Marvin Olasky on theistic atheism – oops, I meant theistic evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 19, 2010

theistic evolution}

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

Today’s three great cultural flashpoints are abortion, same-sex marriage, and evolution. We can hedge on them and justify our hedging: Playing it cool here will help me gain for Christ people who would otherwise walk away.

I’m not knocking such considerations. Nor am I assuming that anyone who tries to meld eternal truth and contemporary trends lacks courage: Some do so on evangelistic principle, others because they believe what they’re saying is true. But attempts to unify antitheses generally defy logic.

Over the past 15 years I’ve tried to explain some of the problems of Darwinism. Last year I raised questions about the “theistic evolution” that Francis Collins espouses, but didn’t offer answers—and several WORLD readers have pressed me for more (see “Theistic evolutionist,” July 10, 2009).

Darn. He’s on to the story of the century, and I thought I had it all to myself. He continues,

To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.”

Right, exactly, that is the project of “theistic” evolution, so far as I can see. Helping theists get used to a world run by atheists and their values, while still hollering fer Jesus irrelevantly somewhere.

Comments

bornagain77 (115), "Gaz and what is the probability in quantum mechanics that a pan of water will spontaneously boil by all the heat in a room converging on it?" It's not a quantum mechanics matter - boiling pans of water are way too large for quantum mechanics to be used, this is the realm of macroscopic physics. Statistical physics, to be precise. The answer is that the probability of all the heat spontanously converging on the pan to boil the water is very very low indeed. Exceptionally low. It is not, however, nil.Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

veilsofmaya you state: "Our ability to describe time and space breaks down under the conditions found in the center of a black hole." Veilsofmaya actually the ability to describe time and space breaks down at the event horizon of a black hole where the force of gravity equals the speed of light. you then state: Our models fail quite spectacularly. So how do we interpret this? We see it is an indication that our model is incomplete. Paradoxes also also indicators that that something is wrong with our model. Our model? Maybe your particular materialistic model of the week which you have not told me which particular brand of materialism you are into this week since you feel the need change the definition of materialism at will! But if your model of the week is the one I think it is then actually Hawking's work on black hole evaporation brings coherent resolution. Dr. Craig deals with that "breakdown in your model" here: Refutation Of The Many World’s/Universes Hypothesis – William Lane Craig – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784630 If this is not the model you will have to tell me your definition of your model more clearly. You also allude to string theory, a theory I certainly am less than impressed with,,,,,,,, Another escape that materialists have postulated was a slightly constrained " string-theoretic" multiverse. The following expert shows why the materialistic postulation of "string theory" is, for all intents and purposes of empirical science, a complete waste of time and energy: Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law: Peter Woit, a PhD. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn't predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they're willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors. http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092756 Though to be fair, a subset of the math of the string hypothesis did make an interesting "after the fact" prediction of a already known phenomena: A first: String theory predicts an experimental result: Excerpt: Not to say that string theory has been proved. Clifford Johnson of the University of Southern California, the string theorist on the panel, was very clear about that. http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/02/16/a-first-string-theory-predicts-an-experimental-result/ Despite this seemingly successful prediction/description of a known physical phenomena, string theory is suffering severe setbacks in other areas, thus string theory has yet to even establish itself as a legitimate line of inquiry. Testing Creation Using the Proton to Electron Mass Ratio Excerpt: The bottom line is that the electron to proton mass ratio unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be constant over the history of the universe.,,, For the first time, limits on the possible variability of the electron to proton mass ratio are low enough to constrain dark energy models that “invoke rolling scalar fields,” that is, some kind of cosmic quintessence. They also are low enough to eliminate a set of string theory models in physics. That is these limits are already helping astronomers to develop a more detailed picture of both the cosmic creation event and of the history of the universe. Such achievements have yielded, and will continue to yield, more evidence for the biblical model for the universe’s origin and development. http://www.reasons.org/TestingCreationUsingtheProtontoElectronMassRatio As well, even if the whole of "string theory" were found to be true, it does nothing to help the materialist, and in reality, only adds another level of "finely tuned" complexity for us to deal with without ever truly explaining the origination of that "logically coherent" complexity (Logos) in the first place. Baron Münchhausen and the Self-Creating Universe: Roger Penrose has calculated that the entropy of the big bang itself, in order to give rise to the life-permitting universe we observe, must be fine-tuned to one part in e10exp(123)?10^10exp(123). Such complex specified conditions do not arise by chance, even in a string-theoretic multiverse with 10^500 different configurations of laws and constants, so an intelligent cause may be inferred. What is more, since it is the big bang itself that is fine-tuned to this degree, the intelligence that explains it as an effect must be logically prior to it and independent of it – in short, an immaterial intelligence that transcends matter, energy and space-time. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/baron_munchausen_and_the_selfc.htmlbornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Gaz and what is the probability in quantum mechanics that a pan of water will spontaneously boil by all the heat in a room converging on it?bornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

This is also interesting: Virtual Particles, Anthropic Principle & Relativity - Michael Strauss - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4554674bornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Veilsofmaya, In your appeal to the many worlds scenario of quantum mechanics at least you are staying somewhat consistent to the materialistic framework, though you also claim that materialism can mean just about whatever you want it to mean. But does the bizarre Many World's scenario help you in the least to "explain away" the necessity for the mind of God, which is "the matrix of all matter" as Planck has put it? No and let me point out one fatal flaw of many world's scenario. One fatal flaw with the appeal to infinite probabilistic resource of the many world's scenario is that it actually makes the ontological argument for theism certain: Ontological Argument Against Many Worlds - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641 God is not dead yet; William Lane Craig Excerpt: The ontological argument. Anselm's famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God's existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it's impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn't appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641 But what I find even more problematic with the many world's scenario of quantum mechanics is that it actually greatly increases the likelihood of "witnessing chaos from an island of order" in the universe as William Lane Craig alludes to at the last part of this video: Refutation Of The Many World's/Universes Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784630 further note: Eugene Koonin tried to use many world's here: The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin - Background: "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable; http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21 Biological Big Bangs - Origin Of Life and Cambrian - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284466 It should be noted that Koonin tries to account for the origination of the massive amounts of functional information, required for the Cambrian Explosion, and other “explosions”, by trying to access an “undirected cause” mechanism of Quantum Mechanics called ‘Many Worlds’. Besides Koonin ignoring the fact that Quantum Events, on a whole, are strictly restricted to the transcendent universal laws/constants of the universe, including, and especially, the second law of thermodynamics, for as far back in time in the universe as we can see, it is also fair to note, in criticism to Koonin’s scenario, that appealing to the undirected infinite probabilistic resource, of the quantum mechanics of the Many Worlds scenario, actually greatly increases the amount of totally chaotic information one would expect to see generated “randomly” in the fossil record (indeed we would expect to witness a "sea of truly bizarre chaos" if Many World's were true). Though Koonin is correct to recognize that the infinite probabilistic resource of the “uncollapsed Quantum Mechanic information waves” does not absolutely preclude the sudden appearance of massive amounts of functional information in the fossil record, he is very incorrect to disregard the “Logos” of John 1:1 needed to correctly specify the “controlled mechanism of implementation” for the massive amounts of complex functional and specified information witnessed abruptly and mysteriously appearing in the fossil record. i.e. he must sufficiently account for the “cause” for the “effect” he wants to explain. The point being veilsofmaya is that the materialistic philosophy is falsified no matter what route you choose to take to try to defend it. But why in the world do you try so hard to defend a theory that promises you nothing but death anyway?bornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

StephenB (109), "I don’t need to check. I have been through this dozens of times with Darwinists. Quantum events are not uncaused and they certainly do not represent an example of something coming from nothing." I know, but I don't think you understand that cause and effect does indeed break down at the quantum level. We certainly do see "something coming from nothing" at the quantum level, and indeed Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for it ((delta E).(delta t) greater than (h-bar)/2). Quantum events are expressed in probabilistic terms simply because we can't use cause and effect to predict what will happen at the quantum level - working out the probability of something happening is the best we can do. Hence, two identical neighbouring nuclei sat next to each other will be in exactly the same physical state, the same physical environment yet one may decay and the other not - and we can never predict which it will be. All we can do is assess the probability that one of them will decay. "You are reading the wrong sources. Indeed, all related discoveries about quantum mechanics were discovered precisely because it was understood that something cannot come from nothing. Were it not for that principle, quantum mechanics would never have been discovered. All science is based on that principle." No, that is simply wrong. Quantum mechanics did NOT arise because of conservation principles (to put in physical terms what you are saying), it arose because it was noticed that certain events only made sense if certain physical quantities took on only discrete levels and were not continuous. For example, Einstein got his Nobel because he gave a quantised - i.e. discrete packages, basically packets of light energy interacting with electrons - explanation of the photoelectric effect, with a better correspondence with experimental results, than the previous explanations based on continuous light waves that gave a poor correspondence with experiment. "I don’t care how you describe the relationship. You are missing the point. Nothing can change itself and nothing can heat itself." That is wrong. An isolated system CAN change itself, by shifting energy around internally - e.g. localised heating. The total energy within the isolated system cannot change - first law of thermodynamics - but that doesn't stop internal redistribution of energy. "Also, you are avoiding the question. From whence comes the energy found in the isolated system?" A good point, but easily explained. Isolated systems can be (usually are) systems that have been given energy in the past but become isolated at a later time. An example: boil a kettle, put the hot water in a flask, seal it and its isolated (far from perfectly, but as well as we can do domestically and it makes the point). I have a flask that can keep the water hot for 24 hours. So the water is heated, then isolated (as well as I can).Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

[Christianity cannot be reconciled with Darwinism. You either agree or you do not. Which is it?] ---veilsofmaya: “Do I define Christianity?” Clearly, you are not going to answer my question. ---“Therefore, ID concludes evolution is false.” ID does not conclude that “evolution” is false. ---“Note that whether evolution or reality is true depends on where one draws the line at which we can no longer gain additional knowledge though observation.” Whether evolution is true or false has nothing at all to do with what kinds of lines that we draw. [The purpose of the universe is to provide a stage on which humans can make moral choices so as to determine their ultimate destiny. It was created to be a universe of soul making. It is to build souls.] ---“The problem with this “purpose” is that is raises more questions than it solves. I would elaborate, but we’ve already strayed significantly off topic.” It was your question and you asked it at least three times. So, it was evidently very important to you. ---“If you like, I can clarify further.” Please do. ---“However, at a minimum, I’d suggest that Collins’ purpose is much more specific and addresses observable phenomena, while the vague claim that souls need “building”, does not.” Evidently, you do not understand what a purpose is. A purpose is the ultimate reason someone does something. Collin’s purpose does not speak to the purpose of why life was created. ---Nullasalus seemed to sum it up my process well. “Collins’ begs the question. If the universe was created for life, then a follow up question must be asked. Why? That was not Nullaslus’ summary; that was my summary. If, as you suggest, it was a good summary, then it confirms the very point you tried to discount in the previous paragraph, namely that the “why” question is the most important. ---“Since I’m guessing Collins would agree with you on “why” God created life, it would seem that your disagreement with Collins is really over the “how.” Earlier, you said that, according to Collins, the purpose of the universe was to evolve or to create life, and you insisted that his purpose was better than mine. Now you are saying that Collins and I would agree on the purpose. Do you even read what you write, or are you just filling up space?StephenB_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

veilsofmaya: Thank you for your input. I will use your metaphor to explain my position very simply: Many things in observable nature are not in the first tin. Certainly consciousness and all related phenomena. Certainly biological complexity, which according to the ID perspective (which is absoluitely mine) is necessarily a product of consciousness. Certainly not the beginning of universe, and maybe other things after that. Simple detrimental mutations are in the first tin. Complex functional mutations (in principle, they can be beneficial or detrimental to something, according to the context) are in the second. I am not in any way understating the importance of the first tin. The only error is in believeing it's the only tin. The first tin and the second tin are not rigid. Science is about expanding the first tin to include all that it is possible to include. Certainly consciousness badly needs to be included, not by stupidly trying to explain it in terms of models which cannot explain it, but rather by admitting its existence and correctly using it in our models. Consciousness and "matter", whatever it is, certainly are interacting realities. That's why there has to exist an interface. Quantum mechanics, especially when it will expand further beyond present models, is certainly a good candidate.gpuccio_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

---Gaz: "You are also wrong to say that something cannot come from nothing.It happens all the time at the quantum level – google Casimir effect, also check out the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as it relates to the complementary quantities of energy and time. Basically, under the uncertainty principle, small amounts of energy can spontaneously arise, out of nothing, for a small period of time." I don't need to check. I have been through this dozens of times with Darwinists. Quantum events are not uncaused and they certainly do not represent an example of something coming from nothing. You are reading the wrong sources. Indeed, all related discoveries about quantum mechanics were discovered precisely because it was understood that something cannot come from nothing. Were it not for that principle, quantum mechanics would never have been discovered. All science is based on that principle. ---"In other words, they can be spatially-connected neighbours provided there is no flow of thermal energy across the boundary between the neighbours." I don't care how you describe the relationship. You are missing the point. Nothing can change itself and nothing can heat itself. Also, you are avoiding the question. From whence comes the energy found in the isolated system?StephenB_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

@StephenB (#95) You wrote:
It’s not a false dilemma. Christianity cannot be reconciled with Darwinism. You either agree or you do not. Which is it?
Do I define Christianity? For that matter, does any one person, including Olaksy or yourself? Last time I checked, the minimum requirement was a belief that Jesus was crucified, died, raised from the dead, is the Son of God and human kind's savior. While this is controversial among Christians, the fact that there is controversy is, in itself, non-controversial.
I have no idea what you mean whey you say that each position is “arbitrary.” There is nothing arbitrary about the idea that God created the universe for a purpose.
You seem to be conflating the placement of arbitrary limit on the ability to gain knowledge with a position that the universe is not-arbitrary. Perhaps that's why you thought those 969 words could be summarized in a few paragraphs? Collins suggests that the universe cannot be explained by nature, therefore God did it using some means which cannot be explained. However, he suggests biological complexity can be explained by nature, therefore evolution is true. ID agrees with Collins regarding the universe, but suggests that only explain harmful mutations can be explained by nature; beneficial mutations were orchestrated by God using a means by which, again, cannot be explained. Therefore, ID concludes evolution is false. Solipsism suggests that, despite the appearance of a complex world external to ourselves, no explanation can confirm anything but our own existence. Therefore, reality is false. Note that whether evolution or reality is true depends on where one draws the line at which we can no longer gain additional knowledge though observation. In each case, I'm suggesting the boundary chosen is arbitrary. This is in contrast to assuming the conclusions one reaches from drawing such a boundary leads someone to believe (or is driven by the belief) that anything in particular has a purpose.
The purpose of the universe is to provide a stage on which humans can make moral choices so as to determine their ultimate destiny. It was created to be a universe of soul making.
The problem with this "purpose" is that is raises more questions than it solves. I would elaborate, but we've already strayed significantly off topic. If you like, I can clarify further. However, at a minimum, I'd suggest that Collins' purpose is much more specific and addresses observable phenomena, while the vague claim that souls need "building", does not.
I can’t imagine how you extracted such a meaning from Scripture.
Nullasalus seemed to sum it up my process well.
Collins’ begs the question. If the universe was created for life, then a follow up question must be asked. Why?
Human beings start out as a handful of cells and mature into complex form. This is in contrast to popping into existing out of thin air. Surely, if God exists, each "how" could be motivated by the same "why." Since I'm guessing Collins would agree with you on "why" God created life, it would seem that your disagreement with Collins is really over the "how"veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Incidentally, for those interested in the Many Worlds Interpretation linked, I have another link: The Many Minds Interpretation. One particularly fun quote from there: The idea of many minds was suggested early on by Zeh in 1995. He argues that in a decohering no-collapse universe one can avoid the necessity of distinct macrorealms ("parallel worlds" in MWI terminology) by introducing a new psycho-physical parallelism, in which individual minds supervene on each non-interfering component in the physical state. Zeh indeed suggests that, given decoherence, this is the most natural interpretation of quantum mechanics. There's plenty of interpretations that provide all manner of solutions and explanations, from various idealisms and "God is behind it all" to Bohm-style hidden variables theories to elsewise. Amusing stuff. Great for breaking your faith in scientists.nullasalus_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, You may interpret this vast difference in time as “spooky” behavior which cannot be explained. However the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics provides just such an explanation. 'Providing an explanation' is fairly easy to do, especially if you're able to imagine pretty much whatever you want as a possibility, and regard anything that doesn't outright contradict your idea given those limits as 'corroboration'. For example, for quantum teleportation to be a problem for materialism, you have to assume a very narrow definition of materialism in that is clearly false given quantum mechanics. As such, when theists like Bornagain77 brandish the word “materialism” they seem to be presenting a straw man. Actually, he just has to be branding what 'materialism' was largely viewed to be right up until quantum mechanics entered the picture. Since then, "materialism" has bled a lot of its meaning out, practically becoming 'Whatever we have to postulate to explain anything'. Now, panpsychism can be materialism. Idealism can, oddly enough, be materialism. I'm hard pressed to think of anything that can't be materialism. Collins thinks the entirety of biological complexity is in the first tin, but the beginning universe is not, while ID thinks detrimental mutations are in the first tin, but beneficial mutations are in the second. That's mistaken in a few ways, depending on what you mean. If you're saying that ID proposes that only 'beneficial' or 'nice' things are designed, and anything harmful isn't, you need only go so far as Behe. He'll say flat out that malaria (for example) can show signs of design. Second, for most of the ID proponents I'm aware of, it's not the mere distinction of 'beneficial / malevolent' that matters, but how many and to achieve what. If somehow certain organisms had formed what seemed like a wholly malevolent structure (say, some biological internal 'bomb' that exploded and killed the creature at random, with no benefits to itself or population elsewise) I think it's fair that would still be investigated as a design instance.nullasalus_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

@Bornagain77 Our ability to describe time and space breaks down under the conditions found in the center of a black hole. Our models fail quite spectacularly. So how do we interpret this? We see it is an indication that our model is incomplete. Paradoxes also also indicators that that something is wrong with our model. But when I say wrong or incomplete, I do not mean that the answer is necessarily, to use my analogy above, in the second tin. For example, have you heard of the many-worlds, interpretation of quantum mechanics? Classical algorithms perform integer factorization in sub-exponential time. However, on a quantum computer, Shor's algorithm performs integer factorization in polynomial time. In practical terms, some computer scientists estimate it would take a million years to factor a 256 digit number utilizing a million modern day computers running classical factorization algorithms. Even if this is a pessimistic estimate, since the time it takes for classical factorization algorithms increases threefold with every digit, one would only need to add a few more to make the problem many times harder. On the other hand, factorizing a 256 digit number using Shor's algorithm would requite a few thousand arithmetic operations which could be run on a single quantum computer. You may interpret this vast difference in time as "spooky" behavior which cannot be explained. However the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics provides just such an explanation. However, due to the limited space, I can only summarize. When a quantum factorization engine is factoring a 256 digit number, the number of interfering universes will be 10^500 (10 to the power of 500) So, when I said a few thousand arithmetic operations are being run, these few thousand operations were occurring in parallel in each universe. You might ask, how do we convince scientists in these 10^500 universes to factor the same number? Shor's algorithm only acts on universes that are initially identical to each other and causes them to differentiate only within the context of the factorization engine. I'd also note that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics provides an explanation for many paradoxes, such as those associated with our common-sense flow of time, (the future seems open but the past is fixed) and time travel should it actually be possible. Space does not permit me to elaborate, so you'll need to follow the links. To summarize, we seem to agree that paradoxes in regards to time and space are significant. However, I'd suggest that hard to vary explanations really do exist which can resolve them. The fact that quantum computing has been observed in the lab strongly collaborates the theory.veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

@gpuccio (#94) Gpuccio, I think we both agree that there are slices missing from human knowledge when it comes to understanding reality. The question is: do these missing slices belong the same pie tin as the slices we do know about or do they belong in another pie tin all together? If the latter, what does it mean to say a slice belongs in some other tin? We used to think atoms were the smallest components of reality. In fact, the word atom originates from the Greek word for atomos 'indivisible.' Today, we know that atoms are composed of elementary particles, which themselves are composed of other elementary parties. Our view of the world is vastly different than materialists in the past. So, it would seem the question is: do these sub-particles belong in the same tin as the particles they make up or another? And what significance would such a statement have? For example, for quantum teleportation to be a problem for materialism, you have to assume a very narrow definition of materialism in that is clearly false given quantum mechanics. As such, when theists like Bornagain77 brandish the word "materialism" they seem to be presenting a straw man. Furthermore, the boundary I'm referring to is related to the significance of not being inside the first tin. That is, problem solving can no longer increase knowledge of that which is in the second tin. Collins thinks the entirety of biological complexity is in the first tin, but the beginning universe is not, while ID thinks detrimental mutations are in the first tin, but beneficial mutations are in the second.veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

StephenB (92), "So, you think my little example of the heat from a rangetop transferring heat to a pan of water on the stove was an example of an isolated system, do you? Here is a clue: The rangetop is external to the pan of water. Speaking of isolated systems, your explanation for the source of the energy or heat contained in them is what? Isolated means isolated from other physical systems [surroundings]; it does not mean isolated from the influence of the power that drives it and sustains it." That is incorrect: in thermodynamics - including the second law - "isolated" actually means THERMALLY isolated, rather than physically isolated from other systems. In other words, they can be spatially-connected neighbours provided there is no flow of thermal energy across the boundary between the neighbours. And your example of the pan and stove is not a good one - a pan and stove can, in combination, be a single isolated system. The rangetop may well be physically external to the pan, but the pan/range combination together is an isolated system if there is no energy flowing into the pan/range combination from outside. It follows, therefore, that there can be a local flow of energy WITHIN the isolated system, from the rangetop to the pan and thereby heating the pan, without there being any violation of the second law of thermodynamics. You are also wrong to say that something cannot come from nothing. It happens all the time at the quantum level - google Casimir effect, also check out the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as it relates to the complementary quantities of energy and time. Basically, under the uncertainty principle, small amounts of energy can spontaneously arise, out of nothing, for a small period of time.Gaz_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

I like Dembski's take on God purpose for creating the universe, or more importantly, on God's purpose for allowing the opportunity for evil to be a part of His created universe: End Of Christianity - pg. 35 Excerpt: It is vital here to form a correct picture of Christ’s redemption and our role in it. In allowing evil and then redeeming us from it, God is not an arsonist who starts a fire, lets things heat up for us, and then, at the last moment, steps in so that he can be the big hero. Nor is God a casual bystander, who sees a fire start spontaneously and then lets it get out of control so that he can be the big hero to rescue us. We are the arsonists. We started the fire. God wants to rescue us not only from the fire we started but also, and more importantly, from our disposition to start fires, that is, from our life of arson. But to be rescued from a life of arson requires that we know how destructive arson is.20 Fires always start out small. If God always instantly put out the fires we start, we would never appreciate the damage fires can do. We started a fire in consenting to evil. God permits this fire to rage. He grants this permission not so that he can be a big hero when he rescues us but so that we can rightly understand the human condition and thus come to our senses. In rescuing us by suffering on the Cross, God does end up being a hero. But that is not the point of his suffering. The point is to fix a broken relationship between God and humanity. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf which reminds me of this scripture: Romans 8:22-23 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. which reminds me of this poem: Lightning - Inspirational Poem - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4236830 In a windswept field the clouds build The sky grows dark, the air smells of coming rain As a nervous world stews in fearful anticipation Fearful anticipation for the promised Wonders, Of the new promised Wonders from the Ancient Ones hand Yes, the mighty foretold Wonders Soon to be seen across the land Could this be THE prophesied cleansing rain? Will He finally wash away all our tears and pain? Lightning cracks the sky open,,, For a brief instance the glorious white light of His kingdom is revealed,,, The tear in the sky threatens to rip the sky asunder The world roars applause with a loud sustained thunder An applause for the glorious light we have glimpsed From the world of light promised past death’s weakened fence Yes, of the glory promised to our every fiber and sense Another longer bolt of lightning teases us yet again And again the world with thunder shouts an encouraging reply Yes, Encouraging the glory of paradise to swallow this world whole Yet, it is followed by a long low grumble for being teased yet again For being teased yet again with the coming of a glorious paradise A long low grumble yearning jealously for the promise that is so soon near But alas, the sky closes behind the lightning bolt’s rip All the world is still as it was The clouds open up, The rain pours down But it is not really raining, the clouds are really crying Crying for the world must face yet another day Face yet another day of being one step short of paradise.bornagain77_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

I've been reading the posts between Veilsofmaya, StephenB, gpuccio and nullasalus regarding supernatural and purpose. Thought I'd enter some observations. There is a tendency to equate "natural" as "real," and anything that is not natural as "supernatural" or "not real." Discussions of this nature have permeated this blog since I started posting several years ago. There's an argument often goes like this: Since God is supernatural, He can't be real. And the further deduction that since God is supernatural, science cannot have any say in God's reality. Such an argument is predicated on several false assumptions. The first assumption is this: God is not real. (we can't know that) The 2nd assumption: If God is real, He is supernatural. (It's not a logical deduction) And the 2nd assumption allows one to arrive at the first. Several issues arrise here: How does one arrive at "if God is real, He is supernatural?" How does one arrive at "The supernatural can't be real?" The only proposal I can think of that would make this logical is an assumption of naturalism as the only reality. But such an assumption is only logical to an extent. As long as it does not consider philosophical or cosmological necessities, it remains logical; but once it goes beyond observable reality to consider issues of origins, it steps outside the bounds of logic. I don't know whether it's accurate to conceive of God as "supernatural," but it is not a logical deduction that what we call supernatural is by necessity "super real." OK, so we've done away with the most common logical objection to God's reality. What then? Well God then becomes a logical possibility. If God is a logical possibility, there are certain assumptions that can't be made simply by the possibility. One assumption earlier mentioned is that He is by necessity "supernatural." The term itself is a human construct for forces that are unknown to our physical reality. So I would say that "supernatural" itself has a potential to not be connected to any reality. But this does not in the least cancel out God. Why? Because "supernatural" is simply a term that changes with new information. Forces that we currently do not know in our physical sphere of reality may become known. They will then become natural (or known) to our physical sphere of reality. Let's assume for the sake of argument, the phenomenon of ESP. We have no empirical evidence that it is real. Right now for all intents and purposes, it fits with what we would perceive as "supernatural." Yet, it is a logical possibility. Once it becomes a reality through empirical evidence, then it will no longer be "supernatural." We will have a logical explanation for its reality. I'm not suggesting that this will ever happen, but it is a possibility. The same argument can be made for God. God is a logical possibility. If we come upon empirical evidence that God is somehow a reality, then God too will cease to be "supernatural." We will know that there are logical and empirical ways to determine not only His existence, but perhaps the methods/forces He employs to exert His will. Perhaps we will never find out those methods/forces empirically; then they will remain for us "supernatural," while God as an empirical reality can remain "natural" to our experience. So you can see that "supernatural" is really a construct of our imagination in light of that which we don't currently know. The ancients would probably see our modern technologies as "supernatural," because they would not have a basis within their reality to explain them logically. Now what does this have to do with purpose? If God becomes an empirical reality and no longer "supernatural," then all purpose falls within God's realm. Currently for the non-theist, all purpose is subjective to the individual. Once God becomes a "natural" reality, the individual is then committed to explore purposes outside of him/herself; given that the Judeo-Christian views of God are correct. It's a matter of what's the basis for purpose. If God becomes an empirical reality, then we will know that such a God had certain things in mind rather than others. There is a problem here though, because according to Judeo-Christian beliefs, God is not known through empirical investigation, but through faith. If an atheist truly desires to know what God's purpose is according to Judeo-Christian beliefs, he/she must have a correct understanding of faith from that perspective. Right now the common assumption is that faith is a blind acceptance of things for which there is no evidence. Yet this is not how most faithful Jews, Christians, Muslims view faith. If it was, then there would be no apologists. In fact, I would dare say there would be no Bible. What would be the point? If faith is simply blind acceptance, then the thousands of Chapters of the bible could be reduced to one sentence: "Believe in God because God said so." But faith is not that way. Faith understands that God created the world for a certain purpose and not another. It is because of this that we know about purpose and meaning even apart from God: although we may not know exactly what is the purpose and meaning, we know about the concept of purpose and meaning.CannuckianYankee_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

On the matter God's purpose for creating the universe, here are a couple of other thoughtful answers: St. John of the Cross: “God’s purpose is to make the soul great.” Stafford Betty, a professor at professor of religious studies at California State quotes Rabbi David Wolpe: --We are “sprit buds.” “If we are only buds today, tomorrow we may be flowers. Nothing less could please God so much. For God's innermost nature is loving, and love desires the good of the beloved, just as the best and wisest of human parents desire nothing so much as the good of their children. And what is that good? What else could it be, ultimately, but joy? God desires us to become joyous beings, realized saints. God creates with one purpose: to share his joy, to multiply, without end, the divine delight, to see the joy that resides at his core reflected in us--a few of us in this life, most of us, realistically, at some point in the next.” Now ask yourself how this fits in with Collins' Darwinism. The one thing that makes no sense at all is to say that God created the world so that it would "evolve." Indeed, it makes no sense to say even that God's purpose was to create life. That simply leads to another question---why?StephenB_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

---nullasalus: "I think what maya is getting at is that if angels are A) nonphysical (whatever that means nowadays) and B) able to accept or reject God, what’s the point of a physical world?" As stated, that would be a very reasonable question. The angels may well have fallen prior to the creation of the universe, although I suspect not. In any case, they would not need a physical universe since they are pure spirits. My theological perspective, for what it is worth, is that their disobedience may well have put a crack in the universe even before we arrived. However, veilsofmaya asked this question: —“Given that scripture suggests a physical universe is not necessary for US to choose or reject him, what other purpose did God had in mind?” We are not angels, so the physical universe is not irrelevant with respect to our moral choices. ---"as I said above, this assumes “physical” has more content than it really does. And I’d add that right out of Genesis, it’s clear that God didn’t have only humanity in mind. God had everything in mind – planets, oceans, animals, plants, etc. (Notice Genesis has all these things being created, and God calling them ‘good’. We’re damn important, but the sole and exclusive point? Since when?) Granted, all these things granted. However, the physical universe is part of our moral universe and was apparently meant to be. Don't forget I am discussing the purpose for which God did create the universe--I am not claiming that it is the only possible universe which God could have created for that purpose. veilsofmaya is confusing the two considerations. No one is making the claim that it is the only kind of created order throught which God's creatures could save their souls. However, it is through the created order we are now experiencing that God purposely intended for us to make choices about our final destiny. I suspect that God could have created us a solely spiritual beings, just as he created the angels, in which case a physical universe would be irrelevant. Insofar as we are composed of body and soul, however, and insofar as our bodies are part of the physical universe, and insofar as our choices involve our bodies, the physical universe [however you want to describe it as a non-spiritual reality] is part of the moral environment that God chose for us. We are tempted by both material flesh and non-material spirit. Without the physical universe, we could not be tempted by our physcial sensibilities nor would we receive any merit for overcoming them. Indeed, God needed a physical universe throught which he could perform the miracle of his incarnation.StephenB_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

nullasalus: It’s also a problem for ‘material’ and ‘physical’ (and therefore, ‘immaterial’). I absolutely agree. As I have tried to point out, one of my firm points is that consciousness is an empirical reality, and we have to include it in any map we build. That's the great error of anti-empirical scientism. So, what's cosnciousness? Natural or supernatural? Material or immaterial? But those questions have no sense, because consciousness simply is, it's real, it's the first reality we experience, and the one through which we experience all the rest. IOW, we can even doubt matter, we can even doubt nature, but we can't doubt consciousness. So, if concepts like natural and material have no meaning for the first and most important reality, they certainly cannot be assumed as absolutes for anything else. Indeed, "natural" and "material" are very relative concepts, bound to multiple assumptions about reality which can be very different from one person to the other, from one culture to the other. IOW, they are ambiguous concepts, of the worst kind.gpuccio_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I can’t imagine how you extracted such a meaning from Scripture. Would it be too much for you to explain how you arrived at such a conclusion? As created, man is composed of body and soul. Since his body is part of the physical universe, and since his body is involved in his choices, a physical universe would be part of that choice environment. I think what maya is getting at is that if angels are A) nonphysical (whatever that means nowadays) and B) able to accept or reject God, what's the point of a physical world? Of course, as I said above, this assumes "physical" has more content than it really does. And I'd add that right out of Genesis, it's clear that God didn't have only humanity in mind. God had everything in mind - planets, oceans, animals, plants, etc. (Notice Genesis has all these things being created, and God calling them 'good'. We're damn important, but the sole and exclusive point? Since when?)nullasalus_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, Given your thoughts on the supernatural and natural, I thought you may appreciate this comment/observation by Chomsky: There is no longer any definite conception of body. Rather, the material world is whatever we discover it to be, with whatever properties it must be assumed to have for the purposes of explanatory theory. Any intelligible theory that offers genuine explanations and that can be assimilated to the core notions of physics becomes part of the theory of the material world, part of our account of body. If we have such a theory in some domain, we seek to assimilate it to the core notions of physics, perhaps modifying these notions as we carry out this enterprise. In other words, the problem isn't just with 'natural' and 'supernatural'. It's also a problem for 'material' and 'physical' (and therefore, 'immaterial'). So I find the recent comment by veils of maya ("Given that scripture suggests a physical universe is not necessary for us to choose or reject him, what other purpose did God had in mind?") to be somewhat misdirected. As bornagain77 would probably emphasize in his own way, the physical world ain't what it used to be.nullasalus_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

---veilsofmaya: “While we both might think that Collins’ position appears irrational, it seems clear that we do so for very different reasons. As such, in demanding a yes or no answer, you seem to be presenting a false dilemma.” It’s not a false dilemma. Christianity cannot be reconciled with Darwinism. You either agree or you do not. Which is it? ---“In case it’s not obvious, I’m suggesting they are both arbitrary. Therefore some form of logical or rational reconciliation is not possible.” I have no idea what you mean whey you say that each position is “arbitrary.” There is nothing arbitrary about the idea that God created the universe for a purpose. That is about as meaningful as things can get. It appears that you are simply unwilling to confront a very simple question. Can purposeless Darwinism be reconciled with the idea of a purposeful creator? Why will you not answer this very simple question with a yes or a no. ---“However, if the universe is purposeful, as both you and Collins seem to suggest, then what might that purpose be?” The purpose of the universe is to provide a stage on which humans can make moral choices so as to determine their ultimate destiny. It was created to be a universe of soul making. ---“Given that scripture suggests a physical universe is not necessary for us to choose or reject him, what other purpose did God had in mind?” I can’t imagine how you extracted such a meaning from Scripture. Would it be too much for you to explain how you arrived at such a conclusion? As created, man is composed of body and soul. Since his body is part of the physical universe, and since his body is involved in his choices, a physical universe would be part of that choice environment. ---“Collins seems to think God created and fine tuned our universe as a means to eventually form the kind of life we observe. That is, the purpose of the universe is to evolve, whether through stellar evolution or biological evolution. Again, while I think Collin’s position represents an arbitrary boundary, he has provided a specific purpose for universe?” Collins’ begs the question. If the universe was created for life, then a follow up question must be asked. Why? It is the “why” question which provides the meaning of the universe, not the “how” question. The how is always for the sake of the why. Naturally, all of this would escape Collins because, competent scientist that he is, he is a terrible philosopher and not very clear thinker.StephenB_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, BA: I have not taken part in this interesting conversation, but I would just like to add a note on so called "naturalism", because that has always been a point of disagreement and confusion, which probably is not worthwhile. As I see it, the problem with modern so called "naturalism" is that scientists identify "nature" with "our theory of nature". I think veilsofmaya can probably agree that the two things are not the same. Distinguishing between a "natural" shere and a "supernatural" sphere can be a proper philosophical issue, although I am not sure how useful it is even at that level. But, at the scientific level, it just means a waste of time. The fact is, science deals with reality as we can know and understand it through some more or less definable procedures, let's call them "the scientific method", with all the caustion which is necessary about such a concept (ehm, my Feyerabendish spirit never dies...). So, nature, or perceivable reality and its workings, are the object of science. But we can agree that we don't understand the whole of nature, whatever it is. So, our present understanding of nature is a limited map, maybe under some aspects a wrong map. Only the most die hard scientists can be completely sure that science can never be wrong. So, the only way to define "natural" at the science level would be something like that: "natural" is what can be explained by our present map of reality. So, if our map is limited or wrong, anything which cannot be explained in that map becomes "supernatural". Or "innatural"? So, let's say that we believe the laws of physics as we understand them now can explain everything. Shall we call dark energy, if it exists and whatever it is, supernatural? The scenario of physics today is everything but a complete and non contradictory one. Even quantum mechanics, probably the most important theory of the last century, admits many contradictory interpretations. String theory, on which many great physicists have worked for decades, is more a problem than a solution. And that's only physics, not even astrophysics or, even worse, biology! So, wouldn't it be better that we avoid to use again in our discussions the words "natural", "naturalism", "supernatural", and so on? Or at least, if we definitely want to use them, please explain every time what we mean?gpuccio_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

@StephenB (#89)
You just invested 969 words to say something that could have been said in one or two pargaraphs.
If you understand what I wrote well enough to know it could have been said in a few paragraphs, then why are you asking for further clarification?
Please try to stay on topic, avoiding discussions about solipsism, fantasy universes, and other irrelevant examples.
I invested 969 words to show exactly how it's relevant and why Collins drawing a boundary at the universe appears arbitrary, and therefore illogical.
Do you or do you not agree that the attempt to integrate purposeless Darwinism with purposeful Christianity is irrational? You can begin by answering yes or no.
While we both might think that Collins' position appears irrational, it seems clear that we do so for very different reasons. As such, in demanding a yes or no answer, you seem to be presenting a false dilemma.
If the answer is no, then tell me how to reconcile the two points.
In case it's not obvious, I'm suggesting they are both arbitrary. Therefore some form of logical or rational reconciliation is not possible. However, if the universe is purposeful, as both you and Collins seem to suggest, then what might that purpose be? Given that scripture suggests a physical universe is not necessary for us to choose or reject him, what other purpose did God had in mind? Collins seems to think God created and fine tuned our universe as a means to eventually form the kind of life we observe. That is, the purpose of the universe is to evolve, whether through stellar evolution or biological evolution. Again, while I think Collin's position represents an arbitrary boundary, he has provided a specific purpose for universe. Not wanting to put words into your mouth, I pass the question to you. What do you think the purpose of the universe is?veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

..."Rob: "from someone who seems to believe that temperature cannot increase in an isolated system:" So, you think my little example of the heat from a rangetop transferring heat to a pan of water on the stove was an example of an isolated system, do you? Here is a clue: The rangetop is external to the pan of water. Speaking of isolated systems, your explanation for the source of the energy or heat contained in them is what? Isolated means isolated from other physical systems [surroundings]; it does not mean isolated from the influence of the power that drives it and sustains it.StephenB_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, you asked: My question is simple: is quantum teleportation supernatural or not? Since God "naturally", and continually, sustains reality then it is to be considered "natural" from a Theistic perspective for God to sustain reality, yet from a strict materialistic perspective, there is nothing "natural" about defying time and space, in fact quantum teleportation clearly falsifies the primary definition of materialism, Thus from a strict materialistic perspective every time a quantum event is witnessed by a materialist that defies time and space it should in fact be considered a supernatural event. In fact, even though I am a theist, I still am blown away by the "spooky" world of quantum mechanics which blatantly defy time and space, though it is to be "naturally expected" from a pure theistic perspective for transcendent God to sustain reality as such. Yet of more to the point with you veilsofmaya,,,,,, ,,,,Does being able to discern the primary reality of reality, i.e. Logos, through quantum teleportation and the first law of thermodynamics, mean in any conceivable way that you have a meaningful personal relationship with that prime reality or not? Of course not! that is the whole point of Christs' life, death, and resurrection is to "reestablish" God's personal relationship with each and every man and woman who is willing so that we might be received into his presence in heaven. The Supremacy of Christ Colossians 1 15-20 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity; Quantum Theory; and the Shroud Of Turin: - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993426/ "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - (Of Note: Planck was a devout Christian, which is not surprising when you realize practically every founder of each major branch of modern science also had a deep Christian connection.)bornagain77_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

@Bornagain77 (#88) Born, Despite all of the links and followups you've provided, It's still unclear what your position is. For example, given your last comment, you seem to suggest that God performs quantum teleportation on-demand in a lab because researchers have a personal relationship with him. But I don't think this is really your position. My question is simple: is quantum teleportation supernatural or not? If so, why is it that researchers can perform it on-demand in a lab?veilsofmaya_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya @77: You just invested 969 words to say something that could have been said in one or two pargaraphs. Although Olaksy is the subject matter of this thread, I am going ask you to forget about him since it has proven too much of a burden for you to distinguish between his thoughts and mine. Try, at least, to stay with the main theme. Theistic Evolutionsts are illogical to hold that a purposeful, mindful God could use a purposeless, mindless process to create. Please try to stay on topic, avoiding discussions about solipsism, fantasy universes, and other irrelevant examples. Do you or do you not agree that the attempt to integrate purposeless Darwinism with purposeful Christianity is irrational? You can begin by answering yes or no. If the answer is no, then tell me how to reconcile the two points. If the answer is yes, then concede the point and move on. If you must use examples, make them relevant, and do not try to cram three of four themes into one paragraph.StephenB_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, I hold that God is the originator and sustainer of reality,, i.e. the Logos. If you want tricks I suggest you go to a circus, but if you want a personal relationship with God, I suggest you go to Jesus Christ in prayer.bornagain77_{June 26, 2010
June
06
Jun
26
26
2010
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply