires an antecedent cause, which itself must be either [a] a first/causeless cause or [b] an effect of a first/causeless cause.
I will have to begin a campaign toward the recognition of definitions as descriptive tools. I'm all for precision and clarity in our definitions, but definitions are binding on reality. Reality is what it is, independent of what we suppose our definitions hold. As for the Big Bang: First, the multiverse model popular in modern physics does not provide for a single universe, but for a multitude of them, each with its own inception point (it's own "bang"). So it's not a unique phenomena in those frameworks. Those aren't the only hypotheses, and they may not be correct (we can't know by direct observation), but t=0 is not a "singular event" by definition. Second, in case you suppose that the beginning of our universe (and even 'beginning' is problematic as a term, but for lack of a better one we use it, analogically) was a singularity, so long as you understand that our universe was inflationary -- and this is the resounding testimony of a wealth of evidence we have now accumulated -- THERE CANNOT BE A BEGINNING, a singularity (where all mass and energy are accumulated in a single point). That is, for an inflationary universe, to reach t=0, you would have to go back an INFINITE length of time.
There is, then, only one question to answer: Can the first/ causeless cause be a law or must it be an intelligent agent? We know that it cannot be a law because laws cannot produce novel or creative events; they can only do what they do. That leaves intelligent agency as the only other possibility.
We don't know that, and have no reason to suppose such a constraint - and in fact have all sorts of well attested physical principles that contradict that point. If we point out instruments at a radioactive isotope and watch for decay events, it's very predictable and clockwork for large statistical samples, and half-life reduction is highly regular, but for individual decay events, physics is highly creative, totally unpredictable as to the timing of each decay event. At the quantum level, you're about as far wrong as you could be. Below Planck scales, the natural world is a seething frothy foam of creative events. At quantum levels, it's thoroughly novel, and it's only through apprehending natural as statistical ensembles, large aggregations of these events, that order and predictability arise. Not surprisingly, then, random quantum events are posited as the basis for the generation of entire universe, including, perhaps, our own. So, the testimony we have from physics is that random, novel events aren't just known and observed, they are the fundamental building blocks of nature. The physical laws we use to create and deploy working models of nature integrate random, novel interactions at the lowest levels. Leading theoretical frameworks for the inception of our universe contemplate a "zero-energy" quantum flux as the catalyst for our entire universe. This is what Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss and the like are pointing at when they assert that no God is needed for universe creation -- it's a random quantum event in the enclosing context, operating just as everyday physics does in the generated universe (this one). Intelligence is not the only possibility. It hasn't even been shown to be A possibility. No theoretical framework exists for our physics that extrapolates out to a transcendent mind or intelligence. As a conjectural notion, anything goes, I guess, but that's as far as intelligent agency goes. It is an explanation without a supporting model or framework. A superstition. Quantum cosmology may be incorrect, ultimately, but it's anti-superstitious. It's wholly mechanical, merely instrumental, 100% law-based. We can't test it directly, but we can understand that explanation as being provisioned directly as an extension of our physical models that perform in this universe.
Obviously a novel or creative event requires a creator.
I think you will have to define There is no way around it. Any scientist, therefore, who claims that a contingent universe can exist without a necessary Creator is simply ignorant about or antagonistic toward reason’s rules. I think that's correct, with the proviso that by "reason's rules" you are think of something peculiar to StephenB. Physicists and scientists can't make headway on natural knowledge in the intuitive and superstitious framework you call your 'rules of right reason'. They are non-operative for demonstrative, natural knowledge building. So I'm sure most of that community is ignorant of StephenB's "rules of right reason", and it's no loss on their part. Familiarity would just breed contempt, if my experience with those concepts and intuitions is any guide. If you suppose you can plumb the origins of the universe, and divine the nature of reality, all with your eyes closed, neither taking heed of the witness of nature, nor feeling a need for such, well, you get what you deserve with your "rules of right reason", and all that cruel euphemism implies.eigenstate_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

despicably tried to highjack Zeilinger’s paper in support of your atheistic worldview
Using scientific papers to support a viewpoint not held by the author is despicable? Wow. Or is this not a symmetrical position?Chas D_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

“My supernatural destiny is entirely my own business, thanks very much,” A puerile remark. In your dreams. Get over it, Kevin.
Who in hell is Kevin? Any judging that may be coming is certainly not going to be conducted by you, or on any terms that you may decide, so, I say again, none of your business.
“God exists, because look at all the stuff He has made.” No. Because of the evidence, we are fortunate enough to have had BA77 lay before us. Would you care to rebut ANY OF THE EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE? Please feel free. It’s shut everyone else up.
Do you know why? I don't thnk anyone can be bothered. It really does not constitute 'evidence'. BA77 chucks his quantum crap at any 'materialist' who may drift by, dancing around with a "put your dukes up" pugnacity. Now you are offering to hold his coat. Yawn. The difference between the 'materialism side' and the other is that you feel that there are no boundaries which humility might prevent you from transgressing in your all-science-encompassing make-stuff-uppery. I prefer to stick with what I can speak on with reasonable authority - evolutionary theory, molecular biology, phylogeny, biochemistry. I am not a quantum physicist. As a general comment, I would say that whatever this or that 'materialist' may or may not have predicted is simply immaterial. Science progresses by changing its mind, as well as by finding new stuff. It really is not a big deal. And (whisper it) I'm just some bloke on the internet. I am not 'science made flesh'. You can't get to 'science' through the few who can be bothered to come here and are allowed to continue posting. ... am I to understand that some bloke on the internet has discovered PROOF of God through deep analysis of quantum physics? Wow. How could I be skeptical of such a claim? Do you understand his arguments? Could you precis them for a lay audience, or help him improve his presentation skills such that people don't just think "oh, it's ,,,,BA77 again". Or do you just think his arguments are impressively impenetrable? I think he, and you, are most likely full of something, but clarity of thought and exposition is probably not it.
“The existence of something is not a proof of a particular preference for cause…” Gobbledegook. Well, slovenly writing, presumably reflecting your thought process.
Hark! The sweet sound of the internet blowhard.
Are you calling that Italian scientist a liar or a fool?
Italian scientist? There is more than one. You assume I have some detailed access to your own thought processes, or have followed your postings in detailed chronological order. I have no idea who you are talking about.
You can have your own opinion, but not you own facts. Once you grasp that, let me know. In the meantime, don’t call me. I’ll call you.
Toodles, big guy.Chas D_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

correction: ..but [there can be no logical warrant] for conflating the two or suggesting that one can be the cause of the other.StephenB_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

--eigenstate to Gil: “Matter in motion” doesn’t militate against the reality of the mind — it reifies the concept. Matter and energy are what makes mind real. I understand that coming from a dualist mindset, there is this reaction that the mind doesn’t exist on monism, and on dualist terms, it doesn’t. But you are committing to a category error in doing so; you are applying dualist semantics for “mind” to monism, and they don’t apply. A material mind is real *because* it doesn’t obtain in a supernatural/immaterial reality. If you consider materialism as true, just provisionally, so as to evaluate it on its own terms, there is no problem with the reality of mind. Your dualist understanding just doesn’t apply." Actually, it is the other way around. You a committing a linguistic error in two ways: First, you attribute material qualities to mind, which has always been defined as an immaterial and eternal faculty of an immaterial and eternal soul. If there are no souls, then there are no minds (or wills)-- only brains. To call the material brain a mind, then, or to suggest that matter in motion can generate a mind, is to distort the language and commit a logical error. Temporal matter in motion cannot produce immaterial eternity Second, you are confusing an organ (brain) with a faculty (mind). Neither can do what the other does. Physical organs are slaves to matter for the simple reason that they are part of the material world of physical cause and effect that is the primary determinant of their activity. A faculty, on the other hand, is endowed with powers that are absent from organs. Among many other qualities, faculties can change the direction of their goals or even reflect on themselves. In keeping with that point, matter can only follow in the direction that the laws of nature direct. It certainly cannot reflect on itself or anything for that matter. Obviously, only an immaterial mind can get the idea of a physical cosmos billions of light years across inside of itself. It makes no more sense to define a mind as a brain, or an extended brain, that it would be to define a soul as a body, or an extended body. Soul, because of its nature, cannot be grounded in body;, mind, because of its nature, cannot be grounded in matter. One may deny souls and minds to their hearts content, but they have no logical warrant for conflating the two or suggesting that one can be the cause of the other.StephenB_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

--eigenstate to BA77: "You’re mistaking the Big Bang with a “point of creation” — “creation” implies “creator”. That’s not what Big Bang theory posits. And it’s not what Hawking holds, either. You’re convinced that the Big Bang is your “creation point” that you’ve made the mistake of conflating the two concepts." The big bang is, by definition, an singular event that requires an antecedent cause, which itself must be either [a] a first/causeless cause or [b] an effect of a first/causeless cause. There is, then, only one question to answer: Can the first/ causeless cause be a law or must it be an intelligent agent? We know that it cannot be a law because laws cannot produce novel or creative events; they can only do what they do. That leaves intelligent agency as the only other possibility. Obviously a novel or creative event requires a creator. There is no way around it. Any scientist, therefore, who claims that a contingent universe can exist without a necessary Creator is simply ignorant about or antagonistic toward reason's rules.StephenB_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Thank you for proving my point.
You have been somewhat incoherent as to what your point is. Is it a) The Bible predicted the Big Bang and science has confirmed it. b) The Big Bang, as a scientific position, has not been verified, regardless of what the Bible may say on the matter. c) Something else entirely.
And thank you for proving that you are an obtuse evo.
Evolution and cosmology. Two different subjects. (although chemical and stellar evolution are relevant to the latter. So I guess an "evo" may conceivably be someone who considers all three to be legitimate scientific positions. And ID isn't "anti" any of them. Bad evo!).Chas D_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Well DrREC, seeing as you despicably tried to highjack Zeilinger's paper in support of your atheistic worldview, even though Zeilinger is a theist, I figured my time would be better spent talking to a brick wall, trying to convert the brick wall into becoming a wooden wall, than it would be trying to talk you out of your dogmatic pseudo-scientific atheism. I figure my odds are immensely better in the endeavor! :) Brick Wall https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjg1c253dDRkMw&hl=en_US If successful I'll build up to converting Taliban to Christianity.,,, But I'll leave dogmatic atheists, such as you, to Jesus Himself, since that level of conversion will certainly require something on par with raising the dead! :)bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

So a Chevy Commercial and a Music video are your "experimental observation of a “timeless state?” You also haven't explained the difference between local realism and metaphysical realism.DrREC_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

DrRec Thanks BA , Back in form, I've always been curious, how do you keep track of your links? Per topic? What is a rough estimate of the number in your arsenal?velikovskys_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Thank you for proving my point. And thank you for proving that you are an obtuse evo.Joe_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Chas- YOUR position has nothing-> no testable hypothesis and no positive evidence.
"My" (sic) position on the Big Bang? I thought you were saying the Bible concurs with science? So though you say "the “God scenario” made a prediction that science verified.", you are now asserting that science has not, in fact, 'verified it', even in your hugely eccentric reading of Genesis? Make yout mind up, man!Chas D_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Chas- YOUR position has nothing-> no testable hypothesis and no positive evidence.Joe_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

I agree. A very good point. Atheism now is like someone standing on two icebergs in the sea at the same time. And these icebergs started moving in opposite directions.Eugene S_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply