Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

Is “string theory world” in some trouble?

Spread the love

Is Cool cosmology not getting results? Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, admittedly a critic, comments:

For quite a few years now, I’ve been mystified about what is going on in string theory, as the subject has become dominated by AdS/CFT inspired work which has nothing to do with either strings or any visible idea about a possible route to a unified fundamental theory. …

Peter Woit, “Deterioration of the World’s Thinking About the Deepest Stringy Ideas” at Not Even Wrong

The fun part is this quote:

This superficial approach – in which people reduced their understanding of string theory and its amazing properties to some mundane, constantly repetitive ideas about AdS/CFT, especially those that are just small superconstructions added on top of 4D quantum field theories – got even worse in the recent decade when the “quantum information” began to be treated as a part of “our field”. Quantum information is a legitimate set of ideas and laws but I think that in general, this field adds nothing to the fundamental physics so far which would go beyond the basic postulates of quantum mechanics…

Lubos Motl, “Evolution, deterioration of the world’s thinking about the deepest stringy ideas” at The Reference Frame (July 11, 2021)

And Woit adds,

According to Lubos, he’s not the only one who feels this way, with an “anonymous Princeton big shot” agreeing with him (hard to think of anyone else this could be other than Nima Arkani-Hamed)

Peter Woit, “Deterioration of the World’s Thinking About the Deepest Stringy Ideas” at Not Even Wrong

Nima Armani-Hamed has crossed our screen before.

Some of us think string theory only existed in order to give a bizarre twist to the fine-tuning of our universe and to create a basis for believing that there is an uncountable infinity of universes out there instead. Apart from that, it may be hard to see much point. We shall see.

Gossip is fun when it doesn’t hurt anyone.

49 Replies to “Is “string theory world” in some trouble?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Peter Woit starts out his article with this,

    For quite a few years now, I’ve been mystified about what is going on in string theory, as the subject has become dominated by AdS/CFT inspired work which has nothing to do with either strings or any visible idea about a possible route to a unified fundamental theory.

    And for quite a few years I myself have been mystified that leading mathematicians who work in theoretical physics, such as Peter Woit, have basically completely ignored Godel’s incompleteness theorem, and the insurmountable problem that it presents as to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything, (and/or a “unified fundamental theory” as Peter Woit calls it).

    I googled “Peter Woit, Godel’s incompleteness” and came up with zilch as to him acknowledging just how devastating Godel’s incompleteness actually is to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything.

    I did find this though,

    “Peter Woit’s review of Max Tegmark’s “Our Mathematical Universe” (Books, Jan. 18) emphasizes the role of math in physics but leaves out the work of 1930s mathematician Kurt Gödel and his “Incompleteness Theorem.” This theorem basically proves mathematically that the answer to the origin of anything, even the physical universe, always lies outside of the thing itself. Therefore the origin of this universe that is incredibly fine-tuned in over 100 parameters, must have a supernatural agent outside of itself. A natural agent would have to be included in the encircled physical universe.”,,,
    – James Kraft

    In other words, and as the following article succinctly states, “we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.”

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    The only hint that I have ever seen, from any leading theoretical Physicist, as to just how devastating Godel’s incompleteness ‘might’ be, (as to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything), has been from Hawking himself. And it reads as such,

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Thus, based on the position that an equation cannot prove itself, the constructs are based on assumptions some of which will be unprovable.”
    Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    And it is not as if Godel’s Incompleteness has been sitting on the sidelines as far as theoretical physics is concerned. In fact, Godel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics has now been extended into quantum physics itself, in that it is now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    In short, it is now mathematically proven that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity.

    One leading mathematician, (not theoretical physicist), who understands just how devastating Godel’s incompleteness actually is, is Gregory Chaitin. Gregory Chaitin has found that “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

    This presents an insurmountable problem for atheists since, as Steven Weinberg himself pointed out, “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.”

    Quote:
    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
    The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”
    (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
    “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”
    Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video
    – Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video
    https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

    Of course the correct solution to the question of ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’ is, as Bruce Gordon succinctly explained, “the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.””

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    The main, irresolvable, problem for theoretical physicists in finding a purely mathematical theory of everything is the problem of mathematically unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

    Mathematically speaking, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are separated by an unbridgeable ‘infinite mathematical divide’.

    Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
    The theory is not renormalizable.”

    Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ?, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
    The theory is not renormalizable.
    https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps
    Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

    And as the following theoretical physicist noted, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”

    Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
    We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
    Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
    In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
    The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
    Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

    So the burning question becomes, “how can we possibly bridge this ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?”

    Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhDs. Mathematics and Theology
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
    http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    Philippians 2:8-9
    And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    ,, then that VERY reasonable concession to rightly allow God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of physics originally envisioned, provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    In short, the Shroud of Turin, (which is THE most scientifically scrutinized artifact ever from ancient history), provides evidence that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were successfully dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Here are a few notes to that effect:

    Kevin Moran, an optical engineer, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”

    Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples – Kevin E. Moran – 1999
    Discussion
    Pia’s negative photograph, from 1898, showed what looked to be a body that was glowing, but slightly submerged in a bath of cloudy water. This condition is more properly described as an image that is visible, at a distance, but by locally attenuated radiation. The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity and, if moving at light speed, only lasted about 100 picoseconds. It is particulate in nature, colliding only with some of the fibers. It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,,
    Theoretical model
    It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed.
    Discussion
    The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/moran.pdf

    Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://www.predatormastersforu.....er=3014106

    So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics then a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in science today, of finding a reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were successfully dealt, (and the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ between the two theories was bridged), with Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Matthew 28:18
    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,”

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Supplemental notes:

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Keep it Simple – Edward Feser
    Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

  3. 3
    zweston says:

    BA77, Really enjoy reading your stuff. Do you have a massive document ready for all of these posts with all the evidence lined out? Would love to take a peek at a version of it!

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/1

    And for quite a few years I myself have been mystified that leading mathematicians who work in theoretical physics, such as Peter Woit, have basically completely ignored Godel’s incompleteness theorem, and the insurmountable problem that it presents as to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything, (and/or a “unified fundamental theory” as Peter Woit calls it).

    My impression is a that scientists are well aware of the implications of the Incompleteness Theorem for constructing an entirely self-contained Theory of Everything but it is no reason not to continue to improve the theories we already have or to look for better ones.

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.

    We already have ontologies that dispense with the concept of God, certainly the incoherent version of Christianity.

    In short, it is now mathematically proven that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity.

    Of course the correct solution to the question of ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’ is, as Bruce Gordon succinctly explained, “the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.””

    Perhaps there is a dimension of reality which transcends the one in which we find ourselves. All that would mean is that there is more to reality than we were previously aware.

    Gordon’s response, however, perfectly illustrates the vacuous nature of the religious account. He acknowledges that there are mysteries about the nature of observable reality which may only be explicable by postulating a transcendent realm inhabited by some intelligent causal agency – meaning God. And that is as far as his curiosity takes him, apparently. He is content with that speculation. Does it occur to him to ask about the nature of such an intelligent agent or its origins? How does he grapple with problem of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem which should also apply to the theories or explanations of this being? The whole thing raises just as many questions as it answers.

  5. 5
    zweston says:

    Sev, I notice you didn’t address anything regarding “convergent evolution.”

  6. 6
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    We already have ontologies that dispense with the concept of God

    : )

    Perhaps there is a dimension of reality which transcends the one in which we find ourselves.

    :))

    Does it occur to him to ask about the nature of such an intelligent agent or its origins?

    :)))
    PS:
    You can’t make this thing up:
    Definition of God: Immaterial Uncreated Being.
    Atheists: How was created that material god?

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/2

    The main, irresolvable, problem for theoretical physicists in finding a purely mathematical theory of everything is the problem of mathematically unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

    We don’t know that it is unresolvable and we don’t know that a theory which unifies quantum and relativity theories would also be a Theory of Everything. People are far to willing to leap to premature conclusions about things which are beyond our knowledge at this time. I understand that people find unsatisfactory the simple – but more accurate – answer of “We don’t know” but the reality is that we don’t know.

    Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.

    Very poetic and no doubt emotionally satisfying to believers but scientifically vacuous. Mathematicians and scientists are uncomfortable with infinities – except when it’s their God. Then it’s fine.

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,

    As you were told before, Zeilinger’s work technically narrows the free-will loophole, It doesn’t close it.

    As for allowing the “Agent Causality of God” back into physics, that would be a science killer.

    For those who remember it, Arthur C Clarke’s novel Childhood’s End explored the devastating impact an immeasurably more advanced culture – even if their intentions were entirely peaceful – could have on human culture, creativity and scientific curiosity. Why bother with years of grinding research to solve a problem when you could just go an ask the Overlords for the answer?

    As the novel illustrates, the obvious problem, if you allow the existence of an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator who can account for everything, then what is the point of us doing anything, what is the point of us at all?. We cannot be some sort of experiment because we only run experiments when we aren’t sure of the answer. This Creator is presumed to already know the answer to any possible experiment that could be run. Are we there to provide companionship, like pets? But this Creator is assumed to be a necessary being, in direct contradiction of the Incompleteness Theorem, not dependent on anything outside of Himself. “What does God need with a starship?”

    In other words, allowing an incoherent concept such as the “Agent Causality of God” into science would be crippling. It would almost inevitably lead to a form of religious Lysenkoism wherein any form of scientific exploration or explanation would be judged by whether it was consonant with the prevailing religious orthodoxy.

    Now, that might not be so bad if we could ask this Creator for guidance on what specific tweaks we would to need to apply to modify our genome in order to eradicate cancers or degenerative neurological disorders, for example. But that option is apparently not available. So how does allowing the “Agent Causality of God” back into science help us at all?

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Zweston, Thanks and yes I do have fairly large files of notes. I’m sorry, they are not loaded up on the web for other people to see, and I really wouldn’t want to load them up anyway since, although I know where to find specific citations within my notes, they most likely would not make much sense to anyone else.

    My notes, are very much like a messy office in which only the person who made the mess in the office actually knows where everything is.. 🙂

  9. 9
    zweston says:

    BA77… I would love to connect, but I saw your post about being burned in the past, and understand. I just so appreciate your resources, your packaging of the information, and your well informed faith. This world pushes hard on those who desire to follow Christ and hold to the eternal truth of scripture, but your light shines bright.

  10. 10

    What will happen if science accepts creationism / intelligent design

    1. The culture in academics will improve dramatically. Harvard will be Harvard again, and Cambridge university, will be Cambridge university again. Meaning they would get the good feeling again associated to their name, instead of as now, that they have the feel of a mental institution.

    You cannot do emotions, good judgement, with materialism, materialism is solely about facts. You require creationism for good judgement.

    2. More advancement in knowledge about decisionmaking processes, because choice is the mechanism of intelligent design.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    In response to the fact that Theoretical Physicists, for the most part, completely ignore just how devastating Godel’s incompleteness is to finding a purely mathematical theory of everything, (and/or a “unified fundamental theory” as Peter Woit calls it), Seversky responds thusly,

    My impression is a that scientists are well aware of the implications of the Incompleteness Theorem for constructing an entirely self-contained Theory of Everything but it is no reason not to continue to improve the theories we already have or to look for better ones.

    Well that is not my impression, and if you can find any quotes other than the quote from Hawking that I already provided, that shows that theoretical physicists “are well aware of the implications of the Incompleteness Theorem for constructing an entirely self-contained Theory of Everything”, I would certainly appreciate it.

    My impression is that Godel’s incompleteness is the proverbial ‘elephant in the living room’ that theoretical physicists would much rather ignore than acknowledge the presence of.

    Personally, I have rarely seen Godel’s incompleteness discussed, and if it is discussed, it is discussed only in passing as Hawking discussed it only in passing in his book “The Grand Design”.

    Although I have to admit that, earlier in his career, Hawking did take Godel’s incompleteness much more seriously than he did in his 2010 book ‘The Grand Design”.

    The nature and significance of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems – Princeton – 2006
    Excerpt: ,,Stephen Hawking (2002) and Freeman Dyson (2004), among others, have come to the conclusion that Gödel’s theorem implies that there can’t be a (mathematical) Theory of Everything.,,
    http://math.stanford.edu/~fefe.....el-IAS.pdf

    Seversky you also stated that,

    “it (Godel’s incompleteness) is no reason not to continue to improve the theories we already have or to look for better ones.”

    I agree whole heartedly.

    In fact, I personally was very happy when Nima Arkani-Hamed discovered the amplituhedron which is “as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman (diagrams) was better than Heisenberg’s S-matrices.

    Bohemian Gravity – Rob Sheldon – September 19, 2013
    Excerpt: Quanta magazine carried an article about a hypergeometric object that is as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman was better than Heisenberg’s S-matrices. But the discoverers are candid about it,
    “The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity. “Both are hard-wired in the usual way we think about things,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and the lead author of the new work, which he is presenting in talks and in a forthcoming paper. “Both are suspect.””
    What are these suspect principles? None other than two of the founding principles of materialism–that there do not exist “spooky-action-at-a-distance” forces, and that material causes are the only ones in the universe.,,,
    http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/?

    But no matter how much we ‘improve’ the mathematics that describe this universe, we will still be left with the burning question of “why do such ‘perfect mathematical descriptions’ even describe the universe in the first place?”.

    As Nima Arkani-Hamed himself put it, “It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation. But what might such an explanation look like?”

    “It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation. But what might such an explanation look like?”
    Nima Arkani-Hamed – discovered the amplituhedron
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-its-not-the-answers-we-lack-its-the-question/

    Of course the explanation for ‘perfect mathematical descriptions’ is that, as Edward Feser explains, “Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world.”

    Keep it Simple – Edward Feser
    Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

    But hey, you don’t have to take Edward Feser’s word for it, both Eugene Wigner and Albert Einstein are on record as the regarding it as a ‘miracle’ that mathematics should even be applicable the the universe in the first place.

    Eugene Wigner even went so far as to disparage Darwinian evolution when he called it a ‘miracle’.

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    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.....igner.html

    And Albert Einstein himself even went so far as to castigate ‘professional atheists’ when he called it a ‘miracle’.

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    So there you have it. From two of the biggest giants in modern physics, it should be considered ‘miraculous’ that the universe is describable by mathematics.

    Seversky went on to claim,

    We already have ontologies that dispense with the concept of God, certainly the incoherent version of Christianity.

    Well actually, as Godel, Wigner, and Einstein all made clear, no you do not have an ontology that can dispense with God. , (at least you do not have, and cannot have, a ‘mathematically scientific’ ontology that dispenses with God),

    Seversky went on,

    Perhaps there is a dimension of reality which transcends the one in which we find ourselves. All that would mean is that there is more to reality than we were previously aware.

    🙂 Hmmm, You don’t say?!? Seems to me that Christians have been claiming that very thing for a couple of thousand years now.

    – 2 Corinthians 12: 2-4
    “I know a man in Christ who, fourteen years ago, was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body, I do not know – God knows. And I know that this man – whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows – was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.”

    Seversky finishes with,

    “Does it occur to him (Gordon) to ask about the nature of such an intelligent agent or its origins?”

    It might interest you know that Christians have grappled with questions of this sort for centuries, (successfully grappled with them I might add).

    Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser – June 2012
    Excerpt: A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,,
    ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation.
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/not-understanding-nothing

    Seversky went to say some other things in another post. Perhaps I will address some of them tomorrow if time permits. But suffice it for now to note that Godel, Einstein, and Wigner, all disagree with Seversky in his claim that we can have a mathematically ‘scientific’ ontology that ‘dispenses with God’.

    This failing of his atheistic worldbview to be able to ground ‘mathematical science’ in the first place should be no small burr in the saddle of Seversky, who considers ‘science’ to be his safe haven away from God. (at least a safe haven away from God as Seversky has falsely envisioned him to be, i.e. an evil tyrant who is out to ‘get him’, rather than Seversky envisioning God as God truly is, i.e. a loving father who only wants the best for him.)

    Quote and verse

    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
    – Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

    Psalm 68:5
    A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows,
    is God in his holy dwelling.

  12. 12
    Viola Lee says:

    I really hate to reappear, but here is a point I have made before that I think BA doesn’t get.

    BA writes,

    And for quite a few years I myself have been mystified that leading mathematicians who work in theoretical physics, such as Peter Woit, have basically completely ignored Godel’s incompleteness theorem, and the insurmountable problem that it presents as to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything

    Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem’s are about purely mathematical axiomatic systems. Theoretical physicists are not trying to create a purely axiomatic system: they are trying to crate a descriptive system which maps completely to real-world phenomena, especially one which unifies general relativity and the quantum mechanics.

    These are two different things. Godel’s Theorems says that there are undecidable propositions, and establishes this in an esoteric way. Here is a fairly good layman’s explanation: Link

    However a theory about the physical world would be complete if it could explain and predict every possible real-world phenomena. However, if one were to consider the theory as a pure axiomatic system (which is not what the theoretical physicists is trying to do) the undecidable propositions that Godel’s theorem says must exist might not in fact map to any real-world phenomena, and thus be irrelevant.

    The key idea here is between an purely abstract mathematical system, which is self contained and only looks to itself for its content, and a physical theory which maps mathematical content to real-world phenomena, and then looks to its fit with real-world phenomena for its validity.

    Godel’s Theorem does not rule out the possibility of a theory of everything in the sense of a mathematical model which accurately describes, in an unifying way, general relativity and quantum mechanics.

    Over and out. Take it away, BA, but keep it under 5000 words. Others may also have something to say about whether they think I’m right or not.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Viola Lee tried to distance Godel’s incompleteness from theoretical physics.

    Yet, as was already referenced in post 1,

    ,,,it is not as if Godel’s Incompleteness has been sitting on the sidelines as far as theoretical physics is concerned. In fact, Godel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics has now been extended into quantum physics itself, in that it is now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    In short, it is now mathematically proven that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity.

    In fact, the preceding proof was made even more robust in 2020,

    Undecidability of the Spectral Gap – June 16, 2020
    Toby Cubitt, David Perez-Garcia, and Michael M. Wolf
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.04573.pdf

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    At 7 Seversky tries to further address my posts 1 and 2,

    I claimed,

    The main, irresolvable, problem for theoretical physicists in finding a purely mathematical theory of everything is the problem of mathematically unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

    Seversky responded thusly,

    We don’t know that it is unresolvable

    Well actually we do know that it is irresolvable,,, see post 13.

    Seversky continues,

    and we don’t know that a theory which unifies quantum and relativity theories would also be a Theory of Everything.

    Well actually I agree with you that simply mathematically unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity into a “Theory of Everything’ would leave many very important things about what it means to be human on the cutting floor,,,,, but be that as it may be, none-the-less, the search for the “Theory of Everything” today takes the form of theoretical physicists trying to mathematically unify gravity, as it is described by General Relativity, with quantum mechanics into a single overarching mathematical framework that, in principle, would be capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.

    Theory of everything
    A theory of everything (TOE[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[2]:6 Finding a TOE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.[3] String theory and M-theory have been proposed as theories of everything. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, together, most closely resemble a TOE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large scale and high mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. Quantum mechanics successfully implemented the Standard Model that describes the three non-gravitational forces – strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic force – as well as all observed elementary particles.[4]:122
    General relativity and quantum mechanics have been thoroughly proven in their separate fields of relevance. Since the usual domains of applicability of general relativity and quantum mechanics are so different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be used.[5][6]:842–844 However, the two theories are considered incompatible in regions of extremely small scale – the Planck scale – such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang). To resolve the incompatibility, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of general relativity and quantum mechanics into a seamless whole: the TOE is a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

    To put it mildly, describing all phenomena in the universe is a rather ambitious goal for any single mathematical theory of science to ever hope to achieve. For instance, will this hypothetical mathematical theory of everything be able explain why Seversky dedicates a large part of his life fighting against the God that he inevitably will have to face one day? Or will this theory explain why I prefer Ice Cream to Sherbert? Or will it be able to describe, etc.. etc.., ad infinitum?

    Anyways, Seversky continues,

    People are far to willing to leap to premature conclusions about things which are beyond our knowledge at this time.

    Hmm, such as you, and other atheists, prematurely concluding that methodological naturalism must be true prior to any examination of the evidence, and despite the fact the conclusions of methodological naturalism are patently absurd, (R. Lewontin, billions of demons), and despite the fact that science itself is inextricably wedded to Theistic presuppositions about the rationality of the universe, (S. Meyer, The Return of the God Hypothesis)?

    Seversky then goes on,

    I understand that people find unsatisfactory the simple – but more accurate – answer of “We don’t know” but the reality is that we don’t know.

    Perhaps you should take your own advice and be a little more circumspect and humble in your dogmatic claims about God’s non-existence, and/or His character, and admit that you yourself “don’t know’? Or would you find that honest admittance of your ignorance about God existence and character “unsatisfactory?”

    Seversky, after quoting me,,,

    Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.

    ,,, after quoting me, Seversky goes on,

    Very poetic and no doubt emotionally satisfying to believers but scientifically vacuous. Mathematicians and scientists are uncomfortable with infinities – except when it’s their God. Then it’s fine.

    Seversky is correct in saying “Mathematicians and scientists are uncomfortable with infinities”

    “Here is the problem (with black holes), right there, when ‘r’ (radius) is equal to zero, The point at which physics itself breaks down. So 1 over ‘r’ equals 1 over 0 equals infinity. To a mathematician infinity is simply a number without limit. To a physicist it is a monstrosity. It means first of all that gravity is infinite at the center of a black hole. That time stops. And what does that mean? Space makes no sense. It means the collapse of everything we know about the physical universe. In the real world there is no such thing as infinity. Therefore there is a fundamental flaw in the formulation of Einstein’s theory.”
    (And when you try to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics) “In fact, you get an infinite sequence of infinities, (which is) infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein’s original theory (i.e. General Relativity).”
    Quantum Mechanics & Relativity – Michio Kaku – The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It ? – video
    Science vs God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it – video
    https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x

    But Seversky is incorrect to imply that it is only Christians who are comfortable postulating an infinity “when it’s their God. Then it’s fine.”

    Atheists have no problem whatsoever postulating a epistemologically self-defeating ‘random infinity’ when it will help them avoid the ‘rational infinity’ that is only to be found in God.

    For instance, Atheists have had no problem whatsoever postulating an infinity of other universes, (via a multiverse, and the veritable infinity of hypothetical ‘bubble universes continually being generated in inflationary cosmology), to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the universe.

    Nor do Atheists have any problem whatsoever postulating a veritable infinity of parallel universes, i.e. Many Worlds”, to ‘explain away’ quantum wave collapse, just so as to avoid any implication of God.

    Small problem for Seversky and other atheists, all these ‘random infinities’, that Atheists have postulated so as to try to avoid any implication of God, are all epistemologically self-defeating and therefore scientifically ‘worse than useless’ (Penrose).

    Multiverse and the Design Argument – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”.
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....n-argument

    GORDON: Hawking irrational arguments
    Theoretical physicist takes leave of his senses
    By Bruce L. Gordon – October 1, 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.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

    Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation – 25 September 2014
    Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous,,,
    Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation’s other problems.
    Meet the multiverse
    Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true.
    “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything.
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....CajrGl0y00

    Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems – Philip Ball – October 18, 2018
    Excerpt: It, (The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics), says that our unique experience as individuals is not simply a bit imperfect, a bit unreliable and fuzzy, but is a complete illusion. If we really pursue that idea, rather than pretending that it gives us quantum siblings, we find ourselves unable to say anything about anything that can be considered a meaningful truth. We are not just suspended in language; we have denied language any agency. The MWI — if taken seriously — is unthinkable.
    Its implications undermine a scientific description of the world far more seriously than do those of any of its rivals. The MWI tells you not to trust empiricism at all: Rather than imposing the observer on the scene, it destroys any credible account of what an observer can possibly be. Some Everettians insist that this is not a problem and that you should not be troubled by it. Perhaps you are not, but I am.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-has-many-problems-20181018/

    In other words, contrary to what Seversky claimed, it is not only Christians who are ‘comfortable’ with infinity, atheists apparently are also very comfortable postulating infinities whenever it will help them avoid any implication of God. ,,, “small’ problem for atheists though, all their ‘random infinities’ are epistemologically self-defeating. Which is a nice way of saying that they are all insane.

    I will try to address the rest of Seversky’s post later on today if time permits

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Next Seversky quotes me

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,

    Seversky responds thusly,

    As you were told before, Zeilinger’s work technically narrows the free-will loophole, It doesn’t close it.

    Well, contrary to Seversky trying to play it off as no big deal, that ‘technical’ narrowing, since it excludes all ‘local’ deterministic models, happens to exclude Darwinian evolution itself since Darwinian evolution holds that all our thoughts and decisions were ‘locally’ determined by the prior state of the material particles in our brain.

    That is exactly why Sabine Hossenfelder herself appealed to ‘super-determinism’ in order to deal with the closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole by Zeilinger and company. Which was basically Hossenfelder saying that she didn’t care what the empirical evidence said to the contrary about the existence of free will, she was “determined’ 🙂 to still believe in ‘local’ determinism.

    And, as should be needless to say, if we cannot trust what our experimental results are telling us about reality, and insist on believing in things even when they contradict experimental results, then science is, for all practical purposes, dead.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-physicist-sean-carroll-rejects-logic-when-he-rejects-free-will/#comment-701634

    As to any hypothetical ‘non-local’ models that try to deal with the closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loop-hole, (perhaps Seversky is alluding to “Many Worlds”?), well, I think such a scenario is absurd on its face since, (besides believing that you exist in an infinite number of places being a completely insane belief to hold), free will, by definition, simply cannot be based on any type of mathematical formalism. Whereas on the other hand, Immaterial minds, via free will, create mathematical axioms.

    Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson
    Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~dou...../info8.pdf

    Seversky then claims,,

    As for allowing the “Agent Causality of God” back into physics, that would be a science killer.

    Actually the shoe is squarely on the other foot. Seversky own atheistic worldview is, not only a science killer, but is a science mass murderer!

    Although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    April 2021 – Detailed Defense of each claim
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Next Seversky goes into some type of bizarre Theological Argument, based on some work of fiction by
    Arthur C Clarke. as to why allowing God ‘back’ into science might be a science killer.

    All I have to say about that entire bizarre line of ‘Theological’ reasoning is that the necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science just did not magically evaporate into thin air and disappear into nothingness, but those necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science are still very much required for the continued practice, and success, of modern science.

    Science simply is impossible without assuming certain Judeo-Christian presuppositions to be true!

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. 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.theistic.net/papers.....cience.pdf

  16. 16
    William J Murray says:

    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. 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.

    Perhaps it was only possible from the Judeo-Christian perspective given know available perspectives at the time; that doesn’t mean that only the Judeo-Christian perspective out of all possible perspectives was up to the task. That’s a case that can’t be made.

    As far as theistic metaphysics being necessary to properly understand reality, that may or not be a good way of characterizing what is necessary to the task. Obviously, consciousness and information are essential commodities, and the question is: what can be said to be the ground for the existence of information and consciousness?

    Regardless of what you label it with, the potential for both specific, structured information and individual consciousness must exist at the root of both. Is that potential “God,” or adequately labeled with that term? I think that more than just “infinite potential” would be required to make a case for basic, much less any particular kind of, theism. I think that BA77 has said and argued, and I think any such label would require some kind of individual agency, such as creating a specific world out of all the potential.

    Do we have evidence that “a” specific world was in fact chosen/created by such an agency?

    It seems to me that the evidence indicates this is not so, or perhaps there is an argument to be made that the agency created a world where a specific range of potentials was available for beings with free will to “choose” from, giving us the range of potentials available in quantum experimentation. It’s not like we can shoot an electron through a double-slit board and the result being a tomato hitting the target or music being heard by the observers.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^^^^
    HUH??? Whatever WJM. The facts are what they are. Science was born out of and is still dependent on presuppositions that find their root in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

    And I certainly don’t consider your MRT, IRT, (or whatever you are calling it today), to be a serious contender to ever replace the Judeo-Christian worldview, and its symbiotic relationship with science, anytime soon.

    Shoot, it is fairly obvious, via your recent switching of acronyms for your pet theory, that you yourself don’t really have all the bugs worked out of your own theory yet.

    But hey, let’s give it a few thousand years and see where your theory goes eh?

    🙂

    How Many Christians Are In the World Today?
    By Mary Fairchild -April 16, 2020
    In the last 100 years, the number of Christians in the world has quadrupled from about 600 million in 1910 to well past 2 billion presently. Today, Christianity remains the world’s largest religious group.
    https://www.learnreligions.com/christianity-statistics-700533

  18. 18
    Jack says:

    BA77: “Science was born out of and is still dependent on presuppositions that find their root in the Judeo-Christian worldview.”

    To what “presuppositions” do you refer? (Not cherry picked “accomplishments”.) But actual grounding. Because from what I can glean, the Greeks locked down the essentials of logic and reasoning upon which everything later stands. And please, no copy and paste. Just a few bullet points in your own words. Thanks.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Jack, if you have not noticed, I do not tailor my comments to please the whims of atheists.

    As to Jack’s (false) claim that the “Greeks locked down the essentials of logic and reasoning upon which everything later stands”, Jack could not be more wrong in his belief.

    Francis Bacon, (via his championing of the inductive form of reasoning over and above the deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around since the times of the ancient Greeks), was the devout Christian who brought forth the scientific method.

    As Henry Schaefer explained, “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”

    “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
    – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415

    “Bottom up” inductive reasoning is, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks in which they “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”

    Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph
    https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg

    Inductive reasoning
    Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion.[1] It is also described as a method where one’s experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.[2] Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.[3]
    Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

    This new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, was first elucidated and championed by Francis Bacon in 1620 in his book that was entitled Novum Organum. Which is translated as ‘New Method’.

    In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work Organon, which was Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, Organum was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.

    The Organon and the logic perspective of computation – 2016
    Excerpt: The works of Aristotle on logic are collectively known as the Organon, that is, the ” instrument ” or ” tool ” of thought. In the ” Prior Analytics “, Aristotle introduced a list of inference rules that concern with the relation of premises to conclusion in arguments (syllogisms). His aim was to determine which kinds of arguments are valid. The validity of an argument is characterized and inferred based on its logical form (deduction) and for this reason Aristotle is considered as the father of formal logic.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303407444_The_Organon_and_the_logic_perspective_of_computation

    And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was actually championing a entirely new method of inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s deductive reasoning, (where one’s priori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.

    Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video
    Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE

    And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning.

    Francis Bacon, 1561–1626
    Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water.
    https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    And it is exactly in the failure of Darwinists to use inductive reasoning of Francis Bacon, over and above deductive reasoning of the Ancient Greeks, where Darwinian evolution has gone off the rails as a scientific theory.

    Dr. Richard Nelson, in his book Darwin, Then and Now, has noted that Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”

    Darwin Dilemma by Dr. Richard William Nelson
    The theory of biological evolution Charles Darwin argued for in the Origin of Species now presents a litany of problems for twenty-first-century evolution scientists – known as the Darwin Dilemma. The dilemma stems from the method of reasoning Darwin selected.
    Dilemma Origins: For investigating the laws of nature, Charles Darwin selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning. The method of reasoning is critical when investigating the secrets of nature.
    Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning minimizes the dogma and bias of the investigator. Inductive reasoning is the defining element of what has become known as the scientific method. Details of Darwin’s reasoning method are discussed in Darwin, Then and Now.
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/

    In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.

    Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860)
    Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review
    Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’ But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived.
    http://www.victorianweb.org/sc.....rigin.html

    In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”.

    And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.”

    Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”

    From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859
    Cambridge
    My dear Darwin,
    Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?-
    As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,,
    ,,, (your conclusions are not) “ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
    Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    And it was not as if Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book.

    Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”

    Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857
    My dear Gray,
    ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml

    In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”

    Scientific Method
    Excerpt: Darwin was concerned about the effect of abandoning the scientific method. To console Darwin, just two weeks before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Erasmus Darwin, his brother wrote:
    “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/scientific-method/

    In short, when Darwin published his book, and in regards to inductive reasoning itself, Darwin did not do, or have, any original experimental research that would actually establish his theory as being scientifically true. i.e. Darwin had failed to use the scientific method!

    And now, over a century and a half later, the situation still has not changed for Darwinists who proclaim ‘I believe in science”. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true,

    As Dr Richard Nelson noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”

    Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview
    Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection.
    Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species.
    After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.”
    – ibid

    Moreover, Darwinian evolution, (besides not having any real time empirical evidence establishing that it is true, or even that it is feasible), is simply not needed in as a guiding principle, and/or as a heuristic, in biology.

    As Adam Wilkins noted, “”While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    And as Marc Kirschner of Harvard stated, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”?

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”?
    Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005?

    In fact, is so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle in science it had grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, such as its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, eugenics, etc.. etc…

    In society at large, the consequences of Darwinian evolution have been far worse than they have been for the biological sciences.

    In fact, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Marx, and Lenin were all directly influenced in their political philosophy by Darwinian ideology.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

    The scale of horror these men unleashed on the world is truly unimaginable.

    Here’s is a conservative estimate of the deaths that were inflicted upon mankind by these Godless men when they took control of their respective countries:

    “169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
    I BACKGROUND
    2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
    3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
    II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
    4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
    5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
    6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
    7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
    III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
    8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
    9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
    10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
    11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
    12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
    13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
    14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse
    IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
    15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
    16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
    17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia”
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

    This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there actually were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world that are conducted annually.

    At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA – graph
    http://skepchick.org/wp-conten.....704889.jpg

    As a scientific and political philosophy, Darwinian evolution has simply been a complete, horrific, disaster.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, in his book “Novum Organum”, stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’. Specifically he stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”

    Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019
    Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately?
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/

    And 150 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinism, we can now accurately surmise that, scientifically and politically speaking, Darwinism has been, to repeat myself, a complete, horrific, disaster that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.

    Matthew 7:18-20
    A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

    Of supplemental note

    And exactly what Christian presupposition drove Bacon to champion inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks? Well, it was none other than ‘original sin’, i.e. human fallibility!

    Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019
    Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,
    Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement:
    https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass

    Further note as to the essential Christian Presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science:

    Via Stephen Meyer’s new book “Return of the God hypothesis”, here are the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour
    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”
    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler
    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
    April 2021: Defense of all 3 presuppositions
    1
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727893
    2
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727959
    3
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727980

  22. 22
    Jack says:

    BA77: “Jack, if you have not noticed, I do not tailor my comments to please the whims of atheists. ”

    I’m not an atheist.

    “As to Jack’s (false) claim that the “Greeks locked down the essentials of logic and reasoning upon which everything later stands”, Jack could not be more wrong in his belief.”

    Apparently you’ve never heard of Aristotle, Chrysippus and the Stoics. Are you of the opininion that they they did not make a substantial and essential contribution to science?

    At any rate, you said: “BA77: “Science was born out of and is still dependent on presuppositions that find their root in the Judeo-Christian worldview.”

    I asked, “to what “presuppositions” do you refer?” I saw a lot of words in your replies but no answer to that question. Maybe I missed it. My eyes ain’t so good.

    By the way, why wouldn’t it be more proper and fair to refer to the “Hebrew worldview.” “Judeo/Christian” worldview is actually the Hebrew worldview. Both Christianity and Islam depend on the Hebrew worldview for their worldviews.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Jack claims, “I’m not an atheist.”,,,

    Yes, I’ve seen you claim that before. But then again, why do you keep getting confused with atheists?

    Could it be, “Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck???”

    But anyways, whatever Jack is or whatever he claims to be, Jack then reiterates his false claim that science was essentially an outgrowth of Greek philosophy.

    Yet, as I have now shown in post 19, the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks actually impeded the rise of modern science in that they “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”

    “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
    – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415

    ,,, It was only when Francis Bacon set forth ‘inductive reasoning’, over and above the ‘deductive reasoning’ of the ancient Greeks, a form of reasoning where repeated experimentation played a central role in ones reasoning to a general truth, (instead of ‘deductively’ reasoning down from a presupposed truth), that the scientific method was born. (See post 19)

    Jack, apparently did not bother to read anything of what I had written, and simply reiterated his false claim.

    Jack himself even admitted that he did not bother to read my post(s) before he restated his false claim when he stated this,, ‘I asked,“to what “presuppositions” do you refer?” I saw a lot of words in your replies but no answer to that question. Maybe I missed it. My eyes ain’t so good.”

    Yet in post 21 I specifically said,,,,

    And exactly what Christian presupposition drove Bacon to champion inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks? Well, it was none other than ‘original sin’, i.e. human fallibility!

    Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019
    Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,
    Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement:
    https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass

    Further note as to the essential Christian Presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science:

    Via Stephen Meyer’s new book “Return of the God hypothesis”, here are the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour
    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”
    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler
    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
    April 2021: Defense of all 3 presuppositions
    1
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727893
    2
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727959
    3
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727980

    And please note that the preceding clip on the necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science is taken from directly above Jack’s post at 22 claiming that I did not list the necessary presuppositions.

    I can’t force Jack, or anyone else, to be reasonable, but it certainly looks very bad for Jack when he denies I wrote something directly and immediately after I had written it.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

  24. 24
    Jack says:

    BA77: Yes, I’ve seen you claim that before. But then again, why do you keep getting confused with atheists? Could it be, “Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck???”

    A bizarre statement.

    As for induction, for a move from particular to universal, Aristotle in the 300s BCE used the Greek word epagogé, which Cicero translated into the Latin word inductio. The concept has have modifications down through the centuries, but Bacon didn’t invent it, and no need for the idea of “original sin” was required to ground it.

    https://www.johnmccaskey.com/history-of-induction/

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    From what I can tell in my dealings with him, Jack acts just like an atheist, and then he finds it bizarre that he keeps getting confused with atheists here on UD? Now I find it bizarre that he would find it bizarre,,,, but such is par for the course,,, for atheists! 🙂

    Jack tries to distance Bacon from the inductive, i.e. scientific, method, and states, “Bacon didn’t invent it (the inductive method), and no need for the idea of “original sin” was required to ground it.

    First I never said that Bacon ‘invented it’ so that is a false claim right off the bat from Jack.

    I said that Bacon ‘championed it’. Specifically I stated that,

    Francis Bacon, (via his championing of the inductive form of reasoning over and above the deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around since the times of the ancient Greeks), was the devout Christian who brought forth the scientific method.

    Moreover, in Jack’s very own citation, which he himself linked to, we find that,

    The History of Induction
    Excerpt: The philosopher most responsible for making Socratic mainstream was Francis Bacon. His Novum Organum book II (1626) became what Aristotle’s Topics book V was in antiquity, viz., the main handbook on how to perform a good induction, that is, on how to identify a formal cause (or “Form,” in Bacon’s term).
    Baconian induction dominated experimental science for the next two hundred years. It was the scientific method that produced countless laws in mechanics, chemistry, electromechanics, even economics, from Hooke and Boyle to Darwin, (corrective note, Darwin was castigated for forsaking the inductive method), and Say.
    https://www.johnmccaskey.com/history-of-induction/

    So Jack’s very own link readily admits that Bacon made the inductive form of reasoning mainstream and ‘even stated “Baconian induction dominated experimental science for the next two hundred years.”

    That is hardly contrary to what I claimed. In fact, it is perfectly consistent to what I had claimed about Bacon ‘championing inductive reasoning’.

    Jack also claimed that,,, “no need for the idea of “original sin” was required to ground it”

    Well, for crying out loud, You just can’t make this stuff up,,, I NEVER said that original sin was required to ‘ground it’ (the inductive method). I said that original sin was Bacon’s motivation for championing the inductive method! PERIOD!

    And as to the idea of ‘original sin’ being one of the primary motivations for Bacon championing the inductive method over and above the deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominate form of reasoning up until that time, Jack’s very own link doesn’t even mention what Bacon’s exact motivations were in championing the inductive method, (so Jack is apparently now just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it will stick).

    But anyways, as I already referenced, (and Jack apparently did not even bother to read), Bacon’s primary motivation for championing the inductive method over and above the deductive method was that, “It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration.”

    Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019
    Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,
    Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement:
    https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass
    3. Harrison, P. (2007). The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press.

    And to go even further, and via Morales’ citation of the Cambridge University Press book, “The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science” – Peter Harrison – 2007, we find this,,,

    The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science
    Description: Peter Harrison provides an account of the religious foundations of scientific knowledge. He shows how the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, he suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by human sin. At its inception, modern science was conceptualized as a means of recapturing the knowledge of nature that Adam had once possessed. Contrary to a widespread view that sees science emerging in conflict with religion, Harrison argues that theological considerations were of vital importance in the framing of the scientific method.
    https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291

    And if Jack thinks that Peter Harrison is just making all that up about Bacon’s motivations, (to try to sell a few books to a few Christians), well here are a few of Peter’s credentials:

    Peter Harrison is a former Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford and is presently Research Professor and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. He was the 2011 Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and holds a Senior Research Fellowship in the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford
    https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Harrison/e/B001HPRCAI/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

    Not too shabby! Not too shabby at all for credentials!

    Nor is it in the least bit helpful for Jack who is apparently disingenuously trying to distance modern science from its essential Christian roots, no matter how badly he has to distort and mangle words and concepts, in order to try to do it..

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    ZW, actually, uncreated or uncaused is the back way around. Through logic of being and linked possible worlds, recognising that to be rational we must be free and so responsible starting with first duties of reason [to truth, right reason, prudence [including warrant] etc], we can find a positive framing of the idea of God. God is the inherently good, utterly wise, creator, a NECESSARY and maximally great being, worthy of our loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Necessary being implies present in any actual world, framework to such a world being possible or actualised, similar to how we cannot have any distinct world without two-ness in it: 2 neither began, nor can it cease — cf here on how that leads to pervasiveness and power of mathematics in possible worlds. That is, God among other attributes is inherently the eternal creator whose being is utterly reasonable, inherently and maximally good and wise etc. KF

    PS: To profess atheism is to implicitly claim that God is impossible of being or not a serious candidate necessary being. No atheist has ever shown either of those things. The problem of evils route was shattered nearly 50 years ago by Plantinga’s free will defence [as opposed to theodicy], which shows that God as described is logically consistent with a world in which creatures [through freedom, which enables moral powers and virtues opening up higher orders of goodness if only we do duty] can and do abuse freedom, i.e. act to do evil.

  27. 27
    Jack says:

    Well, BA77, I’ve read a lot of your posts, and listened to some of your Youtube videos, and you seem to me to be a bit unhinged and mentally ill. You’re just not worthy of my time. I’m not interested in dialog with you.

    Peace and Joy

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    So Jack was shown to be wrong in his claim that Christian presuppositions were not necessary for the rise of modern science. . Then, Instead of honestly admitting that he was wrong in trying to distance Christian presuppositions from modern science, as he should of done, he instead issues an ad hominem against me personally, i.e. “you seem to me to be a bit unhinged and mentally ill”?

    First it is funny that Jack has denied being an atheist, but that he is now resorting to an ad hominem attack against me personally when his arguments fails. ,,,, As most regulars here on UD know, resorting to ad hominem as a last resort is a typical debating style of atheists.

    Secondly, and Ironically, the disingenuous, even ‘sinful’, nature of Jack’s debating style against me buttresses the claim that Bacon championed “Baconian induction”, (as Jack’s own link called it), because the fallen human mind, tainted by sin as it were, “could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias”,

    Jack, thanks for so clearly proving my point, (in real time), about Christian presuppositions about human fallibility. and bias, were, and are, necessary for the rise, and continued practice, of modern empirical science. You are a real sport. 🙂

  29. 29
    zweston says:

    Right on the nose, BA.

  30. 30
    ET says:

    Well, Jack, I have read very few of your posts because you seem unhinged and mentally ill. You are not worthy of anyone’s time.

  31. 31
    Querius says:

    My suspicions as well, ET.

    When confronted with unsupported assertions, non sequiturs, and contradictions to statements in previous messages, these sorts of people make what I call “homework assignments” where we’re asked to come up with proofs and references, none of which will be sufficient, of course.

    Then there are what I call “dictionary attacks” where you’re supposed to define some common term such as:

    What exactly is your definition of “time” in this case?

    Self references from such people also typically take the plural form such as

    We now know that . . .

    I’ve never been certain whether the plural refers to their tapeworms or the voices in their heads.

    The final resort are ad hominem attacks, after which they abandon the thread and simply start over on a new one.

    Quote honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these personages are simply chatbots (or more precisely trollbots) simply intended to waste everyone’s time here.

    Something to consider if deciding whether to bother replying.

    -Q

  32. 32
    ET says:

    Querius, It is very telling that as soon as one sock is banned new people start showing up. It seems to always be evos posing as someone who accepts ID.

  33. 33
    Querius says:

    Haha!

    Yeah, I noticed that, too. They always seem to start out neutral and polite.

    -Q

  34. 34
    Jack says:

    UD used to be a pretty good site back when DaveScot was the moderator. My my how things have changed since the nuts and kooks took over. Denise stays out of the fray, and Barry jumps in from time to time, but basically it’s a bunch of extreme religious nutjobs, with a few rational posters (WJM) thrown in.

    Sad state of affairs.

    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/davescot-responds-to-barrya/

    Now keep in mind, dear readers, there are those here that think it’s sometimes ok for babies to be murdered as long as “God commanded it.” That’s the kind of nutjobs you’re dealing with.

  35. 35
    ET says:

    Wow. Nutjobs, like Jack, erect and attack straw men.

    Would it be OK to kill soulless demon babies? What about in Aliens? Would it be OK to kill the little alien babies or do you have to wait until it grows and wipes out 99% of the population?

  36. 36

    Jack @ 34: Well then, I guess this is the last time we will be hearing from you. A smart guy like you wouldn’t continue to visit and comment in a forum administered by nut jobs, would he? I sure wouldn’t waste my time commenting in a forum run by atheist nut jobs.

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    Jack, your remarks above are beyond the pale, actually suggestive of a concern troll. I suggest you walk back if you are interested in serious discussion. KF

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Those not aware should realise that because UD is a leading ID blog, it is surrounded by a penumbra of often utterly vicious attack sites and at least one relatively good cop front site for such. Attacks have included cyber stalking and on the ground stalking, that is the sort of objection to design thought that gives rise to the steady drip of trolls seeking to derail and disrupt. Concern trolls pretending to be supporters and seeking to undermine through said “concerns” are now a known standard tactic. Multiple sock puppets acting in concert are another, and more. Because of the calculated slander that ID is a stalking horse for some imagined Christofascist, theocratic, “far-right” [read, Nazi . . . itself a gross error as the National socialist german worker’s party clearly understood itself to be socialist*] tyrannical takeover of civilisation, there is often an attempt to pull UD off topic into debates over village atheist anti-Bible rants. A sign of this is insistence on such derailing even when the off-topic focus is pointed out and as a courtesy sites or links that actually address such concerns are given. meanwhile, as we have had a period in which someone who has been a significant contributor has advocated a personal worldview, that is used as a rhetorical wedge to try to create perceived discredit. On that, for cause we can stand on the point that while our senses and reasoning are prone to error, we have adequate means to think through and we can be confident in taking common sense seriously rather than resorting to views that invite or advocate what boils down to the absurdity that our picture of ourselves in our world is a plato’s cave style shadow show, a grand delusion. To discuss rationally we cannot start by self-referentially discrediting rationality, a typical error of hyperskepticism. And of course it is increasingly clear that errors at this level are driving the errors we see in ever so many objections to the design inference on reliable signs. KF

    * Stalin saw himself as the centre of politics so everyone to his “right” was some sort of right wing fascist. That’s a clue as to how useless the left vs right political spectrum now is. The right was originally traditionalist monarchy, which has not been a viable view for 100 years since four major empires collapsed through the catastrophic great war.

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    Jack labels practically everyone here as “religious nut jobs’ with a few ‘rational posters’. And he gives WJM as an example of a ‘rational poster’. 🙂

    How does he differentiate “religious nut jobs’ from the few ‘rational posters’?

    Well he holds that if you “think it’s sometimes ok for babies to be murdered as long as “God commanded it”, then you are a ‘religious nut job’. And apparently he also believes that if you are given to some type of mystical New Age mumbo jumbo, like WJM is, where basically we become gods unto ourselves, then you are a ‘rational poster’. I guess Shirley MacLaine, if she commented here, would be considered a ‘rational poster’ in Jack’s book? 🙂

    And while, on the surface, (for anyone not familiar with the apologetics for exactly why God commanded some of these evil ancient cultures to be destroyed),,,

    Moral Objections to the Old Testament? – Peter Williams – Cambridge – video
    https://youtu.be/e0rCsQixNIg?t=78
    Dr. Peter Williams is the Warden and CEO of Tyndale House Cambridge and a lecturer on the Hebrew language at the University of Cambridge. He earned his M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. at Cambridge University studying ancient languages related to the Bible.

    And while, on the surface, (for anyone not familiar with the apologetics), being against ‘murdering babies’ certainly seems like a very reasonable and sensible criteria for differentiating “religious nut jobs’ from the few ‘rational posters’ here on UD, it seems to me, in Jack’s rush to label God as a “Moral Monster” for destroying evil ancient cultures, that Jack is forgetting that we currently live in a ‘evil’ culture where ‘murdering babies’ is, practically speaking, conducted on an industrial scale.

    At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA – graph
    http://skepchick.org/wp-conten.....704889.jpg

    Where is Jack’s moral outrage for that industrial scale murdering of babies?

    It appears to be readily apparent that if Jack were to be consistent in his moral outrage, rather than just being selectively outraged at God for destroying evil ancient cultures, then Jack should be even more morally outraged at God for allowing the ‘murdering of babies’ on such an industrial scale, and demand that God destroy such evil cultures that practice the murdering of babies on such an industrial scale.

    But alas, that would defeat Jack’s entire argument since God destroyed these evil ancient cultures for, among other evil deeds, widespread child sacrifice, i.e. exactly for ‘murdering babies’.

    Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel – By Heath D. Dewrell
    Excerpt: for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods! (Deut 12:29–31)
    This is a warning to the Israelites not to imitate the depraved Canaanites by sacrificing Israelite children to Yahweh in the same way that Canaanites sacrificed their sons and daughters to their gods.
    https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/12/child-sacrifice-ancient-israel

    Thus in short, God rendered judgment against these evil ancient cultures, and commanded that they be completely and utterly destroyed, for, (among other evil things), the very thing that Jack is morally outraged at God about, i.e. ‘murdering babies’.

    Perhaps Jack should be a little less superficial and hypocritical in his assessment of God’s nature and actions?

    Just a suggestion Jack.

    Verse:

    Matthew 7:4-5
    How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, there is no need to entertain village atheist anti-bible rants. Those perplexed are advised to see Paul Copan and WL Craig etc. KF

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, you are right. The general rhetorical strategy is to find red herring distractors, drag away from an inconvenient focus and lead away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems. Set alight, to cloud, poison, polarise and confuse the issue, frustrating serious discussion. If you are getting heavy flak, you are over the target, aim and drop bombs, though that takes a real effort. KF

  42. 42
    kairosfocus says:

    Jack, I will be direct:

    1: Kindly provide a single actually observed case where blind chance and/or mechanical necessity have caused functionally specific configuration based function beyond 500 – 1,000 bits of complexity: __________

    2: I confidently assert that you cannot do so, nor can any objector to the design inference, you will know that such were tried for years and failed consistently.

    3: I further assert Newton’s rule, if we cannot directly observe a causal factor and can only observe traces, then we have a right to insist that candidate causes be shown to have ability to generate the effects in question, in our observation.

    4: Observe that cell based life has in it D/RNA technology, exhibiting digital code [4-state, GCAT/U], expressing complex algorithms, a technology central to life.

    5: This is language, and algorithms. These have precisely one known and plausible cause, design. That is inteligently directed configuration.

    6: We confidently infer, life, based on core technologies involved, is designed.

    7: Needless distractions are utterly irrelevant and indeed trying to stir up distractive toxic quarrels simply shows that there is intent to evade and suppress a core point that is most inconvenient to a preferred agenda.

    KF

  43. 43
    ET says:

    I was just pointing out that “Jack” argues from extreme ignorance.

  44. 44
    Querius says:

    Thanks for your observations, Kairosfocus. ET, arguing from extreme ignorance is unfortunately not uncommon, just embarrassing.

    But as they say, “Two can play at this game.” If I were as disingenuous as some of the sock puppets here, I could incarnate as an innocent victim of Darwinist indoctrination–a sort of Little Red Riding Hood in the dark forest of scientific controversy and a failed 19th century racist theory. It might start like this . . .

    ClassOf2024

    Hi, I’m a high school Sophomore taking Biology and I’m wondering why everybody doesn’t believe in evolution. Our Biology teacher says that evolution is a fact and only religious people don’t believe in it. I want to study environmental science in college, but I want to understand why some people are so anti science and anti-vax.

    Can anybody here tell me why they don’t believe in science?
    Thanks,
    Kyra

    Then, 81 comments later, “Kyra” responds with

    ClassOf2024

    But I don’t understand why our Biology teacher always says that evolution is a proven fact.

    Then, 114 comments later she writes

    ClassOf2024

    Ok, I can now see that there’s a lot of new evidence and I should keep an open mind.

    At this point, several sock puppets are acting like stark raving lunatics in their comments, but Little Red Riding Kyra is slowly moving forward toward Intelligent Design, apparently being convinced by the persuasive posts and insightful information presented . . . LOL

    -Q

  45. 45
    zweston says:

    Q, why did you spoil the fun… should have went for it.

  46. 46
    Querius says:

    Heh. Sorry, just can’t make myself do it, ZWeston. How about you?

    -Q

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, attn Jack [et al]: coming a full day on and nary a nibble on the fat juicy worm. One wonders why, but let’s see. KF

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    News, well it was an interesting idea to see particles as tiny vibrating strings in m/n dimensions and where that takes you. Now, it may be approaching a pre-Copernican moment, or at least the young turks may be hoping for something new. KF

  49. 49
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BA77 – your responses throughout this thread are excellent. Put all together they’re a masterful argument. Great resources for further study also – quotes right from the credentialed science. Thank you.

Leave a Reply