Intelligent Design

Materialists Take Your Pick: Failed Science or Failed Metaphysics

Spread the love

Quoted in the article to which News refers below:

The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science…Origin of Life research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life…these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.

Dr. Eugene Koonin, a highly respected microbiologist and veteran researcher in the OOL field, from his 2011 book, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution

And how does Dr. Koonin get his miracle:

The Many Worlds in One version of the cosmological model of eternal inflation might suggest a way out of the origin of life conundrum because, in an infinite multiverse with a finite number of macroscopic histories (each repeated an infinite number of times), the emergence of even highly complex systems by chance is not just possible, but inevitable.

Notice that when Dr. Koonin resorts to Many Worlds (or “multiverse” if you prefer) theory he is not doing science if by science one means proposing a theory that is “falsifiable.”

“Falsifiable” does not mean “false.” It means that in principle it is possible to perform an empirical test to determine whether it is false.

The universe we have is, by definition, the only universe we can test empirically. Therefore, there is no empirical test that can be performed to determine whether another universe exists. Therefore, positing many universes does not qualify as science if one uses the “falsification” criterion as the dividing line between science and metaphysics.

Conclusion: The origin of life is a miracle. Theists attribute the miracle to God. Materialists do not rebut the “God claim” by resorting to calm dispassionate reason. Instead, they either wallow around in absurd materialist OOL theories, each more wildly implausible than the last, or they resort to an absurd ad hoc metaphysical solution. The former is failed science; the latter is failed metaphysics.

33 Replies to “Materialists Take Your Pick: Failed Science or Failed Metaphysics

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Materialist life by “poof.” Let’s just say that life emerged, that sounds better, sort of.

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    I think the headline should be

    Materialists Have it Their Way: Failed Science and Failed Metaphysics

    Don’t they know that the multiverse hypothesis logically leads to God.

  3. 3
    Mapou says:

    Materialists love infinity, a pseudoscientific concept.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: here are some cool video clips from ‘FLIGHT’:

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Hummingbird tongue – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMw3RO7p9yg

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Feathers – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2yeNoDCcBg

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Flight muscles – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFdvkopOmw0

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Skeletal system – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11fZS_B6UW4

    Flight: The Genius of Birds – Embryonic Development – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ah-gT0hTto

  5. 5
    Mapou says:

    Is the materialist argument for an infinite number of parallel universes (in which everything that is possible already exists) really different from that of the Creationist argument for an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable creator God that can create anything?

    I am asking because I have reasons to believe that believe that infinity is a purely religious concept based on faith.

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    I am asking because I have reasons to believe that believe that infinity is a purely religious concept based on faith.

    I thought it was based on the calculus.

  7. 7
    Mapou says:

    I thought it was based on the calculus.

    Nope. Believe me when I tell you it’s a lie that infinity is used in calculus. Regardless of what you may have heard, calculus is as discrete and finite as can be. This is the reason that we can do calculus on a digital computer. And, as you know, nothing is more discrete and finite than a digital computer.

    The big problem with infinity that everyone seems to miss is that any finite number is infinitely smaller than the infinitely big and infinitely larger than the infinitely small. It’s a contradiction because a number cannot be both finite and infinite at the same time.

  8. 8
    johnp says:

    Mapou you say
    “The big problem with infinity that everyone seems to miss is that any finite number is infinitely smaller than the infinitely big and infinitely larger than the infinitely small. It’s a contradiction because a number cannot be both finite and infinite at the same time.”

    Admission: I am NO KIND of mathemetician.

    Care to flesh that statement out a little?

  9. 9
    Mapou says:

    johnp @8:

    Care to flesh that statement out a little?

    Here’s another stab at it. If infinity exists, then any finite quantity is infinitely smaller than an infinitely large quantity. This is the same as saying that an infinitely large quantity is infinitely bigger than any finite quantity.

    Thus an infinitely large quantity cannot be compared to a finite quantity because the comparison creates a situation whereby a finite quantity is both finite and infinitely small at the same time.

  10. 10
    mjazzguitar says:

    This is just something to ponder, not a case for or against infinity. (I believe the universe could be finite.)
    If the universe is indeed, finite, what is on the other side?

  11. 11
    fossil says:

    From the little bit of math I have had infinity happens when a number is divided by zero. I was told that is what is called a singularity.

  12. 12
    Mapou says:

    mjazzguitar @10,

    Good question. It’s a big problem but once you realize that space (distance) is an illusion or perception, the problem just vanishes.

    Infinity is a ruse, a lie. Believing in infinity is like wearing blinders.

  13. 13
    Robert Byers says:

    On behalf of YEC everywhere I humbly, which always means not that humble, insist origin of life IS NOT the hardest problem in science.
    they have done NOTHING and know nothing about nature.
    Rubes and rogues are they still.
    Nevermind origin of life. tHEY have nOT settles the origin of biological complexity and diversity and reproductive relatedness that is called living nature.
    Evolution is NOT a scientific theory and is a false hypothesis I insist.!!!
    They ain’t done nothing yet.
    first things first.
    Prove evolution can claim to be a biological theory and a right one.

  14. 14
    ericB says:

    Mapou:

    The big problem with infinity that everyone seems to miss is that any finite number is infinitely smaller than the infinitely big and infinitely larger than the infinitely small. It’s a contradiction because a number cannot be both finite and infinite at the same time.

    Here’s another stab at it. If infinity exists, then any finite quantity is infinitely smaller than an infinitely large quantity. This is the same as saying that an infinitely large quantity is infinitely bigger than any finite quantity.

    Thus an infinitely large quantity cannot be compared to a finite quantity because the comparison creates a situation whereby a finite quantity is both finite and infinitely small at the same time.

    Sorry, but you are mistaken. In fact, you’ve made a couple mistakes.

    One is that you appear to want to create an apparent contradiction by seeming to show that the finite number is supposedly infinite as well as being finite. However, even within your own argument, you do so by comparing it with infinite quantities in a way that forms a type of difference between them and the finite number. But — even within that reasoning — the “infinity” you try to attribute to the finite number is actually a property of the “difference” you form between it and the infinite quantity. It was never a property of the finite number itself, even within your argument’s perspective. So the finite number has no infinite property even by your reasoning, and so your argument unravels internally.

    Another main mistake is in posing the idea of “an infinitely large quantity”, as if that were a number that you could use to form a difference with some other finite number. The contradiction between finite and infinite enters into your argument by adding the self-contradictory concept of “an infinitely large quantity”. The resulting difference comparison is also ill defined as a consequence.

    There are many simple ways for anyone to see that the concept of infinity is meaningful as a mathematical concept and does not depend on religious faith. For example, just ask,

    “What is the largest positive integer?”

    For any supposed answer, you can always just add one more to show that it wasn’t the largest. There is no end to that process. (The set of positive integers is one type of infinity, i.e. countably infinite.)

    One other comment is that when computers work on calculus problems, they can do so symbolically or numerically.

    If they do it symbolically, they are manipulating symbols and concepts just as the mathematician would who works with paper and pencil. The fact that the computer is digital and finite doesn’t prevent it from operating symbolically to solve math problems. In this respect the situation for the computer is no different than for a human who doesn’t have to be able to write infinitely long sequences to work math problems that depend on infinity.

    If computers use numerical methods to calculate values (rather than manipulating the problem symbolically), then their work is a finite approximation that includes errors. Part of the task of designing numerical methods is the analysis of how to minimize the errors that result in the approximation. So the fact that the computer is digital and finite (and approximates results with some amount of error) is not in any way evidence against the concept of infinity.

    I don’t mean to discourage you from posting. I just hope that on the question of infinity, you will ponder this and find it persuasive. I don’t intend to debate the subject or divert the thread, so I hope these points are sufficient to help you reevaluate.

  15. 15
    Axel says:

    What incenses me, since it is ABSOLUTELY SURREAL and something of which a person with the most diseased and cynical imagination could not conceive, is that, while, almost a century after the discovery of quantum mechanics, the ultimate paradigm, than which it has been mathematically established that no more consummate paradigm can ever be can conceived, proved, yes, with INELUCTABLE CERTAINTY that the MOST PRIMORDIAL TRUTH is PERSONAL (Observer-dependent), ergo THERE MUST BE A PERSONAL GOD and nothing coudl be more certain than that MATERIALISM is UTTERLY FALSE, the Academy, itself, is staffed almost entirely by LITERALLY dummies, mannequins, at least wooden-headed dolts, who DENY IT!!!!!!!

    It’s not as if philosophers of science had not established that truth is, as they put it, INTER-SUBJECTIVE – since there is evidently more than one of us potential Observers/potential Observers of this terrestrial and cosmic scenario.

  16. 16
    Axel says:

    And I mean those philosophers of science defined the perception of empirical truth as ‘intersubjective’, almost a century ago!!!!!!!!!!

  17. 17
    jerry says:

    Nope. Believe me when I tell you it’s a lie that infinity is used in calculus.

    A few things:

    First, I taught calculus a fair time ago and was a Ph.D student in math and my emphasis before I moved on to something else was Analysis of which Calculus is part. But in truth I have forgotten most of it.

    Second, I was being facetious because you said infinity was a religious concept only. And while for some, math is a religion, and for others it is hell, most would not associate it with religion.

    Third, the term “infinity” is definitely part of calculus as EricB has pointed out. “Infinity” as used in math is probably not the same concept as used to describe God or even multiverses. The word is the same, that is all.

    Fourth, It is definitely part of Christian religion and other religions as the following common phrase in religion is used “As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

    Fifth, in terms of religion (and this is due to a recent lecture which I heard) in the book of Job, we are reminded that God is infinite and we are mere finite creatures so it is impossible for us to understand just what infinity really means in this context. So to declare there is no infinity when it is impossible for us to understand the concept, may also be an internal contradiction or arrogance as we define just what God is from our limited definitely finite self.

    Sisth, I really hope this doesn’t start a religious discussion on infinity or anything else religious because it will probably end up nowhere and just provides a forum for personal rants. So please let this be the end of infinity if there is such a possibility.

  18. 18
    johnp says:

    EricB
    THANK YOU for clearing that up. I knew there had to be a logical error in there somewhere but being mathematically challenged I just couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

    …the “infinity” you try to attribute to the finite number is actually a property of the “difference” you form between it and the infinite quantity. It was never a property of the finite number itself, even within your argument’s perspective. So the finite number has no infinite property even by your reasoning, and so your argument unravels internally.

    Nicely done.

  19. 19
    Mapou says:

    EricB @14:

    Sorry, but you are mistaken. In fact, you’ve made a couple mistakes.

    No, I haven’t. In fact, you are agreeing with me without realizing it.

    One is that you appear to want to create an apparent contradiction by seeming to show that the finite number is supposedly infinite as well as being finite. However, even within your own argument, you do so by comparing it with infinite quantities in a way that forms a type of difference between them and the finite number. But — even within that reasoning — the “infinity” you try to attribute to the finite number is actually a property of the “difference” you form between it and the infinite quantity. It was never a property of the finite number itself, even within your argument’s perspective. So the finite number has no infinite property even by your reasoning, and so your argument unravels internally.

    Of course, a finite number has no infinite property. That is precisely the point. The very concept of an infinite quantity is illogical. If a quantity exists, it should be possible to compare it with another quantity and I have shown that it’s impossible to do that without introducing a contradiction.

    Jerry @17:

    Fifth, in terms of religion (and this is due to a recent lecture which I heard) in the book of Job, we are reminded that God is infinite and we are mere finite creatures so it is impossible for us to understand just what infinity really means in this context. So to declare there is no infinity when it is impossible for us to understand the concept, may also be an internal contradiction or arrogance as we define just what God is from our limited definitely finite self.

    Well, you sure have a lot to say about something that you don’t understand. The concept of infinity cannot be understood simply because it is illogical. That’s all.

    Sisth, I really hope this doesn’t start a religious discussion on infinity or anything else religious because it will probably end up nowhere and just provides a forum for personal rants. So please let this be the end of infinity if there is such a possibility.

    Wow. You’re some kind of dictator, aren’t you? But you’re right in a way, this discussion will lead nowhere since everybody has his or her mind made up on the subject.

    I will conclude by saying that stating that something is eternal (without end in time) is not the same as stating that it is infinite. Eternal and infinite are two different things. Also, an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot have regrets and the God of the old testament certainly did. Note also that the Christian God never said he had infinite characteristics. These are attributions given to him by humans. This is my last post on this topic. Thank you all for your comments.

  20. 20
    Mung says:

    I detect the beginning of an infinitely long and infinitely boring thread.

  21. 21
    Blue_Savannah says:

    Darwinists, known for moving the goalposts, have now just completely removed them….and they call it “science”

    Should I laugh or cry?

  22. 22
    Axel says:

    Why must it be possible to compare infinity with another quantity, mapou? The former is transcendental, as befits ‘the one without a second’, as Hindus designate Brahman; the latter a finite, quantified amount. Space-time is a construct, a divine artifact.

    Is it not an article of mainstream Christianity that God’s Spirit permeates everything, including the entirety of his physical creation? He lived outside of a part of it existed autonomously, then you would surely be correct.

    That they don’t belong in the same realm of reality doesn’t mean that one of them must be non-existent.

    ‘Also, an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot have regrets and the God of the old testament certainly did.’

    No mapou. That was a figure of speech, as is explained in biblical annotations.

    Somehow, God’s Providence, which is never derailed, co-exists with our free will, the latter, as BA77 states, being confirmed by a finding of quantum mechanics. However, this freedom, nevertheless, seems to be dependent on God’s gift of supernatural grace, at his own discretion! Strange to reflect that we have learned so much from the bible, even though it is so full of mystery, with the Holy Spirit playing the key role in drafting it and enlightening the devout reader always in some worthwhile measure.

    All very confusing, and puzzling, but theology, as they are increasingly finding with physics, often entails an endeavour to arrive at the optimal management of paradoxes of a given set of facts.

    ‘Note also that the Christian God never said he had infinite characteristics. These are attributions given to him by humans.’

    God may not have used your own words, mapou, but the bible is full of references to his eternity and his infinite power. Indeed, he is called, the Eternal’ in one Psalm. In any case, even if he had remained silent on the topic, surely it does not require an enormous leap of the imagination to envisage an entity with the power to create this universe with its trillions of galaxies, never mind, planets, as having infinite power and an eternal life.

  23. 23
    Axel says:

    Then again, did not max Planck state that matter, as such, does not exist, and that it ‘is derivative from consciousness’.

    This latter view seems to have been shared by Niels Bohr, who asserted: ‘Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.’ (Just noticed my contention regarding the future of theoretical physics lying increasingly in the management of paradoxes’ echoes it somewhat).

    He also remarked: ‘We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.’

    Unfortunately, rather than take that insight ‘on board’, our brightest and best atheists/materialists evidently long ago dismissed Bohr’s and Planck’s own assertions as poetry, i.e. in the sense of euphonious flights of verbal fancy, nay, whimsy. No-one is going improve on their understanding of the essential nature of matter and its efflux from mind, least of all any atheist.

  24. 24
    Mapou says:

    Axel, I am a Christian but I refuse to park my brain in a closet when I read the Bible. In my opinion, you’re just engaging in story telling, not unlike the Darwinists/materialists. Sorry. I tell it like I see it. Thank you for your input.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    As to infinity: It is through studying the ‘logic of infinity’ that Godel, via Cantor, was able to bring the incompleteness theorem to fruition:

    BBC-Dangerous Knowledge – Part 1
    https://vimeo.com/30482156
    Part 2
    https://vimeo.com/30641992

    Cantor’s part is highlighted in this short video:

    Georg Cantor – The Mathematics Of Infinity – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335

    Kurt Godel’s part in bringing the incompleteness theorem to fruition can be picked up here

    Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821

    Another interesting place we find infinity raising its head is in that the quantum wave state of a photon is mathematically defined as an infinite dimensional function space.

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

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

    Moreover this infinite dimensional function space can, theoretically, be encoded with an infinite amount of information,

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

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

    Moreover the quantum wave state has, in fact, now been encoded with information, and thus blowing out of the water the contention that the infinite dimensional function space of the quantum wave state was merely abstract and not really real,,,

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

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Here are few more notes that confirm that the infinite dimensional function space of the quantum wave state is not merely abstract but is real,,

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

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

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

    Moreover geometric considerations of conscious observation in the universe give us evidence that consciousness precedes the collapse of the infinite dimensional quantum wave state to its single bit state.

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

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

    Thus every time we see (observe) a single photon of ‘material’ reality we are actually seeing just a single bit of information that was originally created from a very specific set of infinite information that was known by the infinite consciousness that preceded material reality. i.e. information known only by the infinite Mind of omniscient God!

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

    Another place that infinity pops up is in the zero-infinity conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. i.e. The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:

    Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/

    THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
    Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.
    http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/e....._mar02.htm

    Yet the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite Materialistic world of the space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:

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

    And if we allow that God can ‘play the role of a person’ as even Godel allowed when he chided Einstein’s notion of an abstract god,,,

    The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
    Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    if we allow that , then we find a very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (a reconciliation that happens to take Godel’s incompleteness into consideration).

    Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

    Verses

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

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

    Music:

    Phillips, Craig & Dean – Great I Am – music
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSoz6L1vqm8

  27. 27
    Mapou says:

    bornagain77,

    You are arguing from authority. That is the form of argument that I dislike the most. I am a rebel at heart and I am deeply suspicious of authority, especially when it comes to religious and scientific matters. My independent analysis of infinity has fully convinced me that it is a pseudoscientific concept at best and total hogwash at worst. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, it’s not even wrong. But I’ll leave it there. This is not the proper forum for this topic, in my opinion.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Mapou, accept it or reject it. I don’t really care. The evidence, as I’ve laid out in short outline form, is what it is and speaks for itself.

  29. 29
    Mapou says:

    bornagain77 @28,

    I reject it and I dismiss your evidence. How about that? And yes, bornagain77, you do care. You’re on a mission. But aren’t we all?

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Stephen Meyer interviewed about where new biological information comes from on Breakpoint
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwTl5oZhopk

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “I reject it and I dismiss your evidence. How about that? And yes, bornagain77, you do care. You’re on a mission. But aren’t we all?”

    A ‘mission’ that involves simply dismissing contrary evidence (methodological naturalism for prime example) is called being an Ideologue and as such why should I care what you say or think?

  32. 32
    Axel says:

    ‘Axel, I am a Christian but I refuse to park my brain in a closet when I read the Bible. In my opinion, you’re just engaging in story telling, not unlike the Darwinists/materialists. Sorry. I tell it like I see it. Thank you for your input.’

    That’s all right, mapou. I like people to respond in a non-maliciously-inspired, but forthright, way.

    Well, of course, if you wish to look upon the bible as merely a human artifact and that it is not impossible for you to understand God completely, it’s your prerogative.

    To me, it smacks of the materialist’s ‘promissory note’, being the antithesis of the mindset promoted by every mainstream religion, so you are setting yourself against the wisdom of mankind from the earliest recorded times to the present day. I think the Hindu Upanishads may have been the earliest religious writings.

    It is true that this controversy can go nowhere, isn’t it? Let’s call it a day, at least, after you’ve responded – if you wish to, that is.

  33. 33
    Axel says:

    It’s just that you seem to be a ‘spiritual relativist’ – another parallel with ‘our friends’ – with your own, highly idiosyncratic version of Christianity, rendering the terms of reference for argumentation impossible; our assumptions, widely divergent and, mutually, either mysterious or plum wrong.

    Still anyone who can describe ‘our friends’ across the aisle as pungently as you have, can’t be all wrong, foreshore.

Leave a Reply