At Mind Matters News: 5. Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 28, 2021

Atheism, Big Bang, Intelligent Design, theism}

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

In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science:

At this point in the “Does God exist?” debate between theist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty (September 17, 2021), readers may recall that the debate opened with Egnor explaining why, as former atheist, he became a theist. Then Dillahunty explained why, as a former theist, he became an atheist. Michael Egnor then made his opening argument, offering ten proofs for the existence of God. Matt Dillahunty responded in his own opening argument that theaw propositions were all unfalsifiable. When, in Section 4, it was Egnor’s turn to rebut Dillahunty, Dillahunty was not easily able to recall Aquinas’s First Way (the first logical argument for the existence of God).
No matter, they agreed to keep talking. The conversation continues to be somewhat rambunctious, thus has been condensed for print:
News, “5. Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe” at Mind Matters News

Michael Egnor: Well, again, singularities are supernatural. They are not natural.

Matt Dillahunty: I would argue that the singularity as described is natural. It is the entirety of the natural universe. [00:57:00]

Michael Egnor: All right, then what is a singularity? If you’re saying it’s natural, what is it?

Matt Dillahunty: So first of all, you’re not talking to a cosmologist, but the-

Michael Egnor: Then why do you say it’s natural? …

[Things became quite heated at this point.]

Matt Dillahunty: [00:58:00] I’ve tried to answer it, every time I open my … Say one more [bleep]…

Next: Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s Egnor’s accusation. Stay tuned.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.

4. Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.

You may also wish to read:

Atheist spokesman Matt Dillahunty refuses to debate me again Although he has said that he finds debates “incredibly valuable,” he is — despite much urging — making an exception in this case. Why? For millennia, theists have thought meticulously about God’s existence. New Atheists merely deny any need to make a case. That’s partly why I dumped atheism. (Michael Egnor)

Comments

But what really makes me mad about Darwinists ignoring all this empirical evidence that falsifies their theory is that they are the ones who are adamantly claiming that they are the ones who are being scientific and that we Christians are the ones who are not being scientific.
I find that very unsettling too. That's why I like your posts that show that great scientists are not being hindered by having a religious worldview.davidl1_{October 5, 2021
October
10
Oct
5
05
2021
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

@jerry There is objectivity, and there is subjectivity. Categorically different. Learn the basics.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 5, 2021
October
10
Oct
5
05
2021
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Again, my objection is with compromising either science or faith in an effort to integrate two fundamentally different domains.
There is only one truth. So there should be a way to integrate the two. The issue is that there are several sciences and several religions. It is unlikely they will both be integrated.jerry_{October 5, 2021
October
10
Oct
5
05
2021
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

they are the ones who are adamantly claiming that they are the ones who are being scientific
Those who claim Darwin’s ideas have anything to do with Evolution are misinformed It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled - Mark Twainjerry_{October 5, 2021
October
10
Oct
5
05
2021
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Davidl1 at 145, the fact that people have inherent biases is one of the main reasons that Francis Bacon, a devout Christian, championed the scientific method in the first place
per post 135: 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.” (fancies Bacon)
In the scientific method, empirical evidence is SUPPOSE to have final say in arbitrating any inherent biases and 'flights of fancy' that people have. Yet if some people chose to ignore empirical evidence that directly conflicts with their a-priori worldview, i.e. their inherent bias, then that pretty much renders the entire scientific method useless in arbitrating the inherent biases that all people have. And Darwinists, in direct conflict with the scientific method itself, continually ignore many lines of empirical evidence that falsify their theory. Here are a few instances where Darwinist atheists have simply ignored falsifying scientific evidence against their theory.
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
But what really makes me mad about Darwinists ignoring all this empirical evidence that falsifies their theory is that they are the ones who are adamantly claiming that they are the ones who are being scientific and that we Christians are the ones who are not being scientific.,, The blatant hypocrisy of that false claim from Darwinists is so thick that you can literally cut it with a knife. Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{October 5, 2021
October
10
Oct
5
05
2021
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

I’d encourage anyone who is enthusiastic about intertwining science and faith to ask themselves this question: “Am I willing to state one or more scientific findings which would cause me to abandon my belief in God?”
I couldn't agree more with this. It's hard to identify biases in ourselves. I'm repeatedly amazed at how two people can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. I continue to believe I'm right, and this thread has reinforced my beliefs, but somebody is completely wrong in spite of being completely convinced, and it could be me. For me a better question would be asking what would cause me to abandon my believe in ID. (I know this is about the "God" hypotheses, so religious belief is in there, but it should be pointed out that ID doesn't depend on religious belief.) Of course, it's also good for people who believe that the universe is a result of unguided forces to ask themselves what would change their belief.davidl1_{October 5, 2021
October
10
Oct
5
05
2021
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Hank Racette I’d encourage anyone who is enthusiastic about intertwining science and faith to ask themselves this question: “Am I willing to state one or more scientific findings which would cause me to abandon my belief in God?” Because that’s the essential principle of the process of enquiry we call “science.” It is faithful to nothing except the process and the rules by which the process is conducted. It isn’t, and can’t be, a matter of faith in any particular outcome;
:) You forgot to mention that you talk ONLY about operational science that work with lab, and in lab today. We are talking about historic science whose gaps are filled with religion of materialism. Did you see in lab how a bacterium became mouse,whale,cow ? You believe that and that it's not science in the sense of studying best metals for building satellites ,or best method of water purifying.Hanks_{October 5, 2021
October
10
Oct
5
05
2021
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Hank Racette:
“Am I willing to state one or more scientific findings which would cause me to abandon my belief in God?”
Absolutely! Demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce a living organism and you slice off the intelligent designer requirement with Occam's Razor. Demonstrate that Hawking was right and the laws just are the way they are, and again, you slice off the intelligent designer requirement with Occam's Razor. This list goes on and on.ET_{October 5, 2021
October
10
Oct
5
05
2021
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

#141 Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel in The Last Word, wrote:
I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
Origenes on vacation_{October 5, 2021
October
10
Oct
5
05
2021
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

I am as annoyed by scientists who claim that science disproves God — Dawkins and his ilk — as I am by scientists who claim that science proves God. More so, in fact, because the first group doesn’t have the excuse of personal belief to prompt them to compromise scientific standards and methods
I think the assumption that atheistic scientists are less affected by their beliefs than theistic scientists is a hard sell. It's unlikely that Dawkins, who goes to great lengths to point out problems with religion, is objective when he evaluates scientific claims.davidl1_{October 5, 2021
October
10
Oct
5
05
2021
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

Racette:
To say “in every instance of functional information for which we can identify the source, it is created by intelligence” is the equivalent of saying “in every instance of functional information which was created by man, it is created by man."
Racette, did you mean to write: “in every instance of functional information for which we can identify the source, it is created by man." ? I'am asking because your “in every instance of functional information which was created by man, it is created by man." does not make sense to me. And what is your message to SETI? "Stop looking because there can only be human intelligence"?Origenes on vacation_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77, As to your comment at 138, I have to say you rounded up a lot of the rather peculiar views some scientists hold rather nicely. I couldn’t help but be baffled at the proclamation’s or views as the case may be, Big Bang, no it’s a bouncing universe or cyclical universe. Fine tuning, no it’s a multiverse. It becomes rather difficult to wade through a lot of the “science” just to figure out what we actually know. I apologise I’m off topic, but bornagain77’s comment just struck me with a unusual sense of familiarity, here is someone else who has been (baffled we might say) at the rather strange and peculiar announcement’s of bouncing universe’s or multiverse’s.Seekers_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

Hank, I very much believe in following the evidence where it leads, and again, the more I have learned about the scientific evidence, the more my faith in God has been strengthened. On the other hand, the same can't be said for atheists. For instance, in regards to the evidence for the Big Bang. First atheists tried to deny it even happened with 'steady state' theory,, Then they tried to explain it away with the osculating 'bouncing' universe. And now that evidence for fine-tuning has come in, now atheists have gone basically completely off the rails and have postulated an infinitude of other universes with varying parameters just so as to 'explain away' the fine tuning of this universe. As should be needless to say Hank, such repeated ad-hoc excuse making to avoid the clear Theistic implications of the creation of the universe is NOT following the evidence where it leads, (as you yourself said science was about), but is instead atheists refusing to follow the evidence where it leads at all costs no matter what absurdity they have to believe in.
“My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” - Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” - Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation "The question of 'the beginning' is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians...there is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing" - George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.189. - George Smoot is a Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE Among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a completely transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5) The Most Important Verse in the Bible - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BqWdu1BnBQ The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0 Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
bornagain77_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Wow. Most of the greatest scientists who have ever lived saw science as a way to understand God's Creation. Faith should never be blind. And if true then science should support it.ET_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Last comment from me on this thread -- and thank you all for your patience with someone whose views don't necessarily comport with your own. I appreciate your cordiality. I'd encourage anyone who is enthusiastic about intertwining science and faith to ask themselves this question: "Am I willing to state one or more scientific findings which would cause me to abandon my belief in God?" Because that's the essential principle of the process of enquiry we call "science." It is faithful to nothing except the process and the rules by which the process is conducted. It isn't, and can't be, a matter of faith in any particular outcome; those who truly embrace science have to go where science leads, or they're not doing it right. It seems to me that faith is more than that, and should remain more than that. Again, thank you all. -- HankHank Racette_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Hank claims, "my objection is with compromising either science or faith in an effort to integrate two fundamentally different domains." If they are fundamentally different domains, then it is extremely ironic how the Christian worldview, and the Christian worldview alone, gave rise to modern science.
What’s the Big Deal About Intelligent Design? by DAN PETERSON - December 22, 2005 Excerpt: The attempt to equate science with materialism (methodological naturalism) is a quite recent development, coming chiefly to the fore in the 20th century. Contrary to widespread propaganda, science is not something that arose after the dark, obscurantist forces of religion were defeated by an “enlightened” nontheistic worldview. The facts of history show otherwise. IN HIS RECENT BOOK For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark argues “not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.”,,, Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook. There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as “a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.” That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered. https://spectator.org/47614_whats-big-deal-about-intelligent-design/
And to repeat what I pointed out previously, Stephen Meyer’s new book, “Return of the God hypothesis”, lists the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe as such.
“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
Whether atheists realize it or not, or whether they ever honestly admit it or not, they are reliant on these Theistic presuppositions, (especially the first two presuppositions), for them to even practice science in coherent manner in the first place. As Paul Davies explained, "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.”
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 Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
And no less than Einstein himself backs up Davies's assertion when he observed that the comprehensibility of the universe is, by all rights, to be considered a 'miracle': Specifically he stated, "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."
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
Eugene Wigner, no slouch in physics himself, makes pretty much the same exact point as Einstein,
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/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
So while Christianity certainly pertains to other important areas of life, it is simply naive and confused for Hank to suggest that Christianity and Science ore 'fundamentally different domains' and that Christianity has, basically, nothing whatsoever to do with science. Again, modern science owes its very origins and continued existence to basic Christian presuppositions. There were a few other things that Hank said in his post that don't make sense, but suffice it for now to establish the fact that Hank is simply wrong in his claim about Christianity and Science being 'fundamentally different domains' that have, basically, nothing whatsoever to do with each other. (edit: I see that ET, at post 134, has now addressed some of those other nonsensical claims that were made by Hank),bornagain77_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Hank Racette:
To say “in every instance of functional information for which we can identify the source, it is created by intelligence” is the equivalent of saying “in every instance of functional information which was created by man, it is created by man.” It simply excludes all of those instances of functional information which were *not* created by man in order to create an ersatz rule, and the tries to apply that rule to all the excluded instances.
It's called knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. There aren't any known instances of functional information which were not created by intelligent agencies. That is the whole point.
We might as well say, “since all man-made functional information is man-made, it follows that *all* functional information must be the product of some kind of intelligence.”
You would if you don't know what you are talking about. We have experience with other organisms constructing things that nature cannot. What we say is: 1- The genetic code involves a coded information processing system. 2- There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. 3- There isn’t even a way to test the claim that nature can do so. 4- That claim can be dismissed. Hitchens 101. 5- There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition 6- Therefore using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships in accordance with Newton’s 4 rules of scientific reasoning, we infer the genetic code was the result of intelligent design. Science 101 7- That scientific inference can be falsified by someone demonstrating that nature can produce coded information processing systems. Until then those making that claim can be dismissed.
It’s at best a circular argument, but it might not even rise to that.
Just how do you think that archaeologists determine if something is an artifact? What about forensic science and the ability to determine a crime has taken place? Scientists know that Stonehenge is an artifact exactly because it has signs that nature could not have produced it and only intelligent agencies could have. They determined that based on their knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Nature doesn't do mortise and tenon joints, for example.
“In every instance of a satellite orbiting the earth for which we can identify a source, it was placed there by a specific act of an intelligent creator. Therefore, it follows that every satellite orbiting the earth must have been placed there by an intelligent creator.”
The real argument would include the qualities of the known artificial satellites.
That isn’t a sound logical argument, any more than the similar argument regarding genetic material is sound.
Yours is an argument that ignores logic and reasoning. Yours is a straw man. And one can falsify the claim the genetic code is evidence for Intelligent Design by demonstrating that nature is up to the task. There has been a 10 million dollar challenge going on for years. And no one has been able to show that nature is capable.ET_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Hank. It has been a pleasure to read your posts.Viola Lee_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Animated Dust, at #105 you wrote: "As with others who’ve commented since yours, I think the bad science is on your side." I'm not sure what you mean by "my side." I am as annoyed by scientists who claim that science disproves God -- Dawkins and his ilk -- as I am by scientists who claim that science proves God. More so, in fact, because the first group doesn't have the excuse of personal belief to prompt them to compromise scientific standards and methods. Again, my objection is with compromising either science or faith in an effort to integrate two fundamentally different domains. ----- All, the issue of Meyer's peculiar claim about "uniform and repeated experience" regarding functional information (and the reaction to it) continues to interest me. To say "in every instance of functional information for which we can identify the source, it is created by intelligence" is the equivalent of saying "in every instance of functional information which was created by man, it is created by man." It simply excludes all of those instances of functional information which were *not* created by man in order to create an ersatz rule, and the tries to apply that rule to all the excluded instances. We might as well say, "since all man-made functional information is man-made, it follows that *all* functional information must be the product of some kind of intelligence." It's at best a circular argument, but it might not even rise to that. As I mentioned elsewhere, it is exactly the same as this argument: "In every instance of a satellite orbiting the earth for which we can identify a source, it was placed there by a specific act of an intelligent creator. Therefore, it follows that every satellite orbiting the earth must have been placed there by an intelligent creator." That isn't a sound logical argument, any more than the similar argument regarding genetic material is sound. This isn't to say that God didn't create genetic material (or explicitly put the moon in its orbit, for that matter). I don't know where it originated. And I have not challenged Meyer's claims regarding the improbability of genetic material. I've focused specifically on this one bit of argument which he appears to use both in his book and every time he speaks. Lastly, I'm not interested in who is doing the poorer science, whether the scientific atheists or the scientific believers. I would just like people who claim to be representing science to recognize its limits -- that it's a tool for examining the natural world. The claims it makes must be falsifiable, or they aren't claims of science. And declaring either that God exists or that God doesn't exist is an inherently unfalsifiable claim, and so not a claim of science.Hank Racette_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Seekers. I'm glad to bring this discussion to an end, and move back to my non-participatory status!Viola Lee_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee, Thank you for your insightful responses, I can understand not wanting to go further with the conversation that’s absolutely fine. Thank you very much for the discussion, have a wonderful evening.Seekers_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

ID “distorts science”
ID can't distort Science because Science is ID ( intelligently designed) .Hanks_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Seekers. You ask, "As per the genetic code. In your opinion, how would you describe the origination of the genetic code? Do you think a design inference is warranted or do you believe a naturalistic explanation would explain the code’s origins?" First, I don't know, and I don't think anyone does to any large extent at all. Also, I am reluctant to get involved in taking this discussion way past what I intended for myself, but I'll say anyway that I think that that question usually implies, at least here at UD, a strict divisive dichotomy between the actions of a conscious, willful, entity of the Western theistic type and a purely materialistic perspective where nothing but blind chance is presumed to be the source of the genetic code. I don't fall in either of those categories, so I certainly can't answer your second question.Viola Lee_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

As to Racette's comment on Meyer's book, "It’s a well-crafted work of reporting and speculation at the frothy margins of scientific theory that, combined with a few leaps of logic, is harnessed in support of a foreordained conclusion.” HA, LOL, if anyone has ever been guilty of trying to force fit the scientific evidence into a "foreordained conclusion” it has been atheistic naturalists. For instance, Darwinian Atheists are notorious for inventing ad hoc 'just-so stories' when their predictions are shown, via the empirical evidence, to be false,
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 22 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
bornagain77_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee, Thank you for the response and My apologies for misunderstanding your position on this particular topic. As per the genetic code. In your opinion, how would you describe the origination of the genetic code? Do you think a design inference is warranted or do you believe a naturalistic explanation would explain the code’s origins?Seekers_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee:
My presence in this thread, which started at post 32, is much more narrow: that ID’s effort to use certain aspects of the world, such as Meyer’s arguments about the genetic code, as evidence for “the God hypothesis” are flawed, and are, as I quoted some friends earlier, bad science and bad theology both.
They are not flawed with respect to being evidence for Intelligent Design. And Intelligent Design can only enforce your beliefs in some God or gods. It doesn't have anything to do with religion. The science behind the claim the genetic code is evidence is laid out above.
I think that the “foreordained conclusion” that God exists drives a great deal of the support for ID, and this goes clear back to the start with Philip Johnson and others. In this respect, ID does distort science, I think. That doesn’t mean that everything and everybody who supports ID “distorts science”, but there is a strong element that runs throughout the movement.
Except is is not a "foreordained conclusion". It is something that is based on our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Then anyone's specific Intelligent Designer was added. Telic thinking pre-dates Christianity. There is a reason we remember Plato and Aristotle, ie the telic thinkers, they won the argument thousands of years ago.ET_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

re 122: Hi Seekers. I looked back, and I think it was Racette that used the phrase "distorting science", although I see that at 106 I referred to Racette's use of that phrase. However, as I said to you at 109, I never said, nor implied, I think, that "a design inference [should] be ruled out a priori". And I'm not "dismissing" ID, if that means just saying the whole movement and everything it says should be thrown out. My presence in this thread, which started at post 32, is much more narrow: that ID's effort to use certain aspects of the world, such as Meyer's arguments about the genetic code, as evidence for "the God hypothesis" are flawed, and are, as I quoted some friends earlier, bad science and bad theology both. In his intro, Racette says of Meyer's book, "It’s a well-crafted work of reporting and speculation at the frothy margins of scientific theory that, combined with a few leaps of logic, is harnessed in support of a foreordained conclusion." I think that the "foreordained conclusion" that God exists drives a great deal of the support for ID, and this goes clear back to the start with Philip Johnson and others. In this respect, ID does distort science, I think. That doesn't mean that everything and everybody who supports ID "distorts science", but there is a strong element that runs throughout the movement.Viola Lee_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

#121 Wow!!Origenes on vacation_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee I was referring to your comment about ID distorting science, perhaps I have misunderstood you? I took your response to mean that you were dismissing ID as something getting in the way of “real” science.Seekers_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Of related interest to Racette's unfounded assumption that human intelligence exhausts intelligence, is Alvin Plantinga's argument that he first made way back in 1967 in his book 'God and other minds'. In that book, Plantinga asked, 'what evidence does anyone have for the existence of other people’s minds? He argued cogently that the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other (human) minds',,,.
Another interesting argument comes from the leading philosopher and Christian, Alvin Plantinga—he asked, what evidence does anyone have for the existence of other people’s minds? He argued cogently that the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds;,,, —see God and Other Minds, Cornell University Press, repr. 1990. https://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational
You see, we only have access to our own personal conscious minds, and thus we can only be 100% certain of the fact that our own minds exist. We can't be 100% certain that the people we enacting with also have a mind, i.e. are also having a personal subjective conscious experience. As David Chalmers pointed out in 'the hard problem', for all we know the persons we are interacting with could be, for all intents and purposes, 'philosophical zombies' who have no mind and who are having no subjective conscious experience:
David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem of Consciousness) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
Yet we quite rationally, and sanely, believe that other people have minds and are having subjective conscious experiences simply by the effects that they produce in the world. Likewise, via the effects that God has produced, and produces, in the world, then Plantinga's conclusion necessarily follows that "the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other (human) minds.."
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
bornagain77_{October 4, 2021
October
10
Oct
4
04
2021
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply