And there you have it!

_{William Dembski

August 23, 2009

Eyes Rolling, Religion, Science}

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

Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.

YouTube Source

Comments

Diffaxial: How about this one? Can an automobile be smaller than its crankshaft? Surely, you will affirm that it cannot, and we can stop all of this foolishness.StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Knowing the Darwinist capacity to look for any means to avoid substantive debate, I should probably emphasize the relational component here: Can an automobile be a part of ITS crankshaft? [As in a whole is always greater than any one of ITS parts.]StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

I wrote: Indeed, when I asked these same bloggers if an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft, they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible. ---Diffaxial: "I say that is false." Then you are making a false statement. Lenoxus wrote: "Well, of course an automobile COULD be part of an enormous crankshaft, like some kind of huge modern sculpture. (It wouldn’t be a functional automobile in the sense of moving forward.)" (Capital letters are mine.) I didn't ask if the automobile would be functional; I asked if an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft, and he said that it could. At stake here is one principle of right reason which holds that the whole is always greater than any one of its parts. (For those who care, science depends on several principles of right reason, yet Darwinists continually disavow them when asked. To deny these principles is to deny reason itself. Read my comments at 15). Seversky refused to acknowledge that an automobile cannot be a part of a crankshaft and you, on this very thread, refuse to acknowledge it even after being asked three times. Diffaxial, I ask you again: Can an automobile be a part of a crankshaft? Yes of no. If not, why not? If you don't like that example, let's try another one: Can you be a part of your liver. Yes or no. If not, why not? You have stated on many occassions that the principles of right reason do not apply to the real world, but when I provide real world examples to test your assertions, you are not so enthusiastic about defending those claims. There is a very simple answer to this question and, if you are intellectually honest, you will answer it.StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank @6 My comment was more directed at Levin than yourself. However, allanius @8 and Jguy @9 have spelled out what should have been obvious. Having an open mind about how things came into being is not jumping of the cliff of reason. Which it seems, happens in the materialist mind. Frequently. If you think God is an unacceptable answer as to how we got here you must ask the question why it is that 'God' is any more unreasonable than 'nothing'. I see no reason to, outside personal prejudice. If you think that 'God' (a being of immense intellect and power) is a superior answer to 'nothing' (nothing) than God is the simplest answer. @Bornagain77, Thanks for the Craig debate video, I thought I had seen them all. I'm a fan of his.IRQ Conflict_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

So cosmological theory before this point was woefully incomplete because it lacked Nothing. But with this insight, it appears to have Nothing to say about Everything. That's really something. But how can this idea not inspire haiku? Here's a crappy one: ------ Nothing existed But then nothing got lonely We are his new friends!Matteo_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 36:
I have distorted nothing.
So you say. The record establishes otherwise.
On the contrary, you are desparately looking for distractions.
That depends upon what one regards as the topic. The topic I am pursuing is your consistent misrepresentation of your discussant's responses to your favorite question. To refute the charge of distortion, quote a participant insisting that ordinary automobiles can be parts of ordinary crankshafts. That would establish the accuracy of this statement:
Indeed, when I asked these same bloggers if an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft, they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible.
I say that is false.Diffaxial_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "I am quite unequivocally stating that you have distorted the record vis past conversations on this topic. No Darwinist has insisted that an ordinary automobile can be part of an ordinary crankshaft. I have distorted nothing. On the contrary, you are desparately looking for distractions. ---"I haven’t commented on the actual assertion in any way, equivocally or otherwise." You are equivocating right now by refusing to answer the question. Can an automobile be a part of a crankshaft? Yes or no. Can Diffaxial be a part of his liver? Yes or no. If not, why not?StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

toc @22 and @23: You are on a roll. Also, the Dallas Willard quote is excellent.StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 29:
I wasn’t referring to Lenoxus; I was referring to seversky.
That is incorrect. Seversky's first post on that thread followed both Lenoxus' post and your response to that post, quoted above. Moreover, you directly quoted Lenoxus, then supplied your reply.
Second, Lenoxus was not agreeing with me; he was disagreeing with me. The smiley face has nothing to do with it.
Lenoxus did not assert that an ordinary automobile can be part of an ordinary crankshaft (Neither did Seversky; what he asked is what you mean by "greater" in this context.) Interested readers can follow the above link and judge for themselves. However, perhaps you have other links to Darwinists insisting that an automobile can be a part of a crankshaft. If so, please supply. Lenoxus did pose an excellent question:
In any case, I’m curious where Darwinism violates the whole-parts principle.
Your reply was nonsensical:
Darwinism violates the principle that physical events need no causes and the principle that something cannot come from nothing.
Nonsensical in that Darwinism postulates neither that physical events need no causes nor that something can come from nothing.
You are equivocating again with that weasel worded “no one has suggested” routine. That always a dead giveaway for Darwinists when they are reluctant to answer a simple question.
I am quite unequivocally stating that you have distorted the record vis past conversations on this topic. No Darwinist has insisted that an ordinary automobile can be part of an ordinary crankshaft. I haven't commented on the actual assertion in any way, equivocally or otherwise.Diffaxial_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Nothing is not a thing, nor is it the name of anything. Nothing is merely a way of saying of anything, that it is not something else. - unknowntoc_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Does this mean we can no longer use the phrase I've got nothing to say and remain silent. That is, since nothing would not only be something but everything.JGuy_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

---magnam:"(5) Something came from nothing through the act of an uncreated Creator with no beginning and no end (at least no infinite regress problem, and more in accordance with cosmological fine tuning for life)." To come from an uncreated Creator is not to come from nothing. You need to let that one go.StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "Give the crankshaft a rest, Stephen. No one, including Lenoxus above, has seriously suggested that an actual automobile can be part of an actual crankshaft." You are equivocating again with that weasel worded "no one has suggested" routine. That always a dead giveaway for Darwinists when they are reluctant to answer a simple question. Yes or no. Can an automobile be a part of a crankshaft? If not, why not?StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "Give the crankshaft a rest, Stephen. No one, including Lenoxus above, has seriously suggested that an actual automobile can be part of an actual crankshaft." ---"You’ll notice that Lenoxus indicated that in this case the “crankshaft” wasn’t an actual crankshaft, but a non-functional sculpture, and followed his comment with a frakking SMILEY, indicating that it wasn’t a serious response." Why would I want to give it a rest. I love exposing Darwinist irrationality. It makes my day. Sorry, but your damage control isn't working. First, I wasn't referring to Lenoxus; I was referring to seversky. Second, Lenoxus was not agreeing with me; he was disagreeing with me. The smiley face has nothing to do with it. He could not say with authority that an automobile could not be a part of a crankshaft. Get it.StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Nothing would have to transcend reality itself to be truly nothing. Let's assume that nothing really existed. For it to actually exist, then nothing would actually be in a state of existence. Even if it is the only possible state of existence, it's existence as absolutely nothing could not be a part of reality, it would have to be at the final reality; else...it's something. In other words, if nothing existed, then how can it really exist? It appears to require a transcendent framework of reality to truly exist. And such a framework is not nothing... it's something. The closet might contain nothing, but there's still a closet.JGuy_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Notice how she jumps from the fact that the math of the big bang cannot explain the whole picture to "therefore there is an infinite collaping universe cycle" or "infinite number of universes interacting in some fundamental or primal fashion." I mean she is once again playing the physicist's secular religion card of "we cant explain it therefore anything but mind or God caused it." And of course there is no evidence of whether of his speculations- those physical models are merely fitted into the data- and not deduced form the data. That is the difference between ID and science and these physical theories and science. ID is an argument from evidence to inferred conclusion whereas her hypotheses are an argument from those ideas onto the data. They are just basically fanciful ways of delivering non-teleological arguments from ignorance.Frost122585_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Gildogen
It seems to me that if something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, but something. Am I missing something?
Yeah, nothing.JGuy_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen
It seems to me that if something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, but something. Am I missing something?
ROTFL I posted a simple comment on the stupidity of the vid's "explanations" on youtube - and as expected got a slew of ad homs in return. All from the monkey brained atheist gallery who don't want to think but just believe. Yet I made no mention of God, ID, creationism, ... just how do you get something from nothing.Borne_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

....response.Diffaxial_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Also for StephenB, from an earlier thread: I'm still hoping you'll provide to us an examplar of an argument within evolutionary biology that is defective specifically due to a failure (you claim a motivated failure) to observe the “rules of right reason”, as you submit above. I’m not aware of any posit with evolutionary biology that hinges upon necessary violations of causality, nor of the law of non-contradiction, nor of your postulate that both the universe or our minds are rational, or that wholes are necessarily greater than parts. Yet you have submitted that greater problems arise within evolutionary theory due to such failures than to deficiencies of evidence. I've asked this before, but have yet to receive a relevant. Still, in the context of a discussion vis evolution, you keep repeating right reason...tsshhht right reason...tsshhht right reason...tsshhht right reason...tsshhht right reason...Diffaxial_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

GilDodgen, #13 The term "nothing" is presented here and elsewhere as if it has ontological existence and creative power. Consider Peter Atkins, from Oxford University. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k31wsxV3E58&feature=related This is an example of the absurdity reached in light of philosophical naturalism. He is making truth claims – indeed so is Janna Levin – and subsequently throw out all references to the law of non-contradiction. There is no other alternative or explanation. But the theist is the idiot. Dallas Willard states this problem well, as far as I am concerned. "Evolution, whether cosmic or biological, cannot — logically cannot! — be a theory of ultimate origins of existence or order, precisely because its operations always presuppose the prior existence of certain entities with specific potential behaviors, as well as of an environment of some specific kind that operates upon those entities in some specifically ordered (law-governed) fashion, to determine which ones are allowed to survive and reproduce. Let us quite generally state: any sort of evolution of order of any kind will always presuppose pre-existing order and pre-existing entities governed by it. It follows as a simple matter of logic that not all order evolved. Given the physical world — and however much of evolution it may or may not contain — there is or was some order in it which did not evolve. However it may have originated (if it originated), that order did not evolve, for it was the condition of any evolution at all occurring. We come here upon a logically insurpassable limit to what evolution, however it may be understood, can accomplish."toc_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Stephen, you're into jazz. Are you into LPs? Broken records?
Indeed, when I asked these same bloggers if an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft, they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible.
You've been relating this fascinating crankshaft story for weeks, Stephen. But so far as I can determine you tale hangs on a single response, as follows, from Lenoxus:
Well, of course an automobile could be part of an enormous crankshaft, like some kind of huge modern sculpture. (It wouldn’t be a functional automobile in the sense of moving forward.) :)
Original here: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-principle-of-methodological-counterintuitiveness/#comment-328445 You'll notice that Lenoxus indicated that in this case the "crankshaft" wasn't an actual crankshaft, but a non-functional sculpture, and followed his comment with a frakking SMILEY, indicating that it wasn't a serious response. There is no "insisting" in that thread or anywhere else on this board. Nevertheless, you immediately got busy either misconstruing and/or distorting the obvious intent of his remark:
I appreciate your honest confession [or perhaps insinuation] that you believe that the whole is not necessarily greater than any one of its parts. This is, of course, the problem.
Give the crankshaft a rest, Stephen. No one, including Lenoxus above, has seriously suggested that an actual automobile can be part of an actual crankshaft.Diffaxial_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Paul Burnett's flippant remark, which totally ignores the transcendent God of the Bible and the fact his base "material reality" is just as imaginary as any of the pagan gods of history, reminds me of this video: Atheists: Trapped in Flat Land? - There's More! - Rob Bell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JmMTobaM68bornagain77_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Forgot to add, #2 is Levin's concept.magnan_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

It can be argued that all concepts of origins are illogical, implying that the truth is beyond logic and human reason. Take the following: (1) Absolutely nothing spontaneously became something and is eternal. (2) Almost absolutely nothing (except potential), spontaneously became something and is eternal. "Potential" had no cause and no beginning. (3) Something always existed and is eternal (no origin and no end) (4) Something came from absolutely nothing through the act of a Creator. Then before this an infinite regress of previous Creators of Creators. (5) Something came from nothing through the act of an uncreated Creator with no beginning and no end (at least no infinite regress problem, and more in accordance with cosmological fine tuning for life).magnan_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

JGuy (#9) asked: "So, why not the answer: God" Ah, but which God? The deist's generic "supreme being," or Jehovah / Yahweh - or Wotan / Odin or Vishnu or Zeus or Jupiter? How can you prove any particular god with one iota more credibility than Levin's "nothing to something"?PaulBurnett_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

That should read...anyone who [believes] that something can come from nothing or that an automobile can be a part of a crankshaft, cannot think.StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Reason has rules, which among other things, allow us to eliminate possibilities so that we can move logically from point A to point B. We cannot say, for example, IF A is true, then B MUST be true, unless we can also say that C through Z are impossible. If we didn’t agree, in advance, that C through Z are impossible, such as [a thing cannot be and not be], [the whole cannot be less that any of its parts], [something cannot come from nothing], [physical events cannot occur without causes etc.], then we couldn’t reason our way from A to B or enter into rational discouse with others. But postmodernist cosmologists and atheist Darwinists, who reject these rules, cannot, in any context, say If A is true, then B must be true, because they refuse to rule out C through Z. That is another way of saying that they cannot reason in the abstract. In keeping with the point, most rational people understand that streets don’t just get wet---something had to cause the streets to get wet. Thus, we say that IF the streets are wet, THEN it must be raining, or else someone turned on a fire hydrant, or for some other reason. Postmodernists, however, cannot do IF/THEN propositions in this fashion because, for them, reason has no standards, meaning that nothing can be ruled out. So they will ask, “Why can’t the streets just get wet?” “Can you provide me with evidence that moisture, like the cosmos or life cannot just come from out of nowhere.” or “you are wrong because quantum particles can appear without a cause,” and so on. For them physical events, or anything else for that matter, can “just happen.” Obviously, if that was really the case, then science would be finished because there would be no way of knowing which events had causes and which ones did not. Indeed, without the rules of right reason, anything at all can happen. Darwinists on this site often object when I point out that the whole must always be greater than any one of its parts. Among other things they have said, “We don’t know what ‘greater’” means,’ or “your rule is a mere tautology,” or “please provide evidence for your assertion,” or “those are just your rules,” and other such nonsense. Indeed, when I asked these same bloggers if an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft, they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible. On matters of design and chance, it does no good to provide evidence for anyone trapped in this postmodernist mind set, because evidence is of no use to anyone who cannot think---and make no mistake, anyone who thinks that something can come from nothing or that an automobile can be a part of a crankshaft, cannot think.StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

#8 Hey Mark–what you seem to have omitted from comment #2 is any explanation of how Janna got from nothing to something. That’s quite a remarkable philosophical feat. How did she accomplish it? Well that's at least phrasing an objection. So presumably the supposed error is that you cannot get from nothing to something. I don't know how she would respond. She only had a few minutes on you-tube to try to explain something quite extraordinary. But this is my response. It is true that to go from nothing to something appears impossible in our medium space/ medium time world; but we are talking about the most extraordinary circumstances imaginable. Even the phrase "get to" has to be stretched. This implies an order of events in time - when you get from A to B that usually implies A existed before B. But in this case B is the beginning of time - no thing existed before it. It is not that there was a void and then something. It is the word "before" that is the problem. It is hard to even phrase the question much less the answer. I would accept that her phrase "potential to exist" is problematic. All that you have to say is - things began - end of story. Why does this need an explanation or something else that didn't begin?Mark Frank_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

It seems to me that if something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, but something. Am I missing something?GilDodgen_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply