Why do Some Materialists Insist on Wallowing in Obvious Error?

_{Barry Arrington

August 14, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In the combox to the do we need context post a materialist who goes by RDFish states this regarding a non-repeating series of prime numbers (comment 48):

The only known source of such a series is a human source.

Fish then emphatically declares that absolutely nothing can be inferred about the source of the series other than the fact that it is able to produce the series (comment 125).

I corrected Fish by showing how from his own concession an inference to the best explanation could be made. I argued as follows:

1. The only known cause of Y is Z.
2. We observe a particular instance of Y.
3. Because Z is the only known cause of Y, the inference to the best explanation is that this particular instance of Y was also caused by Z.

Because “intelligence” is the only known cause of a non-repeating series of primes, we can infer that the best explanation we currently have for this particular instance of non-repeating primes from an unknown source is “act of an intelligent agent.”

Fish is having none of it. He writes (comment 158):

Not only do I deny we could draw any warranted inferences about the source, but I also argue that “the ID inference” is underspecified to the point of meaninglessness.

Sometimes you’ve just got to slap your head and wonder why. Why do some people insist on wallowing in their error? The answer is not because RDFish is a materialist. Anyone who has ever read the book or seen the move Contact would know that famous materialist Carl Sagan would have disagreed with RDFish and readily conceded that the series was produced by an intelligent agent. Even uber-materialist Elizabeth Liddle has admitted in these pages that “act of an intelligent agent” is the best explanation for the data. See here.

Why then? Why does an obviously intelligent and articulate person insist on spewing such blithering idiocy? It is a mystery to me. Can someone explain it to me?

Update:
The best answer so far comes from Vishnu: “I suspect it’s because he gets some sort of enjoyment by being a difficult jackass on pro-ID blogs.”

Vishnu’s answer is parsimonious and accounts for the data admirably.

Comments

Hi Barry Arrington, I failed to notice that rather than respond to my arguments on the original thread, you decided to appeal to your echo chamber for support here. I made a number of arguments that you failed to respond to, including the reductio examples that illustrated that just because a human being might use conscious reasoning to produce some phenomenon, that doesn't mean that the same phenomenon will necessarily be the result of conscious reasoning when caused by something other than human action. When I have time I'll peruse the rest of your (and others') comments here in this thread and explain why you're mistaken. In the meanwhile, the last fallacy you committed in the previous thread was argumentum ad populum, a tactic typically employed by people who are losing an argument. It of course makes no difference what other people agree or don't agree with my arguments. What matters is that you cannot respond with valid counter-arguments. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @ 37
It is easy to create a machine that produces a string of prime numbers. Of course you can say that intelligence is required to design the machine but that is a different skill. I can write a programme to generate prime numbers without having the ability to generate them myself.
True. The prime numbers could be generated by a non-intelligent machine. But we see CSI in that string of numbers and the CSI is reducible to a programmatic function. That programmming is evidence of intelligence. So, the prime numbers are a step removed from intelligence in that case. But it remains true that the only known source of those numbers is intelligence -- that's what we recognize immediately.
The really big one is that intelligence is a whole bunch of different abilities. This is clear from examples of people who have some of those abilities but not others. For example there are several attested examples of idiot savant who can reproduce prime numbers but are unable to do simple arithmetic (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8040161). So which parts of intelligence allow us to generate a string of prime numbers? </blockquote. It's certainly possible to have intelligence that cannot create prime numbers. Animals have that kind of intelligence.
You need to define it and prove it is necessary. Otherwise you are just left with “that part of intelligence that allows us to generate a string of prime numbers” – which doesn’t help at all.
Again, intelligence is an immaterial quality. We can't assess the physical differences between the intelligence of a bumble-bee and the intelligence of a human being. We don't know the spacial dimensions, weight, color, physical movements or physical-dependencies or intelligence. With that, talking about "which part" of intelligence is very difficult. We don't know if intelligence has any parts or if it is one thing. We don't know if animals have a different thing called "intelligence" or if they have the same thing as humans in a different variety with different features. In fact, we can't directly observe any features of intelligence. To suddenly expect ID to give physical descriptions of a non-observable entity that science itself cannot define is a bit unfair, I'd say. We infer that there is a thing called "intelligence" from the effects we see in various things. As RDFish suggested (and I agree somewhat), how do we know that rivers are not intelligent? We really don't know. Those of the animist faith would say that they are. Scientific materialism cannot say that rivers are not intelligent because there is no direct physical evidence that a thing called intelligence exists anywhere. No one has seen what this thing is -- we only see certain effects.
Silver Asiatic_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

William J Murray- They are drawing lines when they should be focusing on testing the claims of their respective anti-ID positions. Lizzie insists on models yet she refuses to tell us how to model unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution/ evolution via differing accumulations of genetic accidents. At the University of Chicago Dembski asked how to model it and no one could answer him. They love to say that it isn't a search but that doesn't help them at all.Joe_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
It is easy to create a machine that produces a string of prime numbers. Of course you can say that intelligence is required to design the machine but that is a different skill.
Yes the prime numbers will be traced back to the humans who designed and built the machine. Meyer and others have been over this ad nauseum.
You need to define it and prove it is necessary.
Already have. And guess what? It is part of the standard and accepted definitions of "intelligence". Strange that you don't have the intelligence to determine which definitions are covered by ID.Joe_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Bogart at 34 That is an interesting take on my comment. I suggest that Christianity often has itself to blame for engendering what is (very often) a hostile disregard for the design inference, and you call that arrogant.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

SA #30
The only known capability that can generate strings of prime numbers is intelligence. We know that intelligence is found in several varieties (and may actually be entirely different intelligences) and is not directly observable.
That is not strictly true. It is easy to create a machine that produces a string of prime numbers. Of course you can say that intelligence is required to design the machine but that is a different skill. I can write a programme to generate prime numbers without having the ability to generate them myself. However, that is not the big point. The really big one is that intelligence is a whole bunch of different abilities. This is clear from examples of people who have some of those abilities but not others. For example there are several attested examples of idiot savant who can reproduce prime numbers but are unable to do simple arithmetic (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8040161). So which parts of intelligence allow us to generate a string of prime numbers? You need to define it and prove it is necessary. Otherwise you are just left with “that part of intelligence that allows us to generate a string of prime numbers” – which doesn’t help at all.Mark Frank_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

BA #25
Do you also disagree with Carl Sagan and Elizabeth Liddle that the inference to best explanation of the data is “act of an intelligent agent”?
I suppose I do - in the sense that I think that this a tricky subject and I am not sure what the correct inference is. After all it is an experience quite unlike anything we have ever had to deal with.Mark Frank_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

AB @ 34:
Andre: ” reason and logic is rooted in Christianity” That is as arrogant as UB’s comment. The Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Chinese might disagree with you.
Perhaps so AB. But that is not the subject of this post. Indeed, the subject of this post is just the opposite of reason and logic – why do you and RDFish seem willing (nay, eager) to wallow around in obviously absurd error? Can you address that for me?Barry Arrington_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Andre: " reason and logic is rooted in Christianity" That is as arrogant as UB's comment. The Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Chinese might disagree with you.Acartia_bogart_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Why then? Why does an obviously intelligent and articulate person insist on spewing such blithering idiocy? It is a mystery to me. Can someone explain it to me?
Good questions. If ID cannot draw inferences about intelligence, then science itself cannot draw inferences about gravity and electricity - both of which are immaterial qualities where we only see effects not the thing itself. We infer that the speed of light is the same throughout the universe, and that it has been the same since the beginning of time. To his credit, RDFish rejects Darwinism. He also draws reasonable inferences in many cases, but inconsistently. He also seems more interested in the ID project than most opponents are. Some of his challenges are good - like trying to define intelligence and by pushing ID for more precision. He's definitely the most unusual opponent I've ever encountered. He follows the ID arguments quite a long way down the logical path but then abruptly stops short after the most reasonable conclusion is one step away. It seems like he's concealing something ... why the opposition to the ID inference? It's not that difficult to accept. Even atheists see it. I'll just agree with the OP - it's a mystery.Silver Asiatic_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Where EL and RDFish and others are all the same is that when it comes to ID, somewhere along the line of reasoning they draw the line and say "here, and no further". Some won't even admit that ID is a meaningful commodity in the first place. Others will admit that, but then claim there is now way to scientifically quantify it. Some will admit that there is an appearance of design in nature then deny it is design, all the while insisting there is no means by which to determine if it is design or not. Some will draw the line before we even employ the rules of right reason. Others will draw the line on the motivations of those that advocate ID. They all draw the line somewhere and no amount of evidence or reasoning will force them to cross it, because they know where it leads.William J Murray_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Barry: Why then? Why does an obviously intelligent and articulate person insist on spewing such blithering idiocy? It is a mystery to me. Can someone explain it to me?
There is theory and there is practice, and the fact is, RDFish uses "inference to the best explanation", i.e, abductive reasoning, every day in his life. Why? Because living would be impossible without doing so. In short, it's the "best bet" when one lacks omniscience. It is patently obvious to any reasonable person that if 100 primes were received by us from deep space, that the best inference would be that it came from an intelligent source, that is, a source with human-like (or better) mental capabilities of foresight, knowledge, and intent, etc. Carl Sagan believed it. Elizabeth Liddle believes it. And it's why SETI is looking for such artifacts of intelligence. RDFish believes it too, I suspect. But to answer your question: Why won't he admit it? I suspect it's because he gets some sort of enjoyment by being a difficult jackass on pro-ID blogs. Why do some kids like to pull the wings off of butterflies? Same reason, I suppose.Vishnu_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @ #10
3. Because Z is the only known cause of Y, the inference to the best explanation is that this particular instance of Y was also caused by Z. Is not as obvious as it first appears. It rather depends on how you define Z.
The definition of Z should seek to get to the source and not be a general definition.
Options include: 1 Human being with the education and desire to produce strings of prime numbers
Yes, but we can't really measure "desire" since it is an immaterial quality and is linked with intelligence and will. So, we could say that Z emanates from an immaterial source. Since not all human beings can generate prime numbers, something additional is required to define Z.
2 Human being
As above, this is not specific enough. If we have more specificity, then we should use it. You could have written a list of 1000 things (and this is what RDFish would prefer): 1. A thing that exists. 2. A material thing 3. A mammal 4. A mammal with fingernails 5. A being 6. A being that drives Fords 7. A being that drives BMWs 8. A mammal that shops at Wallmart ... to 1000 or more. But we avoid all of that nonsense by refining our search to the most specific source we can determine.
3 Living organism that thinks, feels and acts like a human being
Again, if we consider the source of the prime numbers to be intelligence, and we also agree that intelligence is immaterial and not directly observable the effect of which are evident in many different forms (mammals, birds, fish, insects), then it's reasonable to conclude that it is not necessarily an "organism" that produces the prime numbers. "A living thing" would be better. But I think another syllogism is required to prove what I just said (following below).
4 Living organism that is capable of generating strings of prime numbers
Again, "living thing" (you didn't specify "living" with "human" but it was understood). Like intelligence, we do not directly observe what "life" is. We infer that it exists. It is an immaterial, invisible quality - like gravity or electricity. We only see its effects. As RDFish suggested, "is a river a living thing"? or a thundercloud? We really don't know with empirical evidence. We classify some things as living and others as inanimate. So we're talking about an immaterial quality. 1. Immaterial qualities are non-material and cannot be observed empirically 2. There is no direct evidence that immaterial qualities are dependent upon or necessarily reside in, material bodies (organisms) 3. Intelligence is an immaterial quality. 4. Life is an immaterial quality 5. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the existence and work of intelligence and life do not require material bodies (organisms)
5 Thing that is capable of generating strings of prime numbers
The only known capability that can generate strings of prime numbers is intelligence. We know that intelligence is found in several varieties (and may actually be entirely different intelligences) and is not directly observable.Silver Asiatic_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart @ 5 But I am surprised that nobody countered with the fact that the signal was “transmitted”, somehow, and therefore adds considerable additional context and information.
AB, you are quibbling. If us humans received the primes, that the primes would be "transmitted" is rather implied, don't you think? At any rate, Joe explicitly mentioned it @56:
Seriously who would produce a transmitter, figure out the primes and transmit them unintentionally?
Vishnu_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

A_B said @ #5 "He simply said that you could infer almost nothing about a series of prime number without additional context." What RDFish actually said was: "There may be something other than human beings in the universe capable of producing a series of primes, but if there is, we know absolutely nothing about it." See the difference? A small point but it reveals something. When your opponent is not willing to admit that he's wrong (and RDFish did not admit it) on a small point, we can have some idea about how he will treat other matters.
A_B: But rather than honestly debate, the ID crowd resorted to ...
I'm not sure why you misquoted the point above (to your own advantage), but we all can do that at times. It's not necessarily a sign of dishonesty - I hope.Silver Asiatic_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Why do some materialists insist on wallowing in obvious error?
If a man does not conform his behavior to an objective moral code, he will soon find a subjective moral code that conforms to his behavior. It's always about self-justification .StephenB_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Axel: "No. God is not an organism, but is simple (spirit). You people speak as if an alternative to a divine Creator were a plausible possibility." Their arguments and supposed intellectual reasonings are hilarious if not also grossly hypocritical. For example, while they insist there is no Creator in the Biblical sense, they have no problem believing that microbes hitchhiked on the backs of meteor rocks or comet ice crystals. So an extraterrestrial source is acceptable for them after all. But the question still begs, if evolutionists are willing to speculate the possibility that life came from an extraterrestrial source, then what basis is there for excluding & ruling out God as that source ? They'll answer there is no prove of a being whose sole make up is of pure energy of Spirit. Yet, these are the very people whose religious speculations inspire Hollywood to invent Sci-Fi flicks where nonphysical beings or entities live out somewhere in the Universe. Axel: "ID, I realise, does not expressly rely on a religious inference, but as you all well know and raise Cain about, in effect, the inference of a divine Creator is unavoidable." This is why they are constantly burden shifting whenever anyone questions some grand illusionary story in any science journal which omits any proof other than faith affirmations. They fully understand the dangers inherent in allowing only for a design inference, therefore the biblical God must be brought in and the burden of proof shifted for how you know God did it. Never mind that no proof is ever offered in most scientific research papers specifically proving an unguided blind evolutionary process. The one's inserting God into ID is their side, not necessarily ID. But that's irrelevant. God must be invoked, even if it's their doing.DavidD_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @ 10. Your comment is not clear to me. Do you also disagree with Carl Sagan and Elizabeth Liddle that the inference to best explanation of the data is "act of an intelligent agent"?Barry Arrington_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

'It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.' KF, how on earth would Lewontin or any other materialist 'fundie' be able to fit non-locality or any of the mysteries of quantum mechanics into their materialist paradigm?Axel_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

MF #10: '3a Living organism that is capable of abstract reasoning.' No. God is not an organism, but is simple (spirit). You people speak as if an alternative to a divine Creator were a plausible possibility. Well, it may be theoretically possible, but would be operationally impossible to the mind of any rational person. ID, I realise, does not expressly rely on a religious inference, but as you all well know and raise Cain about, in effect, the inference of a divine Creator is unavoidable.Axel_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

BA: My first concern, is that we see deep-rooted polarisation. That is not good. Second, I note there are two roots of "difficult" resistance to what is otherwise reasonable and clear enough. There may be primary ignorance and the foundation to understand may not be there. Especially, if there is a pons asinorum such as that notorious mid-point theorem in Geometry; or, a few. (As in, e.g., how do you PROVE that the line between midpoints of two sides of a triangle is 1/2 the length of the third side and parallel to it? Or before that, that the angles that the equal length sides of an isosceles triangle produce with the base are equal?) I doubt this is acting here, we are dealing with people with Graduate education, not third formers trembling before notorious theorems! The other source, is secondary, due to interference from a commitment to a contrary ideology. In extreme cases we see patently inconsistent selective hyperskepticism, clinging to patent absurdity, question-begging a priori worldview impositions and a subtext of contempt. As in, only the ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked could dare beg to differ. In the main case, the obvious point, long since pointed out but willfully ignored, is that we have absolutely no good reason to conclude that only humans can exhibit the cluster of behaviours that point to intelligence. Beavers show limited intelligence, for instance. Likewise, if our worldview or a priori injections tracing to it force us to lock out the possibility of correcting observations, it means we are in a closed-minded, question-begging ideological circle. The notion that as we directly see phenomena characteristic of intelligence ONLY with humans, is a patent case. Beavers beg to differ, just by building dams adapted to specific stream conditions -- a considerable civil engineering feat. Next, FSCO/I is known to come from intelligence and on needle in haystack analysis will only credibly come from intelligence. So, per the vera causa principle and inductive inference to best explanation through empirically reliable sign we can reasonably conclude on inductive logic that its cause is intelligent. This applies tot he FSCO/I in say the genome and that in say the fu=ine tuned functional organisation of the observed cosmos as Nobel Equivalent Prize holder Sir Fred Hoyle pointed out. However this is not the only case on teh table, we see so called methodological naturalism rearing its question-begging ideologically loaded head yet again. Accordingly, let me clip a statement in 2000 by the board of the US National Science Teachers Association, which inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag:
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> note loaded language] methods, explanations, generalizations [--> note subtle attempt to seize inductive logic and subject it to a prioris] and products . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. [--> question-begging insertion of evolutionary materialism] Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism [--> this, as opposed to thinking in light of evidence, logic and common sense, is not an intellectual virtue], peer review and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [--> Worldview agenda inserted] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> This is a loaded strawman caricature of design theory, the primary target of this statement, based on the slander sponsored by NCSE, "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo" . . . and it also demands to control what inductive logic on scientific evidence may be allowed to conclude] in the production of scientific knowledge.
No wonder we see Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin notoriously stating in his 1997 NYRB review of Sagan's last book:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
In short, this is not just a theoretical issue, it has enormous implications for education being turned into materialist indoctrination, for the twisting of media into a propaganda arm for the church of Darwin, for the rise of materialist bigotry based policy and more. The time has come to face facts. KFkairosfocus_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

A few quotes/notes on mathematics itself: As stated previously in post 2, Galileo stated:
Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe. – Galileo
Kepler stated:
“Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” – Johannes Kepler
Einstein uttered the M word in regards to the applicability of mathematics,,,
“You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.” Albert Einstein - Letters to Solovine New York, Philosophical Library, 1987
Wigner also uttered the M word,,,
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
The co discoverer of Natural Selection himself, Alfred Russel Wallace, said that man’s ability to understand mathematics was proof that man has a soul:
New Thoughts on Evolution (1910) Views of Professor Alfred Russel Wallace, O.M., F.R.S. “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – An interview by Harold Begbie printed on page four of The Daily Chronicle (London) issues of 3 November and 4 November 1910.
As did Gödel, who proved that mathematics was ‘incomplete’, hold that mathematics was proof that man had a ‘divine spark’, i.e. a mind/soul, within himself:
“Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine” - Kurt Godel Alan Turing and Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video https://vimeo.com/92387854
Dr. Craig uses the applicability of mathematics as a philosophical proof for God:
Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/9826382 1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.
Dr. Bradley comments here,,
The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe - Walter Bradley - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491 How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe - Dr. Walter L. Bradley - paper Excerpt: Only in the 20th century have we come to fully understand that the incredibly diverse phenomena that we observe in nature are the outworking of a very small number of physical laws, each of which may be described by a simple mathematical relationship. Indeed, so simple in mathematical form and small in number are these physical laws that they can all be written on one side of one sheet of paper, as seen in Table 1. http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
And as would be expected if, as Galileo held, 'Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe' we find that ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;
The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss and Riemann – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/ Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity. - per youtube The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, per dartmouth Dr. Quantum in Flatland – 3D in a 2D world – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4
Verses and Music:
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. 1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. The Power of God – music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPYRhOQcC
bornagain77_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

UB: "Graham, do you want me to hold your hand word by word? Barry had asked why otherwise intelligent people, generally in the western world, go to the extent of taking inane positions in order to deny design in nature. I offered my very limited opinion in return." I believe the number one debating tactic they often favor over others is simply playing innocent and playing dumb. Having accomplished that in their own minds, they take the position you are playing word & definition shell games.DavidD_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Graham, do you want me to hold your hand word by word? Barry had asked why otherwise intelligent people, generally in the western world, go to the extent of taking inane positions in order to deny design in nature. I offered my very limited opinion in return.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Graham2 I'll gladly help, reason and logic is rooted in Christianity and when you use it to make inferences you're actually borrowing it from ......Andre_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

UBP: First let us agree that this is an attack on Christian tradition ... what on earth are you raving about ?Graham2_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

Here's a thought experiment for RDFish and anyone else. AI (Artifical Intelligence) Guy has in his office "an entity" which generates prime numbers. We'll call it a PNSG (Prime Number Series Generator). As RDFish has amply argued, humans are the only known intelligence capable of generating prime numbers and the PNSG entity (being of human origin) plainly has an intelligent source (we'll credit AIGuy as the developer of the PNSG). We further assume the PNSG has the additional feature of being able to transmit its output and AIGuy has a receiver in his office capable of detecting PNSG transmissions. AIGuy makes a second PNSG identical to the first. Their output transmissions are identical, as expected, given they are identical "entities". Charles sneaks into AIGuy's office and steals the 2nd PNSG (ok, my bad), and places it on the next outbound space launch, and soon the 2nd PNSG is travelling towards Alpha Centauri transmitting home to AIGuy's office its prime number series, still identical to the 1st (original), except it is red shifted as it is accelerating further away. Plainly, the prime number series being received from the 2nd PNSG has an intelligent source as it was made by AIGuy, regardless of how far from home it may be. However, all of a sudden the receiver in AIGuy's office picks up two prime number series from deep space. They are identical except that they are from different directions, sufficiently far apart that each series must have its own source and is not an echo or duplicate, and both transmissions are blue shifted - their sources are accelerating closer towards earth and AIGuy's office. The 2nd PNSG has reversed and is now travelling towards earth, but is accompanied on a different and converging trajectory by a 3rd prime number series source!!! Given that both the 2nd and 3rd prime number series are being transmitted from deep space to AIGuy's office, and both series are identical to each other and to the 1st (original), while we know for a certainty that one of the deep space prime number series has an intelligent source (because we know AIGuy made its generator), what can we infer about the source of the 3rd deep space prime number series, and how can we tell the respective sources apart? AIGuy's office --- PNSG 1, intelligent source Deep space ----- PNSG 2, intelligent source but which signal? Deep space ----- pnsg 3, ??? source, but which signal?Charles_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @ 14 Just to be clear, RDFish has steadfastly maintained that intelligence or abstract reasoning, other than a presumption of human, can *not* be inferred as the source of a series of prime numbers. His argument seems to be that if a series of primes were discovered somewhere (say rocks arranged on Ganymede), he would infer a human intelligence or nothing at all.Charles_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

#12 Charles Presumably you meant to write:
But unlike you, RDFish has yet to admit that however small the capability to create strings of prime numbers may be, abstract reasoning can be inferred from it
If that is what you meant then I think (and I suspect RDFish would agree) that the ability to produce a string of prime numbers from a non-human source only allows you to infer that part of abstract reasoning which is ... the ability to produce a string of prime numbers.Mark Frank_{August 15, 2014
August
08
Aug
15
15
2014
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

Again, can someone explain this to me?
I can offer my uselessly limited opinion. First let us agree that this is an attack on Christian tradition. For two thousand years the part of the voice that seeks judgement and control has often outweighed the part that leads by example with love. Self-indulgent vulgarity towards reason is now on the porch. How else to explain a person's rejection of universal observation, if not by emotion?Upright BiPed_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply