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

The recent publication of Stephen Meyer’s book confirms this theistic bias in spades.
You could not have made this statement and read Meyer’s book.jerry_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

this is a test
I have a strictly formatting question. How do you set the indented quotes feature for these comments?
Thanks. Cool, Thanks ET and Viola Leechuckdarwin_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Thankschuckdarwin_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Use {blockquote} and {/blockquote} around the quoted material, but use a less than sign instead of { and a greater than sign instead of }. Back when I used to post here I had keyboard shortcuts for theses two phrases.Viola Lee_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

blockquote and /blockquote to close. You need the greater then and less than symbols blockquote html codeET_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

I have a strictly formatting question. How do you set the indented quotes feature for these comments? Thanks.chuckdarwin_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

The Intelligent Design movement, as hawked by the Discovery Institute, is a public policy strategy, not a scientific research program.
ID can be different things to different people. As I understand it, it has nothing to do with any specific religion. I put the word “specific” in the previous sentence because it most definitely makes the proposition of a creator highly probable. The nature of that creator may or may not be assessed from other information. You have endorsed ID.jerry_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

SA/Jerry/TWSYF Deism acknowledges that there is a maker of the universe. What label you put on this entity is idiosyncratic. I prefer Thomas Jefferson's reference in the DOI: Nature's God. This is also consistent with the God of Spinoza and Einstein. Whether Deism is consistent with "intelligent design" is, at least to me, neither here nor there. The Intelligent Design movement, as hawked by the Discovery Institute, is a public policy strategy, not a scientific research program. This is clearly borne out in the DI's infamous Wedge Document introduced at the Kitzmiller trial in 2005. This document was originally developed in 1998 (I believe, primarily by Phillip Johnson and Stephen Meyers) and states, in relevant part: "Governing Goals -To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. -To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document These goals are explicitly theistic and belie the notion that ID is ideologically neutral. The recent publication of Stephen Meyer's book confirms this theistic bias in spades.chuckdarwin_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Seversky
All those cause/effect chains are spatio-temporal events. The only way we know those events took place is because we and they exist over time.
You described a sequential chain of causes stretching back in time. But that's not the argument that Aquinas uses. His is an integral chain - meaning, the causes present simultaneously, not going back in time. For the sequential chain, causes which no longer exist are part of the chain - for the integral chain, it's only causes that exist presently. Aquinas' argument is about the chain of causes that move potency to act - moving potential capabilities to actual. A better example than the stack of books (which is static and harder to see what is happening) is a man moving a rock with a stick. That event is happening in the present. What is moving the rock? It's the stick. Now, we need to explain how the stick is moving the rock - looking for causality. The stick has the potential to move things. When the stick is in potency, it would lie on the ground not doing anything. Here's the key: An infinite chain of sticks - no matter what time period, going back to the big bang or whatever - that infinite pile of sticks, will never move any rocks. They just have the potential to move the rock. The only way the potency of the stick can be activated is if an actual cause moves the stick, then the stick can move the rock. So, an infinite number of potentials, cannot be the cause of things. This has nothing to do with a chain of events over time. It is looking at the present moment - what is causing things to be just as they are in this moment? Something must be activating the potential. The stick is moving - because a man (an Actualizer) is causing the stick to move from potency to act. Every potential needs something actual to move it to action. Potentials on their own cannot do it, even if you have an infinite number of them, or even if the universe itself is eternal and didn't have a beginning (that idea has other problems, but just for this explanation). Another example is a railroad track with some box cars of a train on the track. The box cars today, are moving. But we know, box cars do not have the power to move on their own. They have the potency (potential/capability) to move -- but they can only actually move if something actual moves them. Something that is just potential power to move them will not do it. "What if we had an infinite number of box cars spanning eternal time?" Time has nothing to do with it. An infinite number of box cars from all eternity will not be able to move unless an actual power moves them - namely, the train engine. If we see the cars moving, we know something (not themselves) that is actual - changed their potential for movement, to actual movement. So, why is this a proof for the existence of God? Because in order for anything to move from potential to actual, some ultimate actualizer is needed. The universe itself is a potential - it can be any number of things. The fact that the universe is what it is, means something actualized those potentials. The universe cannot actualize itself. An infinite number of potentials cannot do the trick here - only a first cause, a first Actual - a Being that has no potential but is fully Actual - only that can explain the movement, change, and actualization of all potentials in the universe. We don't need to trace this back in time - time is irrelevant. We need to find the cause that moves potentials to act - in the present moment. We need a cause that is sustaining existence of things in this moment. A cause which brings everything together simultaneously, not over a stretch of time.Silver Asiatic_{September 30, 2021
September
09
Sep
30
30
2021
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Again, it is total heresy to pretend that God is objective. There is no doubt about it that the creation is objective. To say God is objective, is to say God is a creation, and not a creator. Choice is the mechanism of creation, how a creation originates. It is patently obvious, that anything on the side of what makes a choice is subjective. Emotions, personal character, the soul, the spirit, these are all defined in terms of that they makes choices. Obviously they are all subjective. There is no science that describes what love consists of. It is a logically valid personal opinion that nobody every loved anyone. It is a subjective issue. And God is in the same category as emotions, the creator category. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / factmohammadnursyamsu_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

ChuckDarwin is a professed deist. So, his God does something and probably can be consistent with ID. I don't see the same for Seversky.Silver Asiatic_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Jerry@17: "ChuckDarwin has just endorsed ID. By the way so has Seversky." Yes they did. And they don't even realize it. SMH.Truth Will Set You Free_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Seversky, as far as your incoherent responses/denials are concerned, I am quite happy to let you flail about like a chicken with your head cut off and let unbiased readers decide for themselves who has made the better case for their position. Although, I will be helpful to the point of giving you one small clue, Quantum Mechanics is NOT your friend Seversky. Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrEbornagain77_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

This minimalist deity is really all that is needed for a coherent cosmology which harmonizes with science. Everything else is excess baggage
ChuckDarwin has just endorsed ID. By the way so has Seversky. ID says nothing about a particular God or religion. So I’m not sure what the excess baggage is. Discussions on religion actually get in the way of accepting ID.jerry_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/2
It is also interesting to note that many Atheists, in trying to deal with quantum mechanics, and with their outlandish ‘many worlds’ interpretation, have simply tried to deny the reality of quantum wave collapse
So you are saying that God prefers the Copenhagen interpretation?
i.e. The atheist, with his Many Worlds interpretation, is basically saying that, instead of God simply collapsing the wave function, the material particle has somehow bestowed within itself the power to create as many universes as it wants or needs to in order to ‘explain away’ wave function collapse!
So it's God's observation of the wave function which collapses it? Human or instrumental observers have nothing to do with it? I don't remember that being part of the Copenhagen interpretation any more than MWI being purely an atheist interpretation.
In short, the atheist’s attempt to ‘explain away’ instantaneous quantum wave collapse with their preposterous Many Worlds interpretation has now been experimentally falsified.
Where does the paper say that?
Now I don’t know about atheists, but saying something is in an infinite dimensional state to me, as a Christian Theist, certainly sounds very much like the theistic attribute of Omnipresence to me,
Doesn't to me. Something being in an infinite dimensional state doesn't entail your God must be in any of them.
And then saying something takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly certainly sounds to me, as a Christian Theist, very much like the Theistic attribute of Omniscience.
And saying that there is an infinite amount of information doesn't mean there must be a God that knows all of it or any of it.Seversky_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Seversky, to borrow AnimatedDust's very apt quote, "you know not of which you claim to profess". Silver Asiatic at 12, that was an almost poetic response to Seversky, and was a pleasure to read,bornagain77_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77/1
Again, that Aquinas, (and Aristotle), via pure reason alone, would get the basics of Quantum Wave collapse correct hundreds, even thousands, of years before quantum mechanics was even known about is nothing less than astonishing.
It would be if they had but there is no evidence to suggest either of them had any inkling about the nature of the quantum world, apophenic analogies notwithstanding.Seversky_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77/1
As Dr. Egnor explained elsewhere, for Aquinas, ‘the causal chains are causes in priority, not in time.’,, “An example of a causal chain in priority but not in time is a stable stack of books. Each book in the stack supports the book above, and is in turn supported by the book below it. In this sense, the position of each book in the stack is caused by the one below it, and each book causes the position of the book above. The stack is static — time is irrelevant to it. This kind of time-irrelevant causal chain is called (by Aristotle) an essential chain of causation. It is distinguished by an accidental chain of causation, in which time is relevant,,”
A static stack of books is the effect of both the causes of the books themselves and the cause of the stack. The causes of the books are variously the author(s) of the text, the manufacturer of the paper on which the text is printed, the printing presses which print the text on the pages, the manufacturer of the cloth and cardboard used to make the cover and backing and the binders who assemble the finished product. The cause of the stack is the person who piled the books one on top of the other to make the stack. All those cause/effect chains are spatio-temporal events. The only way we know those events took place is because we and they exist over time.Seversky_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Seversky
Potency cannot actualize anything if it does not exist actually. If it does not exist actually then it does not exist.
This is a little bit confused in terminology - I might be misreading. Potency is potential. Potency can be actualized into something actual. But potential can only be actualized by something actual. So yes, your first sentence could just be "potency cannot actualize anything" - because only an actual thing can actualize potency. The wood has the potency to burn. Actual fire actualizes the potential of the wood to burn. But then to say "if potency does not exist actually, then it does not exist" causes confusion. If potency is actualized, then it is an actual thing (as opposed to a conceptual existence). But potency exists as a power or capability - wood has the potency to burn or becoming a chair. So, the capability/potency/potential exists. It has to be actualized by an actual thing (fire or a furniture maker).Silver Asiatic_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

ChuckieD spake:
Everything else is excess baggage….
Your preference for such a thing means nothing in terms of its accuracy or truth. Like Dillahunty, you know not of which you claim to profess.AnimatedDust_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77/1
Matt Dillahunty does not understand Aquinas’s ‘First Way”

2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually.
Potency cannot actualize anything if it does not exist actually. If it does not exist actually then it does not exist. If anything exists then there was a either a cause or causes of its existence or it has existed for eternity. When it is claimed that energy or information can be neither created nor destroyed the implication must be that they have always existed which means that no Uncaused First Cause such as God is requiredSeversky_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

CD
After literally millions of pages have been written by Christian theologians and philosophers, it is amazing how little their theology has moved beyond Aristotle.
There's a massive and significant difference between Aristotle and Christian theology - and Christianity moved far beyond Aristotle, not merely scienfically, but in philosophical truth. As stated previously, Aristotle needed an eternal universe because a Creation Act is difficult to reconcile with Deism. But as it stands, the material universe shows evidence of a beginning, and that is more compatible with theism. Aristotle is a strong root for Christianity in philosophical terms, just as Judaism is in theology. Christ brought together both the wisdom of Greek philosophy and the spiritual teaching of Judaism into a new synthesis - East and West. Jew and Gentile - the best of both. But Christianity goes beyond a mere combination of those two and adds greater truths that neither of the ancestors had.
In Metaphysics, God in Aristotle’s thinking is a necessary being–the Prime or Unmoved Mover–who is eternal, transcendent and impersonal.
Christianity conflicts with the idea of the impersonal deity, as does Jewish thought. The deist god must be impersonal, but that means that intervention on earth and any creation act must be deterministic - and that contradicts the non-composite, non-contingent nature that God must have. That God has freedom to create means also that God loves His creation - He doesn't create because something else forced Him to do it. That would be a deficient god. Plus, God interacts with creatures - and gives them an eternal destiny, made in His image, they can live with Him. In fact, it is the nature of God - given by Christianity - that He is a relationship of beings, not a solitary force. That's much different than Aristotle. Christ also radically brought the virtue of humility before God as Father, as the foundation of all virtues and the stoics and deists did not have the same approach.
This minimalist deity is really all that is needed for a coherent cosmology which harmonizes with science. Everything else is excess baggage…
Human life, moral growth, character development, fulfillment of one's purpose in life on earth, understanding one's destiny at death, worship, love, the nature of God - all of this goes beyond mere cosmology and therefore a true religion needs to incorporate that. It's not just excess baggage -- certainly, if we all stand before God after we die, these things make a big difference.Silver Asiatic_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

BTW, it should be noted that simultaneity of cause and effect is a fundamental concept of Buddhism, pre-dating Aristotle by about 200 to 300 years...chuckdarwin_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

of supplemental note, 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
bornagain77_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

ChuckDarwin claims that "(Aristotle's) minimalist deity is really all that is needed for a coherent cosmology which harmonizes with science. Everything else is excess baggage…." In saying that, Chucky D reveals his ignorance of the fact that the birth of modern science was actually impeded by Aristotelian metaphysics, not enhanced by it.
The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: … If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.?http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/
In fact, directly contrary to what Chuck Darwin is trying to claim, modern science began as a quote-unquote “Anti-Aristotelian movement”. As Cornelius Hunter noted in his book “Science’s Blind Spot”, Francis Bacon, the father of empirical science, (and a devout Christian), came to despise Aristotelian philosophy that was Rationalistic, emphasizing how Nature must work based on imagination, not experiments.
Naturalism: A Review/Essay of “SCIENCE’S BLIND SPOT” by Cornelius G. Hunter (2007) H.J.”Spencer – 16 July 2020 2 ORIGINS”OF”SCIENCE 2.1 MODERN”SCIENCE “Few people realize how shallow is the history of modern science that arose with Galileo, around 1600 who bravely chose to challenge the 2000 year-old ideas of Aristotle that had dominated educated opinion. Only one generation later, two powerful intellects joined in the Anti-Aristotelian movement; they were Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and René Descartes (1596-1650). Both were Christians and lived flamboyant lives but their thinking was very different. Ironically, both have planted successful seeds in the human enterprise that exploded into modern science. These differences reflected their national and religious cultures. Bacon was exposed to the new Protestant thinking that had been welcomed in the pragmatic (empirical) British tradition, so he emphasized the economic value of science. Descartes was trying to survive in the violent world of France that was still trying to decide whether to keep Catholicism or switch. Intellectualism was still very influential in (rationalist) French education under the powerful impact of the Anti-Protestant Jesuit order. Although Descartes saw himself as a scientist, his scientific theories failed to attract long-term attention but his contributions in mathematics and philosophy are still present today. The thinking (and writings) of these two thinkers have both influenced science: Bacon can be credited with the experimental basis of science (emphasizing data), while Descartes encouraged speculative (hypothetical) theoretical ideas. 2.1.1 FRANCIS BACON ,,, Bacon did attend Trinity College, Cambridge (Newton’s alma Mater), where he studied medieval sciences and came to despise Aristotelian philosophy that was Rationalistic, emphasizing how Nature must work based on imagination, not experiments. Bacon believed that general principles (axioms) ought to emerge in the final stages of investigation of Nature, not in the starting position (as in Geometry). Bacon did see his inductive method as generating scientific knowledge arising from sensory (empirical) observations but felt that this was no means sufficient to produce unique interpretations or gain all knowledge: in particular, he argued that scientific considerations should not become the basis for religion (his new Church of England: the English state-promoted religion). Bacon was sensitive to the power that religious ideas have over the minds of many people. For Bacon, science was not religion’s rival but its faithful servant.,,, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343022211_Naturalism_ReviewEssay_of_SCIENCE%27S_BLIND_SPOT_by_Cornelius_G_Hunter_2007
As Henry F. Schaefer succinctly put it, “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
In fact, it was only when Francis Bacon championed ‘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. And in an article that was, ironically, supplied to me by someone who is very hostile towards Christianity, (and who was therefore trying to distance Christianity from the origin of modern science), we, (never-the-less), find that, “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,,,,”
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/
Nothing is quite as pleasurable as having a hostile witness precisely confirm your claim! :) ,,, 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
“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
Thus, directly contrary to what Chuck Darwin was trying to claim, Aristotelian metaphysics, actually impeded the birth of modern science and did not enhance it.bornagain77_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

SA, "the most common error made by atheists who haven’t understood Aquinas’ argument at all. They always trace a chain back in time." Yes SA, Aquinas did not argue that causal chains exist in time, (in fact, he assumed an eternal universe in his argument even though he believed the universe to be created), Moreover, quantum mechanics itself could also care less that atheists misunderstand the fact that in Aquinas's argument "causal chains are causes in priority, not in time." As the following article states, "Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,,"
Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time – 2016 Bizarre quantum bonds connect distinct moments in time, suggesting that quantum links — not space-time — constitute the fundamental structure of the universe. Excerpt: Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,, “If you have space-time, you have a well-defined causal order,” said Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna who studies quantum information. But “if you don’t have a well-defined causal order,” he said — as is the case in experiments he has proposed — then “you don’t have space-time.”,,, Quantum correlations come first, space-time later. Exactly how does space-time emerge out of the quantum world? Bruner said he is still unsure. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/
And as the following 2017 article states, “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.”
Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past July 5, 2017 by Lisa Zyga Excerpt: retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past. https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html
That pretty much blows Matt's entire argument that causal chains must exist in time out of the water.bornagain77_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

In The Tempest, Antonio says "what's past is prologue." After literally millions of pages have been written by Christian theologians and philosophers, it is amazing how little their theology has moved beyond Aristotle. In Metaphysics, God in Aristotle’s thinking is a necessary being--the Prime or Unmoved Mover--who is eternal, transcendent and impersonal. This minimalist deity is really all that is needed for a coherent cosmology which harmonizes with science. Everything else is excess baggage....chuckdarwin_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

BA77
The causal chains are causes in priority, not in time.
Excellent analysis - thank you. That point corrects the most common error made by atheists who haven't understood Aquinas' argument at all. They always trace a chain back in time. But as given - a stack of books shows present-day contingency for the position they are in. Something has to confer actualization on that stack of books so that they are today in that position This is not an argument about "what happened before the big bang" but rather the need for a causal power to actualize the potential for things here and now. The books received these causes from elsewhere. Their existence is derivative. So a cause with essential existence and power to confer actuality is required. Dillahunty entirely missed this point, at the same time claiming that Aquinas' arguments had already been refuted so he didn't need to bother to understand them. That's like people who think Dawkins or David Hume refuted the design argument without seeing the rebuttals to those.Silver Asiatic_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

It is also interesting to note that many Atheists, in trying to deal with quantum mechanics, and with their outlandish 'many worlds' interpretation, have simply tried to deny the reality of quantum wave collapse.
Quantum mechanics Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications Too many worlds - Philip Ball - Feb. 17, 2015 Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way. That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,, http://aeon.co/magazine/science/is-the-many-worlds-hypothesis-just-a-fantasy/
i.e. The atheist, with his Many Worlds interpretation, is basically saying that, instead of God simply collapsing the wave function, the material particle has somehow bestowed within itself the power to create as many universes as it wants or needs to in order to ‘explain away' wave function collapse!
Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll: An Infinite Number of Universes Is More Plausible Than God - Michael Egnor - August 2, 2017 Excerpt: as I noted, the issue here isn’t physics or even logic. The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less. Now of course Carroll isn’t crazy, not in any medical way. He’s merely given his assent to a crazy ideology — atheist materialism —,,, What can we in the reality-based community do when an ideology — the ideology that is currently dominant in science — is not merely wrong, but delusional? I guess calling it what it is is a place to start. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/
Yet, directly contrary to what Atheists presuppose to be true in their preposterous Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the following experiment shows that the collapse of the wave function is a real effect. Moreover, they show it to be a real 'non-local', i.e. beyond space and time, effect!
Quantum experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' - March 24, 2015 Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein's original conception of "spooky action at a distance" using a single particle. ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle's wave function.,, According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,, ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,, This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,, "Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle," says Professor Wiseman. "Einstein's view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points. "However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices." "Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong." http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.html
In short, the atheist's attempt to 'explain away' instantaneous quantum wave collapse with their preposterous Many Worlds interpretation has now been experimentally falsified. It is also very interesting to note that the quantum wave, prior to collapse, is mathematically defined as being in an infinite dimensional state,
Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics? You need an infinite dimensional Hilbert space to represent a wavefunction of any continuous observable (like position for example). https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149786/why-do-we-need-infinite-dimensional-hilbert-spaces-in-physics
,, an infinite dimensional state that also takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark Excerpt: real numbers with their infinitely many decimals have infested almost every nook and cranny of physics, from the strengths of electromagnetic fields to the wave functions of quantum mechanics: we describe even a single bit of quantum information (a qubit) using two real numbers involving infinitely many decimals. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344
Now I don’t know about atheists, but saying something is in an infinite dimensional state to me, as a Christian Theist, certainly sounds very much like the theistic attribute of Omnipresence to me, And then saying something takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly certainly sounds to me, as a Christian Theist, very much like the Theistic attribute of Omniscience.
Jeremiah 23:23-24 “Am I only a God nearby,” declares the LORD, “and not a God far away?” “Can a man hide in secret places where I cannot see him?” declares the LORD. “Do I not fill the heavens and earth?” declares the LORD.… Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite
Thus in conclusion, the demonstrated reality of quantum wave collapse is a beautiful experimental confirmation of Aquinas's ancient 'First Mover' argument for the existence of God, and disconfirms the atheist's preposterous Many Worlds model. Moreover, the mathematical definition, (i.e. infinite dimensional, infinite information), of the quantum wave prior to collapse fits perfectly into what Christian Theists would presuppose to be true beforehand about Omniscient and Omnipresent God sustaining this universe in its continual existence.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

Matt Dillahunty does not understand Aquinas's 'First Way" Here is Aquinas's 'First Way"
Aquinas’ First Way 1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act. 2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually. 3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act. 4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature. 5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency. 6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series. 7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God. http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/08/aquinas-first-way.html Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As
Or to put Aquinas' argument much more simply "The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.":
"The ‘First Mover’ is necessary, (i.e. the necessary cause), for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html
The main flaw in Matt Dillahunty's understanding of Aquinas's 'First Way" argument is that Dillahunty believes that causation always requires time and he does not realize that, in Aquinas's argument, "causation has nothing to do with time."
Michael Egnor:,,, causation has nothing to do with time. Matt Dillahunty: How can you have causation without time? One thing follows another, that’s a causal chain, there must be some time where one thing precedes another.
As Dr. Egnor explained elsewhere, for Aquinas, 'the causal chains are causes in priority, not in time.',, "An example of a causal chain in priority but not in time is a stable stack of books. Each book in the stack supports the book above, and is in turn supported by the book below it. In this sense, the position of each book in the stack is caused by the one below it, and each book causes the position of the book above. The stack is static — time is irrelevant to it. This kind of time-irrelevant causal chain is called (by Aristotle) an essential chain of causation. It is distinguished by an accidental chain of causation, in which time is relevant,,"
Introducing Aquinas’ Five Ways - Michael Egnor - October 3, 2019 Causes in Priority 1) The causal chains are causes in priority, not in time. That is, it is assumed that the causes can occur simultaneously, and do not necessarily imply temporal sequence. This means that the cosmological argument is valid regardless of whether the universe has a beginning or it is eternal in the past. In fact, Aristotle, who first developed the argument for the existence of God, thought the universe was eternal in the past. Aquinas developed the cosmological arguments on the assumption of an eternal past — not because he believed it eternal, but because it made the argument harder to prove, and he took the challenge. Time and again Thomas chose premises that made his proofs as difficult as possible, and then proved them. Aquinas was his own harshest critic — I love the guy. An example of a causal chain in priority but not in time is a stable stack of books. Each book in the stack supports the book above, and is in turn supported by the book below it. In this sense, the position of each book in the stack is caused by the one below it, and each book causes the position of the book above. The stack is static — time is irrelevant to it. This kind of time-irrelevant causal chain is called (by Aristotle) an essential chain of causation. It is distinguished by an accidental chain of causation, in which time is relevant (and example of an accidental chain is a family tree, with grandfather causing father causing son and so on.) Both kinds of causal chains are common in nature. The cosmological argument only applies to essential causal chains, not to accidental causal chains. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/introducing-aquinas-five-ways/
I also find it fascinating, even astonishing, that Aquinas's ancient 'First Mover' argument has now been confirmed in quantum mechanics. i.e. That Aquinas, (and Aristotle), via pure reason alone, would get the basics of Quantum Wave collapse correct hundreds, even thousands, of years before quantum mechanics was even known about is nothing less than astonishing. As Dr. Egnor explained elsewhere, "Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,,"
Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy Is Dead" - Michael Egnor - August 3, 2015 Excerpt: The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas is far and away the most successful framework on which to understand modern science, especially quantum mechanics. Heisenberg knew this (Link on site). Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/stephen_hawking_3098261.html
Heisenberg himself "understood that the Aristotelian concept of potency and act was beautifully confirmed by quantum theory"
What Is Matter? The Aristotelian Perspective - Michael Egnor - July 21, 2017 Excerpt: Heisenberg, almost alone among the great physicists of the quantum revolution, understood that the Aristotelian concept of potency and act was beautifully confirmed by quantum theory and evidence.,,, Heisenberg wrote: “,,,The probability wave of Bohr, Kramers, Slater… was a quantitative version of the old concept of “potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy. It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality…The probability function combines objective and subjective elements,,,” Thus, the existence of potential quantum states described by Schrodinger’s equation (which is a probability function) are the potency (the “matter”) of the system, and the collapse of the quantum waveform is the reduction of potency to act. To an Aristotelian (like Heisenberg), quantum mechanics isn’t strange at all. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/what-is-matter-the-aristotelian-perspective/ "In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But atoms and the elementary particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts … The probability wave … mean[s] tendency for something. It’s a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia from Aristotle’s philosophy. It introduces something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin. (1958), p. 41
Again, that Aquinas, (and Aristotle), via pure reason alone, would get the basics of Quantum Wave collapse correct hundreds, even thousands, of years before quantum mechanics was even known about is nothing less than astonishing.bornagain77_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply