The Materialist Double Standard

_{Barry Arrington

May 15, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

Yet again a materialist comes into these pages (this time rvb8) and asserts that ID necessarily entails a supernatural designer. The conversation usually goes something like this:

Materialist: ID is not science, because it studies the supernatural.

ID Proponent: No, that’s wrong. ID is the study of design in nature. While the designer may be supernatural, he is not necessarily so.

Mat: No, you are dissembling.

ID: Why do you say that?

Mat: Because the design of living things would require a miracle, and miracles are, by definition, supernatural.

ID: Let me get this straight. You believe that blind, unguided natural forces are sufficient to account for the staggering complexity and diversity of life.

Mat: That’s right. That is why it is a superior scientific explanation to ID, which requires a miracle-working designer.

ID: Wait. If the design of life is not beyond the reach of blind unguided natural forces, it must follow on your own premises that the design of life involves nothing but chemistry; no miracles are necessary.

Mat (starting to feel queasy as the logic begins to unfold): Well, yeah.

ID: And if blind unguided natural forces can manipulate the chemicals sufficiently to create life without a miracle, surely there is nothing in principle that would preclude a designer wielding super-sophisticated technology from doing the same thing without resort to a miracle.

Mat: Well, who designed the designer? And besides ID is part of an international plot to establish a theocracy. You’re a poopyhead. . . .

The double standard on display here is quite amusing. The materialist swallows right down the camel that blind unguided natural forces can design staggeringly complex life forms. Then he strains at the gnat of a non-supernatural designer wielding sophisticated technology doing the same thing.

Comments

EugeneS @ 74 (& Dinosio @ 81) -
ID is a classifier. Why does the nature of the Designer matter as far as biology is concerned? We are studying a painting, not a painter. The painting is material and is therefore subject to scientific analysis. How does it affect ID being science?
In science we want to know how the natural world came about, so inevitably we are asking about the painter. Just as people who study are ask about who painted in (and why). It deepens our appreciation of the painting. Even if we can't get all of the answers we want, we can still still learn more. Thus far the answer to my question "why doesn't ID investigate the designer?" seems to be either "because ID doesn't investigate the designer", or "because the designer is supernatural". the latter argument ignores one of the points I was trying to make @ 31, that it is still possible to learn something from the patterns of what is designed.Bob O'H_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

going beyond the design inference
Indeed EA, EvoTrolls who are atheists must distract from the design inference itself, which is obvious to everyone, because it initiates a logical progression that renders atheism/materialism/naturalism complete nonsense as it not only allows for the possibility of a designer, it logically requires a designer. "Who designed the designer" is *designed* to simply distract from the design inference and what it illustrates. Andrewasauber_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H, hammaspeikko, Pindi, others: Here is the bottom line: It is important to distinguish between (1) the design inference, (2) second-order questions, and (3) research done within a design framework. 1. The design inference is just that. Very simple. Nothing more. This is the initial edge of the knife, so to speak, and we need to be very clear about what it means and what it does not mean, what it can do and what it can't. The problem with the anti-ID insistence on going beyond the design inference to investigate the how's and the who's, and the why's is that such insistence is almost never borne of real intent, but is rather a rhetorical ploy and debating tactic to try to get design proponents to "admit" the designer is God, or to score points and prove that intelligent design is just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," and similar false assertions. Design proponents are thus appropriately cautious to recognize the design inference for what it is and to not go beyond the mark. 2. As we have discussed in this thread, particularly with Bob O'H, there are a number of additional second-order questions that could be examined. Those go beyond the design inference per se, but some might be illuminating. It is wrong to claim that no-one is willing to ask these questions or address them. To the extent that such questions can be done in a scientific and rigorous way, ID proponents are certainly willing to entertain them. To the extent such questions are philosophical in nature (such as who the designer is), some ID proponents have been upfront about their own personal philosophical position and have addressed that question. However, they make it clear that this is their opinion and is not part of the design inference. 3. There is much research happening within a design framework. Although the number of researchers who have admitted to accepting intelligent design is small, they are making a disproportionately positive contribution to their areas of study. The work they are doing leads them to ask questions that traditionally don't even get asked under a Darwinian framework. For example, What is the edge of evolution? (what can it actually accomplish with real organisms in real populations in the real world?) Is there another possible explanation for the pattern we see in the fossil record, given that it obstinately still refuses to confirm the Darwinian narrative? Is it easy to transverse the protein space from one protein to the next and one protein family to the next? To what extent can molecular machines be perturbed and continue to function, what constraints exist on mutations to remain functional? Darwinism, unfortunately, is unhelpful in addressing these kinds of research questions. Indeed, it has shown itself to be a science stopper. It doesn't even ask these kinds of questions, just naively and simplisticly assuming answers -- answers that become less and less supportable the more we learn about biology. ----- All three of the above could, in a broad sense, be treated as part of intelligent design theory, certainly as part of the broader design framework. Indeed, that is precisely the view that Dembski laid out years ago. The accusation that intelligent design proponents are doing nothing more than drawing a design inference and then "walking away" is false. The assertion that design proponents are unwilling to address follow-up questions is a red herring. But if there is a debate about the design inference itself, about whether design can be detected in biology, then, yes, you should expect a careful and nuanced discussion that limits itself to that very specific question and that does not delve into speculations or go beyond the mark.Eric Anderson_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

atheists
I wonder if this group has ever produced internet EvoTrolls? Andrewasauber_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: If you would prefer a biology-related discussion, go to the thread "Mystery at the heart of life" and pick any of the questions that are posted there. BTW, there are no waiting lines in that thread. Most politely-dissenting interlocutors prefer other discussions. Pure science doesn't seem too entertaining these days. :) Perhaps because that's the scientific front where the Darwinian ideas are being beaten harder almost daily.Dionisio_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Bob O’H: [#81 addendum] You may want to read the comment posted by KF @79.Dionisio_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: [#80 addendum] You may want to read the comments posted by EugeneS: @59:
The best ever answer I saw to the question, who designed the designer, is this. Asking who designed the designer is the same as asking who painted the painter of a picture. It is indeed amusing to see people tripping over the same hurdles they themselves posted when they established ‘the rules of the game’. Either you follow the same rules or do not play the game. You cannot redefine the rules all the time.
@61:
Take the small example of an information translation architecture and explain how it could have emerged purely naturalistically.
@74:
ID is a classifier. Why does the nature of the Designer matter as far as biology is concerned? We are studying a painting, not a painter. The painting is material and is therefore subject to scientific analysis. How does it affect ID being science? The epistemological problem of the origin stands irrespective of one’s philosophical commitments because the origin of nature by necessity cannot be natural. Some hard-core materialists like Hawking argue that all that is necessary to explain nature is gravity (or any other law) and that gravity comes from M-theory. Fundamentally, law is a description of a natural regularity. It has zero causal power. Regularity does have causal power. However, the question is how this regularity came about. Another issue, as far as biological life is concerned, is that life is inherently irreducible to natural regularities. And this in itself is an immense problem for reductionism.
Dionisio_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H @69:
Dionisio @ 66 – I don’t think 38 is really an answer, unless you’re rejecting the idea that the designer could be material. But we’re repeatedly told that ID doesn’t do that. if you want to go down that route, then fine. But don’t complain when ID is accused of being creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
I see you want to discuss. Alright, let's do it. I have stated in this UD website --more than once-- that my reading comprehension is rather poor, but now it looks as though you're trying to tell me "join the club!" - aren't you? Or perhaps it's just that you have missed my comments in this blog where I have clearly stated that I'm not an ID proponent. My opinion, my points of view, my comments, aren't necessarily associated with ID. I'm not an OEC or YEC either. None of those acronyms identify me. My identity is solely in Christ, who made you, me, our cousins and the whole nine yards. That's written and none of us can change it, regardless of whether we like it or not. There was a time when I did not care about God at all. I was an atheist and could teach theoretic atheism to all the atheists out there. Educated --and brainwashed-- in the capital of the Soviet Union, I was firmly convinced that the whole world will one day enjoy the benefits of the communist society, which never existed anywhere --not even in the Soviet Union-- because they could not create the "new communist person" required in order to build that idyllic social system. That's known history. But now I want to be Christ's follower, though I'm not there yet. Still I think and behave worldly even against my own desire. But He has graciously forgiven me and has made me His own eternally. Amazing grace! How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now I'm found. Was blind, but now I see. BTW, good news! The same saving faith is available to all who want to have it. Just ask Him. Don't wait. Tomorrow it could be too late. Think about this. Test everything and hold what is good. Christ is the embodiment of Goodness. There's nothing better than belonging to Him. The main scientific concepts proposed by the ID folks --specially our beloved Italian doctor GP-- sound like music to my ears, i.e. I agree with most of them. But the buck stops right there. The ID conglomerate is a philosophical/theological "eintopf". The ID folks --whom I fully respect-- cover a wide spectrum of worldviews. I'm surprised you had not noticed this before. It's about time, buddy! :) Next time you may want to do some homework before rushing to write a comment like the one you posted @69. Also you may want to ask questions to clarify any misunderstanding. Asking questions is fine, even if a Canadian professor deems them as dishonest. :)Dionisio_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

FFT: Back in my u/grad days, Landau & Lifschitz (yup, those Russkies again) was a go-to reference. Its opening remarks on Quantum Theory are well worth pondering, thanks to Web Archive: >>>>>>>> When we attempt to apply classical mechanics and electrodynamics to explain atomic phenomena, they lead to results which are in obvious conflict with experiment. This is very clearly seen from the contradiction obtained on applying ordinary electrodynamics to a model of an atom in which the electrons move round the nucleus in classical orbits. During such motion, as in any accelerated motion of charges, the electrons would have to emit electromagnetic waves continually. By this emission, the electrons would lose their energy, and this would eventually cause them to fall into the nucleus. Thus, according to classical electrodynamics, the atom would be unstable, which does not at all agree with reality. This marked contradiction between theory and experiment indicates that the construction of a theory applicable to atomic phenomena—that is, phenomena occurring in particles of very small mass at very small distances— demands a fundamental modification of the basic physical concepts and laws. As a starting-point for an investigation of these modifications, it is convenient to take the experimentally observed phenomenon known as electron diffraction.^ It is found that, when a homogeneous beam of electrons passes through a crystal, the emergent beam exhibits a pattern of alternate maxima and minima of intensity, wholly similar to the diffraction pattern observed in the diffraction of electromagnetic waves. Thus, under certain conditions, the behaviour of material particles—in this case, the electrons—displays features belonging to wave processes. How markedly this phenomenon contradicts the usual ideas of motion is best seen from the following imaginary experiment, an idealisation of the experiment of electron diffraction by a crystal. Let us imagine a screen impermeable to electrons, in which two slits are cut. On observing the passage of a beam of electrons^ through one of the slits, the other being covered, we obtain, on a continuous screen placed behind the slit, some pattern of intensity distribution; in the same way, by uncovering the second slit and covering the first, we obtain another pattern. On observing the passage of the beam through both slits, we should expect, on the basis of ordinary classical ideas, a pattern which is a simple superposition of the other two: each electron, moving in its path, passes through one of the slits and has no effect on the electrons passing through the other slit. The phenomenon of electron diffraction shows, however, that in reality we obtain a diffraction pattern which, owing to interference, does not at all correspond to the sum of the patterns given by each slit separately. It is clear that this result can in no way be reconciled with the idea that electrons move in paths. Thus the mechanics which governs atomic phenomena— quantum mechanics or wave mechanics —must be based on ideas of motion which are fundamentally different from those of classical mechanics. In quantum mechanics there is no such concept as the path of a particle. This forms the content of what is called the uncertainty principle, one of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, discovered by W. Heisenberg in 1927.f In that it rejects the ordinary ideas of classical mechanics, the uncertainty principle might be said to be negative in content. Of course, this principle in itself does not suffice as a basis on which to construct a new mechanics of particles. Such a theory must naturally be founded on some positive assertions, which we shall discuss below (§2). However, in order to formulate these assertions, we must first ascertain the statement of the problems which confront quantum mechanics. To do so, we first examine the special nature of the interrelation between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. A more general theory can usually be formulated in a logically complete manner, independently of a less general theory which forms a limiting case of it. Thus, relativistic mechanics can be constructed on the basis of its own fundamental principles, without any reference to Newtonian mechanics. It is in principle impossible, however, to formulate the basic concepts of quantum mechanics without using classical mechanics. The fact that an electron^ has no definite path means that it has also, in itself, no other dynamical characteristics.|| Hence it is clear that, for a system composed only of quantum objects, it would be entirely impossible to construct any logically independent mechanics. The possibility of a quantitative description of the motion of an electron requires the presence also of physical objects which obey classical mechanics to a sufficient degree of accuracy. If an electron interacts with such a "classical object", the state of the latter is, generally speaking, altered. The nature and magnitude of this change depend on the state of the electron, and therefore may serve to characterise it quantitatively In this connection the "classical object" is usually called apparatus, and its interaction with the electron is spoken of as measurement. However, it must be emphasised that we are here not discussing a process of measurement in which the physicist-observer takes part. By measurement, in quantum mechanics, we understand any process of interaction between classical and quantum objects, occurring apart from and independently of any observer. The importance of the concept of measurement in quantum mechanics was elucidated by N. Bohr. We have denned "apparatus" as a physical object which is governed, with sufficient accuracy, by classical mechanics. Such, for instance, is a body of large enough mass. However, it must not be supposed that apparatus is necessarily macroscopic. Under certain conditions, the part of apparatus may also be taken by an object which is microscopic, since the idea of "with sufficient accuracy" depends on the actual problem proposed. Thus, the motion of an electron in a Wilson chamber is observed by means of the cloudy track which it leaves, and the thickness of this is large compared with atomic dimensions; when the path is determined with such low accuracy, the electron is an entirely classical object Thus quantum mechanics occupies a very unusual place among physical theories: it contains classical mechanics as a limiting case, yet at the same time it requires this limiting case for its own formulation. We may now formulate the problem of quantum mechanics. A typical problem consists in predicting the result of a subsequent measurement from the known results of previous measurements. Moreover, we shall see later that, in comparison with classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, generally speaking, restricts the range of values which can be taken by various physical quantities (for example, energy): that is, the values which can be obtained as a result of measuring the quantity concerned. The methods of quantum mechanics must enable us to determine these admissible values. The measuring process has in quantum mechanics a very important property: it always affects the electron subjected to it, and it is in principle impossible to make its effect arbitrarily small, for a given accuracy of measurement. The more exact the measurement, the stronger the effect exerted by it, and only in measurements of very low accuracy can the effect on the measured object be small. This property of measurements is logically related to the fact that the dynamical characteristics of the electron appear only as a result of the measurement itself. It is clear that, if the effect of the measuring process on the object of it could be made arbitrarily small, this would mean that the measured quantity has in itself a definite value independent of the measurement. Among the various kinds of measurement, the measurement of the coordinates of the electron plays a fundamental part. Within the limits of applicability of quantum mechanics, a measurement of the co-ordinates of an electron can always be performed-]- with any desired accuracy. Let us suppose that, at definite time intervals At, successive measurements of the co-ordinates of an electron are made. The results will not in general lie on a smooth curve. On the contrary, the more accurately the measurements are made, the more discontinuous and disorderly will be the variation of their results, in accordance with the non-existence of a path of the electron. A fairly smooth path is obtained only if the co-ordinates of the electron are measured with a low degree of accuracy, as for instance from the condensation of vapour droplets in a Wilson chamber. If now, leaving the accuracy of the measurements unchanged, we diminish the intervals At between measurements, then adjacent measurements, of course, give neighbouring values of the co-ordinates. However, the results of a series of successive measurements, though they lie in a small region of space, will be distributed in this region in a wholly irregular manner, lying on no smooth curve. In particular, as A* tends to zero, the results of adjacent measurements by no means tend to lie on one straight line. This circumstance shows that, in quantum mechanics, there is no such concept as the velocity of a particle in the classical sense of the word, i.e. the limit to which the difference of the co-ordinates at two instants, divided by the interval At between these instants, tends as At tends to zero. However, we shall see laier that in quantum mechanics, nevertheless, a reasonable definition of the velocity of a particle at a given instant can be constructed, and this velocity passes into the classical velocity as we pass to classical mechanics. But whereas in classical mechanics a particle has definite co-ordinates and velocity at any given instant, in quantum mechanics the situation is entirely different. If, as a result of measurement, the electron is found to have definite co-ordinates, then it has no definite velocity whatever. Conversely, if the electron has a definite velocity, it cannot have a definite position in space. For the simultaneous existence of the co-ordinates and velocity would mean the existence of a definite path, which the electron has not. Thus, in quantum mechanics, the co-ordinates and velocity of an electron are quantities which cannot be simultaneously measured exactly, i.e. they cannot simultaneously have definite values. We may say that the co-ordinates and velocity of the electron are quantities which do not exist simultaneously. In what follows we shall derive the quantitative relation which determines the possibility of an inexact measurement of the co-ordinates and velocity at the same instant. A complete description of the state of a physical system in classical mechanics is effected by stating all its co-ordinates and velocities at a given instant; with these initial data, the equations of motion completely determine the behaviour of the system at all subsequent instants. In quantum mechanics such a description is in principle impossible, since the co-ordinates and the corresponding velocities cannot exist simultaneously. Thus a description of the state of a quantum system is effected by means of a smaller number of quantities than in classical mechanics, i.e. it is less detailed than a classical description. A very important consequence follows from this regarding the nature of the predictions made in quantum mechanics. Whereas a classical description suffices to predict the future motion of a mechanical system with complete accuracy, the less detailed description given in quantum mechanics evidently cannot be enough to do this. This means that, even if an electron is in a state described in the most complete manner possible in quantum mechanics, its behaviour at subsequent instants is still in principle uncertain. Hence quantum mechanics cannot make completely definite predictions concerning the future behaviour of the electron. For a given initial state of the electron, a subsequent measurement can give various results. The problem in quantum mechanics consists in determining the probability of obtaining various results on performing this measurement. It is understood, of course, that in some cases the probability of a given result of measurement may be equal to unity, i.e. certainty, so that the result of that measurement is unique. All measuring processes in quantum mechanics may be divided into two classes. In one, which contains the majority of measurements, we find those which do not, in any state of the system, lead with certainty to a unique result. The other class contains measurements such that for every possible result of measurement there is a state in which the measurement leads with certainty to that result. These latter measurements, which may be called predictable, play an important part in quantum mechanics. The quantitative characteristics of a state which are determined by such measurements are what are called physical quantities in quantum mechanics. If in some state a measurement gives with certainty a unique result, we shall say that in this state the corresponding physical quantity has a definite value. In future we shall always understand the expression "physical quantity" in the sense given here. We shall often find in what follows that by no means every set of physical quantities in quantum mechanics can be measured simultaneously, i.e. can all have definite values at the same time. We have already mentioned one example, namely the velocity and co-ordinates of an electron. An important part is played in quantum mechanics by sets of physical quantities having the following property: these quantities can be measured simultaneously, but if they simultaneously have definite values, no other physical quantity (not being a function of these) can have a definite value in that state. We shall speak of such sets of physical quantities as complete sets; in particular cases a complete set may consist of only one quantity. Any description of the state of an electron arises as a result of some measurement. We shall now formulate the meaning of a complete description of a state in quantum mechanics. Completely described states occur as a result of the simultaneous measurement of a complete set of physical quantities. From the results of such a measurement we can, in particular, determine the probability of various results of any subsequent measurement, regardless of the history of the electron prior to the first measurement. In quantum mechanics we need concern ourselves in practice only with completely described states, and from now on (except in §14) we shall understand by the states of a quantum system just these completely described states . . . >>>>>>> In short, measurement and observation are in effect close to synonymous, and the issue of uncertainty is central. Where, from 35 years ago when we would go to the Uni Science Library to consult these men, the point on nature of observation was well taken. Notice, they start from the quantum double-slit. And, observation/ measurement is pivotal and crucially interacts with the quantum system, sometimes shifting the very nature of the result. So, quantum influence is exactly suspect no 1 where we should go hunting to find how mind and body interact. Which is what I spoke to. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Maybe ID has contributed some positive things to science, but nowhere near as many as RD (random design). Isn't that right, rvb8 ? Retro-randomosity, for one... knocks spots off retro-engineering.Axel_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Whether you are someone who considers I.D. to be a scientific theory, or someone like me who considers I.D. to be a philosophical inference from the scientific evidence, the identity of “the designer” is not something that one can prove or establish scientifically. (See my comment above @ #12.) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-materialist-double-standard/#comment-631607 Notice, that naturalism/materialism is also a philosophical inference from the scientific evidence, which claims that that natural causes alone can explain the origin of the universe, the origin of the universes’ physical laws and constants, the origin of life and the DNA/RNA code as well as the origin of mind and consciousness. However, if you believe that those claims can be proven in a rigorous scientific way then you need to demonstrate it and not just equivocate and obfuscate about it.john_a_designer_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

@RVB8, it is patent ignorance and sloppiness now for any critic to say ID has contributed nothing scientifically. We only have a handful of contributions, but our numbers are small. The contributions we do have are clear evidence for our most central claims, especially work by the Biologic Institute and the Evolutionary Informatics lab. Instead of being lazy, critics need to start engaging with the work that exists and pointing out holes, inconsistencies and incorrect premises. If you really want to reach people like me, this is what you need to do.EricMH_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

@KairosFocus, we appear to agree. It bugs me when IDers don't acknowledge that we are proposing a radically new substance in our ontology of scientific explanation. When IDers say ID is detectable on the one hand, and then say that it's unclear whether the agent is material or not, that is a lack of consistency. The agent may be embodied, like ourselves, but our ability to design is inherently immaterial, it cannot be reduced to the laws of physics and neither is it an emergent, supervening thing either. The design ability is radically different than anything material, and can in no way be ascribed to materiality. If we don't want to call that supernatural, fine, but being able to design is a super something or another.EricMH_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Bob #69, ID is a classifier. Why does the nature of the Designer matter as far as biology is concerned? We are studying a painting, not a painter. The painting is material and is therefore subject to scientific analysis. How does it affect ID being science? The epistemological problem of the origin stands irrespective of one's philosophical commitments because the origin of nature by necessity cannot be natural. Some hard-core materialists like Hawking argue that all that is necessary to explain nature is gravity (or any other law) and that gravity comes from M-theory. Fundamentally, law is a description of a natural regularity. It has zero causal power. Regularity does have causal power. However, the question is how this regularity came about. Another issue, as far as biological life is concerned, is that life is inherently irreducible to natural regularities. And this in itself is an immense problem for reductionism.EugeneS_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

FFT: Just for record I clip App 5 my longstanding and always linked note:
20 --> More generally, mind and knowing cannot be reduced to input -> mechanical processing -> output based algorithms that deterministically grind out complete sets of "known truths" premised on sufficiently rich, but elegantly sparse sets of axioms acceptable to all sufficiently informed rational agents. (Often, the relevant processing is not based on meanings, but on mechanical manipulation of well-chosen symbols; based on axioms, theorems and physical realisations of mathematical operations and variables.) 21 --> Thus, deductive proof and associated mechanical computing algorithms are now no longer credible as escape-hatches from the inextricable intertwining of reasoning and believing in the core of our worldviews, mathematics, science, real-world thinking and real-world information technology. This, in short, is the end of mechanical necessity as an engine to generate the field of knowledge and associated effective, algorithm-based function. Creativity, imagination, intuition and provisionality -- do I daresay, "faith" -- have won the day, even in mathematics. (Indeed, in recent days, Hawking is inclining to the view that this is also the end of the decades-long project in physics to construct a global "theory of everything.") 22 --> So, we see Douglas Hofstadter -- a critic, BTW, of such extensions of Gödel --conceding in his Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid:
. . . Godel's proof suggests -- though by no means does it prove! -- that there could be some high-level way of viewing the mind/brain, involving concepts which do not appear on lower levels, and that this level might have explanatory power that does not exist -- not even in principle -- on lower levels. It would mean that some facts could be explained on the high level quite easily, but not on lower levels at all. No matter how long and cumbersome a low-level statement were made, it would not explain the phenomena in question. It is analogous to the fact that, if you make derivation after derivation in [Peano arithmetic], no matter how long and cumbersome you make them, you will never come up with one for G -- despite the fact that on a higher level, you can see that [the Godel sentence] is true. What might such high-level concepts be? It has been proposed for eons, by various holistically or "soulistically" inclined scientists and humanists that consciousness is a phenomenon that escapes explanation in terms of brain components; so here is a candidate at least. There is also the ever-puzzling notion of free will. So perhaps these qualities could be "emergent" in the sense of requiring explanations which cannot be furnished by the physiology alone [p. 708; emphases added.]
23 --> Pulling the various threads together, we may now find a way for conscious reason to be credible [even if provisional], thus for the conscious reasoning mind that is sufficiently independent of -- though obviously strongly interacting with -- the brain-body system, that we can be confident in our thought. Otherwise, science itself falls into self-referential incoherence, absurdity and confusion. A first step to that, would be to examine some implications of quantum uncertainty and related phenomena for the brain and the mind. For instance, Harald Atmanspacher, writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy observes:
It is widely accepted that consciousness or, more generally, mental activity is in some way correlated to the behavior of the material brain. Since quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter that is currently available, it is a legitimate question to ask whether quantum theory can help us to understand consciousness . . . . The original motivation in the early 20th century for relating quantum theory to consciousness was essentially philosophical. It is fairly plausible that conscious free decisions (“free will”) are problematic in a perfectly deterministic world,[1] so quantum randomness might indeed open up novel possibilities for free will. (On the other hand, randomness is problematic for volition!) Quantum theory introduced an element of randomness standing out against the previous deterministic worldview, in which randomness, if it occurred at all, simply indicated our ignorance of a more detailed description (as in statistical physics). In sharp contrast to such epistemic randomness, quantum randomness in processes such as spontaneous emission of light, radioactive decay, or other examples of state reduction was considered a fundamental feature of nature, independent of our ignorance or knowledge. To be precise, this feature refers to individual quantum events, whereas the behavior of ensembles of such events is statistically determined. The indeterminism of individual quantum events is constrained by statistical laws.
24 --> This brings in a new level of considerations, but is itself not unproblematic. For, mere randomness is not enough; we need a viable mechanism of orderly, intelligent interaction. 25 --> To get to that, we may not only use the above noted indeterminacy of particle behaviour as is found in Quantum theory; but also, we apply Einstein's energy-time form of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. For, at microscopic level force-based interactions between bodies can be viewed in terms of exchanges of so-called "virtual particles." That is, once the product of the energy and time involved in a particle being exchanged between two interacting bodies falls below the value of Planck's constant h (suitably multiplied or divided by a small constant), bodies may interact through exchanging undetected -- so, "virtual" -- particles. We can in effect have a situation crudely similar to two people tugging or pushing on opposite ends of a stick: they interact through the means of the intervening stick; which we then see as attractions or repulsions between the bodies. Thus, as the just linked explains in more details, the quantum theory of forces and interactions between bodies is now strongly based on Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty; yet another case where the deterministic view has been undermined, and one that opens the doorway to a model of the workings of the brain-mind interface. 26 --> As Scott Calef therefore observes:
Keith Campbell writes, “The indeterminacy of quantum laws means that any one of a range of outcomes of atomic events in the brain is equally compatible with known physical laws. And differences on the quantum scale can accumulate into very great differences in overall brain condition. So there is some room for spiritual activity even within the limits set by physical law. There could be, without violation of physical law, a general spiritual constraint upon what occurs inside the head.” (p.54). Mind could act upon physical processes by “affecting their course but not breaking in upon them.” (p.54). If this is true, the dualist could maintain the conservation principle but deny a fluctuation in energy because the mind serves to “guide” or control neural events by choosing one set of quantum outcomes rather than another. Further, it should be remembered that the conservation of energy is designed around material interaction; it is mute on how mind might interact with matter. After all, a Cartesian rationalist might insist, if God exists we surely wouldn’t say that He couldn’t do miracles just because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics, would we? [Article, "Dualism and Mind," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.]
27 --> Within this broad framework, there have been several interesting suggestions. Of these, the Penrose- Hameroff proposal is quite original:
It is argued that elementary acts of consciousness are non-algorithmic, i.e., non-computable, and they are neurophysiologically realized as gravitation-induced reductions of coherent superposition states in microtubuli . . . . Penrose's rationale for invoking state reduction is not that the corresponding randomness offers room for mental causation to become efficacious (although this is not excluded). His conceptual starting point, at length developed in two books (Penrose 1989, 1994), is that elementary conscious acts must be non-algorithmic. Phrased differently, the emergence of a conscious act is a process which cannot be described algorithmically, hence cannot be computed. His background in this respect has a lot to do with the nature of creativity, mathematical insight, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, and the idea of a Platonic reality beyond mind and matter . . . . With his background as an anaesthesiologist, Hameroff suggested to consider microtubules as an option for where reductions of quantum states can take place in an effective way, see e.g., Hameroff and Penrose (1996). The respective quantum states are assumed to be coherent superpositions of tubulin states, ultimately extending over many neurons. Their simultaneous gravitation-induced collapse is interpreted as an individual elementary act of consciousness. The proposed mechanism by which such superpositions are established includes a number of involved details that remain to be confirmed or disproven.
28 --> In short, there is much room for both potentially fruitful speculation and future empirical research to test the ideas. (Yet another instance where the design-oriented view is anything but a science-stopper.) 29 --> The Derek Smith model for cybernetics offers a further fruitful line of thought for understanding the mind-brain interface and also for developing an architecture for artificially intelligent robotic systems. Take a multiple input-multiple output control loop, with many effectors, sensors and feedback loops. A lower order controller acts to co-ordinate the processes, based on a projected path and a moment by moment comparison between actual and projected. Corrective action is taken to adjust performance to desired. A higher order controller provides a supervisory level, with the creative, imaginative insight and projections that lay out the path for action for the lower order motion etc. controller. Thus, the brain here can be viewed as the mind's front-end input-output controller, with informational interfaces going both ways: brain-body and mind-brain . . .
KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H@70, I will take that as a compliment. :) But I would go a step further and say that your sentiment applies to most identifiable groups on earth. Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, democrats, republicans, communists, etc. Unfortunately, each one of these groups also have their fair share of self-righteous insufferable hate mongers. Too bad they don't wear a label. But, luckily, they are usually easily identified by their actions.hammaspeikko_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

HP, Kindly stop twisting what I have said into ideologically loaded strawman caricatures. Just for one, can you kindly tell me about the significance of the uncertainty issue and how the energy-time version came about? What was the significance of that conference and the objection that was being put up by Einstein? What contribution did the resolution make to the onward path of Quantum Physics? KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Andrew @ 67 - somewhere between the two. :-) I don't have an exact count, but on average Christians are no worse than any other group of people, and quite a few are really to be admired for their kindness and generosity of spirit. It's something I think we all should try to emulate, regardless of religious persuasion.Bob O'H_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Dionisio @ 66 - I don't think 38 is really an answer, unless you're rejecting the idea that the designer could be material. But we're repeatedly told that ID doesn't do that. if you want to go down that route, then fine. But don't complain when ID is accused of being creationism in a cheap tuxedo.Bob O'H_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus:
Quantum physics is a domain where the observer is integral to the overall construction of the theory.
No. The theory is constructed with the full knowledge that the observer has an impact on any measurement made. That does not mean that the observer has some sort of supernatural affect on what is observed. The affects are purely physical. I guess you weren't paying attention during your studies when I was still in diapers.
I suspect I was likely studying quantum physics when you were in diapers.
I suspect that you are likely an arrogant little jerk who can't stand to be corrected. If you are going to be this insufferably rude to someone who is just trying to have a friendly discussion, this discussion is over. Cheers.hammaspeikko_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

FWIW, I like and admire a lot of Christians.
BobO'H, Sure. By a lot, do you mean 5 or 5 million? Andrewasauber_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H @54: Your questions were already answered @38. Read that comment carefully. Take your time. Read it again. Yes, I know somebody could argue how could you answer @38 the questions @54? Well, that's the way things are. :)Dionisio_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

PS: To save the scroll up to 58, here are W & D again:
In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).
[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]
Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]
kairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

HP, I suspect I was likely studying quantum physics when you were in diapers. Quantum physics is a domain where the observer is integral to the overall construction of the theory. That is why we still see Schroedinger's cat being discussed, and it manifests itself in the quantum double slit phenomenon. Likewise in the uncertainty principle that there is irreducible uncertainty in observing certain pairs of state-defining variables, e.g. position and momentum or energy and time. In short, the observer is at the pivot. And no, I never said in that context that the only relevant observers were conscious, but I did point out that there is room for quantum level influence on states. Nothing I have seen rules out intentional and effective influence at that level. In short, you set up and knocked over a strawman caricature. Next, I pointed out that we see empirical pointers to an empirically adequate explanation of the FSCO/I rich phenomena of cell based life on earth. Where already we see actual engineering in molectular nanotech labs by Venter et al. I highlighted that I think within a century we should be able to synthesise artificial cells. That shows a path to an explanation that would be causal and points to adequate mechanisms, mechanisms that are already at functional albeit primitive level. Indeed we already have artificial additional bases for genomes (6 not the natural 4 as of last I saw) and more. In short, mechanisms were put on the table, answering earlier demands and even boasts that such do not exist. Your reaction?
this is flawed logic. Just because we might be able to create life is not evidence that this is how life originated. We can also create diamonds. That doesn’t mean that diamonds mined from the earth were mined.
That logic with a swivel shifting of goal posts shows a clear indication of selective hyperskepticism being at work. FYI, I never claimed that Venter et al prove that life was created. I inferred that they point to empirically adequate causal frameworks that manifest design. I now augment: the systems in question, cells, are chock-full of FSCO/I, which on trillions of cases in directly observed point come from just one source, intelligently directed configuration. Your objecting comments add to that observational base, as meaningful text is FSCO/I. This is backed up by blind search challenge analysis for config spaces of 500 - 1,000+ bits. The necessary implication -- cf Walker and Davies -- of fine tuned islands of function in large config spaces is that it is maximally implausible for blind search on dynamic-stochastic processes to hit on them within available resources from arbitrary initial start-points. So, we have good reason to know an effective mechanism, and a direct testable prediction is on the table: attempts to produce FSCO/I by blind search will reliably fail. We have an analytical reason for the reliable failure. Thus, we meet the criteria for inference to best current explanation of FSCO/I, including in cell based life. Design. To overturn, simply provide a good observed counter-example: _______ Prediction, that will not be forthcoming. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus
We know the observer is a key aspect of quantum physics, and the act of observing has significant influence, e.g. quantum double slit exercises.
I think you misunderstand what is meant when referring to the observer effect. Let me copy from Wiki as a correction:
In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception that it is the mind of a conscious observer that only causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a misunderstanding of the quantum wave function ? and the quantum measurement process.

As touching OoL on earth, that is readily explainable on the onward path of the world of folks like Venter et al, i.e. nothing in cell based life requires more than a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter et al, and I think we will synthesise artificial cell based life within a century. (This is a point that has been made any number of times at UD, and BTW, you would profit from a reading of the UD weak argument correctives and definition of ID also the glossary under the resources tab at the tiop of this and every UD page.)
I'm afraid this is flawed logic. Just because we might be able to create life is not evidence that this is how life originated. We can also create diamonds. That doesn't mean that diamonds mined from the earth were mined.hammaspeikko_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

HP, as it turns out, the investigation of computation vs rational contemplation, aka the hard problem of consciousness is a major research question that addresses the issue you name. My own thought on it is that Eng Derek Smith has had a useful insight when he talked of a cybernetic loop with a two-tier controller. The higher order controller interacts informationally with the lower one, and likely uses a shared memory with it. The lower one is an i/o loop controller computational device. With this framework we can ponder possibilities. My own thought is, we live in a world where the dominant micro-level explanation is quantum-based, and we know that we have a population of possibilities on initial conditions, so a quantum level influence process that pushes the outcome looks like a good place to start pondering. We know the observer is a key aspect of quantum physics, and the act of observing has significant influence, e.g. quantum double slit exercises. As touching OoL on earth, that is readily explainable on the onward path of the world of folks like Venter et al, i.e. nothing in cell based life requires more than a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter et al, and I think we will synthesise artificial cell based life within a century. (This is a point that has been made any number of times at UD, and BTW, you would profit from a reading of the UD weak argument correctives and definition of ID also the glossary under the resources tab at the tiop of this and every UD page.) Origin of the cosmos as a whole is another story, right now that is in the province of ontology, and we have discussed the implication of a necessary, world root being at finite remove from the current stage of this temporal-causal system we call our observed cosmos. A power capable of putting up a cosmos fine tuned for cell based life is something we can conceive and discuss but that is currently done under a different subject, philosophy; as this is not a place where there are direct observations to do science on. Though, it should be noted that the logic of being and origin is just as much a serious logical exercise as a linked subject, the logic of structure and quantity. AKA mathematics -- and yes, science is impossible without the branch of applied philosophy we call mathematics. Where, FYI, Logic is one of the six or so main divisions of philosophy. For that matter, for cause, physics used to be called natural philosophy. To this day, Physics is a thinly veiled form of the Greek, PHUSIS, nature. meta-physics was originally just the name for Aristotle's collected works beyond those that studied nature. When we embarked on that discussion over recent months, folks like RVB8 were studiously not seriously involved. And, it is unavoidably quite technical. Mind you, the discussions just outlined are also quite technical in their own ways, too. It may help you to realise that I came to ID through pondering thermodynamics and information systems, starting from the technical end. To see an outline, click on my handle. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

Rbv It’s just your intentionalist interferer with the natural world I, and other atheists object to. Objections are fine, but you do not have a case. Take the small example of an information translation architecture and explain how it could have emerged purely naturalistically.EugeneS_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

RVB8:
the absolute non-existant evidence, you never profer for said mallingering outside help
Of course, this is just a bluff of selective hyperskepticism. A lot of evidence has been discussed in recent weeks and months here at UD, cf the still live thread here on just for one (which also refutes your own talking points you used to confuse young converts), but oh it is so convenient to lie by sweeping it away with a brazen denial of evidence. By the lying evidentiary double-standards of the atheists shall ye know them. Sad. RVB8, I suggest you take time to think again on what you have been doing and saying. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

The best ever answer I saw to the question, who designed the designer, is this. Asking who designed the designer is the same as asking who painted the painter of a picture. It is indeed amusing to see people tripping over the same hurdles they themselves posted when they established 'the rules of the game'. Either you follow the same rules or do not play the game. You cannot redefine the rules all the time.EugeneS_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

RVB8:
If you choose to call these constraining laws God, or the Designer, fine, I have no proble with that. It’s just your intentionalist interferer with the natural world I, and other atheists object to.
Actually, laws point to lawgiver, and that is of redoubled force in a day when the physics of the cosmos is plainly fine tuned and set to a deeply isolated operating point for C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life. Note Walker and Davies, yet again this morning, on the significance of fine tuning in the light of statistical thermodynamics issues and the underlying consituttion of our cosmos:
In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).
[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]
Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]
That is what atheists have to answer to on the physics side. Nor its this new, here is Newton in his General Scholium to Principia:
. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved [i.e. cites Ac 17, where Paul evidently cites Cleanthes]; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [i.e accepts the cosmological argument to God.] Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. [Cites Exod 20.] We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
It looks like the rhetorical ack ack belts put up by atheists and fellow travellers, we can understand where the key targets are. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply