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

veils I'm sorry for any misunderstanding in my post in that I don't say that quantum computing is impossible, but the point I tried to make is that, as nullasalus has so clearly and eloquently pointed out in post 230,,,,
You believe in a humongous, possibly infinite, number of parallel universes that zip into existence day to day, and that these alternate universe people help us solve problems on quantum computers. You, my friend, believe in what most reasonable people would have once called the “supernatural” to an extreme that would make animists blush.
,,,, what you think the conclusion is from your interpretation of the "incomplete" quantum computation evidence is a wildly supernatural conclusion that is not justified in the least. I could just as easily and more coherently argue from a theistic position in that you have not addressed the fundamental problem of chaos/randomness that plagues any non-theistic solution.bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, I don't disagree with either you or viv - the point I was trying to make to StephenB was that we need to use and reason and logic based on classical physics when we consider Jupiter, because Jupiter is an entity that exists in the macro, classical universe. Certainly, we need different tools -often mathematical - when we consider the quantum regime. I hesitate to call it "reason and logic" because it is so counterintuitive, but it could certainly be interpreted as a kind of QM reason and QM logic for those more able than to think in QM terms. I'd also agree that particles obey QM laws, but we need to recognise that those laws tend to give probabilistic results rather than deterministic (as in classical physics), hence the breakdown in causality. My problem with StephenB's comments - and he does this often - is that he takes classical reason and logic and thinks it can be applied at the quantum level as a general rule. So if I talk about QM he disagrees on the basis that I wouldn't say the same thing about Jupiter. He doesn't appreciate - or doesn't want to appreciate - that the physics that applies to Jupiter is different to the physics that applies to the quantum realm. Thus, his apparently logical and reasonable statement that a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time is certainly true for Jupiter, but not necessarily true for a subatomic particle, for reasons explained earlier.Gaz_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

gaz: You say: We may be getting somewhere (emphasis on “may”). It’s certainly reason and logic that determines whether Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time, but that reason and logic is based on scientific understanding of the classical universe. The problem with the quantum world is that it is highly counterintuitive – phenomena happen that are completely against what we would expect in the classical world (apart from what we have discussed, cosnsider quantum tunnelling – I used to use tunnel diodes in a previous job). In #233, vivid comments: "reason and logic are not based on our understanding of the classical universe any more than they are dependent on our understandining of the quantum world." I think vivid has a very good point here. Reason, logics, and mathemathics are innate deductive disciplines, they are not dependent on understanding of the outer world. And, with all your certain understanding of QM, you will certainly admit that the fact itself that QM theory exists is made possible by a very sophisticated, complex and (you are right) often counter-intuitive application of logics and mathematics. So, your statement about reason seems at least inappropriate. Breakdown of cause and effect on quantum world, whatever its philosophical meaning, is not just an observed fact: it is an expectation of the theory. So, we can well say that a serious application of mathematics, which is based on deductive principles characteristic of human reasoning, allows us to build a consistent (and very effective) theory of some aspects of physical reality which oincludes, in part of its reaonings, an (apparent) breakdown of classical causality. Moreover, I think that you will probably agree with me that, in QM, even particles coming out of nothing (indeed, of the quantum vacuum, which is not necessarily "nothing") don't behave in an anarchic, completely lawless way: while they don't obey the laws of classical physics, they certainly obey the laws of QM. Reasonably.gpuccio_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

@bornagain77 (#154)
You know veils I looked up your quantum computations for Shor’s algorithm and it is not even completely proven yet:
Born, If you've concluded these articles suggest that Shor's algorithm is "Pure Imagination", it's clear you do not understand how quantum computing works. It's only necessary to solve a handful of non-controversial equations to prove Shor's algorithm actually does factor integers. Instead, you've merely cut and paste what seems like a "problem" for QC and Shor's algorithm and claimed it a "a another foray through the wild imagination of a materialist." However, even in the absence of an understanding how QC and Shor's algorithm works, are you suggesting it would be possible to factor a 2 digit number using Shor's algorithm, yet not a 256 digit number? Since we cannot yet factor a 256 digit number using a classical computer running a classical algorithm either, using you 'logic', classical computers and classical factoring algorithms would be pure imagination as well. The current challenge is creating a quantum computer with a large number of qubits which does not interfere with it's environment. Just as the current challenge in classical computers is creating transistors that can run faster, consume less power and not melt down in the process.
From now on if you make a claim please cite your claim up front so as to not waste the time of those who choose to respond to you.
Yes, it appears that you did waste you time replying as you even pasted an excerpt from one of the papers that actually demonstrated quantum factorization in the lab. We choose the simplest instance of this algorithm, that is, factorization of N=15 in the case that the period r=2 and exploit a simplified linear optical network to coherently implement the quantum circuits of the modular exponential execution and semiclassical quantum Fourier transformation. During this computation, genuine multiparticle entanglement is observed which well supports its quantum nature. Should you actually be interested in detailed explanations of how and why quantum computing works (which would give you an understanding of the papers you linked to do not suggests what you think they suggest) please see the following lectures by David Deutsch.veilsofmaya_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

RE 219 "but that reason and logic is based on scientific understanding of the classical universe" reason and logic are not based on our understanding of the classical universe any more than they are dependent on our understandining of the quantum world. Vividvividbleau_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

#230 !Upright BiPed_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

BA77, Oh, by all means take your time. And don't rush on my account - that was a suggestion and a hope, you're the one putting in so much work there. Looking forward to hearing back from you on this. And I'm still intrigued at this talk of 'transcendental information'. I keep seeing this idea pop up as information being the source of all reality, in various other contexts. Fascinating.nullasalus_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Veilsofmaya, I am suggesting that we can rule out (falsify) many specific concepts of God for several reasons. For example, may are in direct contradiction, especially on maters of great importance. No, many are not "in direct contradiction". Specific claims are. There are many conflicting accounts of Abraham Lincoln's life and beliefs. 'Well, then he probably didn't exist' doesn't become a reasonable option. Nor does it become the case that two historians who disagree about the details of Lincoln are therefore talking about two different Lincolns. They're having a dispute over the same Lincoln. What's more, even the wildest God claims are typically unfalsifiable. I believe in evolution, even common descent, though not Darwinism. But I know better than to believe that, say... a YEC's view is "falsified". They can maintain that God created the world 6000 years ago, and all appearances to the contrary are mistakes or outright lies. The God they believe in just happens to be capable of this. The idea can be argued against, internal contradictions can attempt to be found. Falsified? That's a joke. I also think the “supernatural” is a bad explanation for reasons I’ve already outlined. You believe in a humongous, possibly infinite, number of parallel universes that zip into existence day to day, and that these alternate universe people help us solve problems on quantum computers. You, my friend, believe in what most reasonable people would have once called the "supernatural" to an extreme that would make animists blush. Furthermore, it’s clearly impossible to know if a non-material, all knowing, all powerful being sat on the sidelines and watched our universe unfold naturally. Since when does God have to be non-material (especially given that 'material' hardly means anything anymore)? What happened to all those Zeuses and Thors and other gods atheists used to love bringing up as examples? Read your David Deutsch. He believes in Tipler's Omega Point, in no small part due to MWI. He just doesn't think an omniscient, omnipotent world-creating entity should be called God. Read your Nick Bostrom while you're at it. I repeat: A strong agnostic commits that the answer to the question "Is there a God?" is undecidable, regardless of proof. That means no probability estimates. Why do need to stay “true” to Darwin and what exactly would that mean if we did? Must I adopt his political and socio-economical views to be a “Darwinist” as well? I know what you're saying, Veils. I thought it myself for a long time. I argued with StephenB over a related topic. In the end, I couldn't do it anymore. Darwin is the one who wrote his theory. The only thing that really made Darwin's theory distinct WAS his metaphysics. Guys like Coyne, to this day, defend "Darwinism" with that specifically in mind. Play the game you're trying to play here, but realize that to do so you have to say "I believe in Darwinism, just my version of it happens to be one Darwin would explicitly reject". It's not like I'm saying that I disagree with Darwinism because Darwin was an agnostic and, darnit, I don't want to have anything to do with an agnostic's theories. It's his beliefs about the theory he formed that are the problem. Regardless how it is defined, if one suggests the ‘universe’ began when God created if from nothing, it’s unclear how the universe could be a requirement for knowledge, intent, design, subjectivity, etc. You might claim that human beings achieve these things via some completely different ‘mechanism’, but this would suggest that God made us as entirely ‘physical’ beings that mimic his ability to exhibit knowledge, intent, design, subjectivity, etc. Depends on the theology we're talking about, and again, these claims of 'non-material' have shattered. It made sense to talk about 'non-material' back when Cartesianism and the 'little odorless, colorless pebbles bouncing off each other' model was what "materialism" is. Those models are gone, upended. Now "physical" is obnoxiously wide-open.nullasalus_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

nullasalus you really gave me a plate full in 205, give me a bit to go through your cites, I will try to organize my notes on transcendent information in a more concise manner for you in short order (day or two). I appreciated your insights in your exchange with Gaz.bornagain77_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

@nullasalus (#151)
But you’re giving probabilities of God’s existence (”highly unlikely”), which only works if you think there is evidence in play which you can quantify – and evidence/quantification makes no sense when discussing what would be a deity one is strongly agnostic about.
I am suggesting that we can rule out (falsify) many specific concepts of God for several reasons. For example, may are in direct contradiction, especially on maters of great importance. I also think the "supernatural" is a bad explanation for reasons I've already outlined. Furthermore, it's clearly impossible to know if a non-material, all knowing, all powerful being sat on the sidelines and watched our universe unfold naturally. We could say the same for an omnipotent God who did not want us to know he existed. By definition, there would be no way to detect his actions if both claims are true. It's only when a particular concept of God is claimed to have impacted our universe in a specific way that we have information that could possibly falsify or collaborate his existence. So, yes, I would say there are some conceptions of God for which we simply do not have enough information to decide one way or another. However, most people do not make claims of their existence. And, as a critical rationalist, I understand the impact of the problem of induction on gaining knowledge: we accept the most tenable theory, which we cannot guarantee with 100% accuracy is true. You wrote:
But then there is a problem with believing in Darwinism, because Darwinism (at least any view of it which stays true to Darwin) excludes evolution as a process being used by a divine being for certain and known results.
Why do need to stay "true" to Darwin and what exactly would that mean if we did? Must I adopt his political and socio-economical views to be a "Darwinist" as well?
If the ‘physical’ includes subjectivity, qualia, formal and final causes, etc – and I see no reason why it in principle couldn’t, anymore – then a ‘physical universe’ is required because a ‘physical universe’ is just ‘a universe’.
Regardless how it is defined, if one suggests the 'universe' began when God created if from nothing, it's unclear how the universe could be a requirement for knowledge, intent, design, subjectivity, etc. You might claim that human beings achieve these things via some completely different 'mechanism', but this would suggest that God made us as entirely 'physical' beings that mimic his ability to exhibit knowledge, intent, design, subjectivity, etc. Of course, it is necessary for the universe to exist if we are to perceive it, have knowledge of it, etc.
What’s more, ’soul building’ doesn’t require a long life.
Neither does gaining knowledge or experience. The difference is we know people gain knowledge and experience. We do not 'know' souls need building, whatever that means, or that a universe would be necessary to do so. Nor am I suggesting that people do not have value unless they've lived 30 years.veilsofmaya_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Gaz, No harm done. Thank you for letting this tie up courteously, it is appreciated. I'm not perfect in that regard either.nullasalus_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

nullasullas (225), On that note, I'll just conclude by apologising for my comment about 10th grade stuff. It was unwarranted - guess I'm getting too old and grouchy for UD.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Gaz, You said that we observe things popping into existence uncaused, and that's what I've disputed. What you mean by "we observe quantum phenomena" really depends on what you mean. I of course agree that we can speculate, deduce, interpret, etc in various ways. I don't want to commit to more without rapt definitions in play. But yes, language is important here as anywhere, with some particular concerns with quantum topics. That I can agree with easily, so fair enough.nullasalus_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

nullasullas (223), That's a reasonable point - easy to get sloppy with language here. We do, however, observe quantum phenomena - which is my statement that you quote - and from those we deduce that the wavefunction collapses, or that a photon is in two places at once. Fair enough?Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Gaz, it’s not just making sense of mathematical formula, it’s also based on observations of actual quantum phenomena. If you don’t accept that, take it up with Michael Strauss and bornagain77 who brought him into it. You don't get it, Gaz. No one has, and no one ever can, "observe" something coming from nothing, or something popping into existence utterly uncaused. What you are saying is a lot like saying that we "observe" the collapse of the wavefunction, or that we "observe" the same photon going through both slits or interfering with itself in the twin-slit experiment. That observation has not, and can not, take place. It doesn't even need to be brought in here, but the fact that "measurement" is such a landmine topic in QM should at least have given you pause before nattering off with a claim like this. Now, we can formulate interpretations or entertain wild ideas to explain experimental results. That is absolutely not "observing" squat. I don't need to take this up with BA77, because he clearly knows this. I don't have to take it up with Strauss either. You were dead wrong with saying we "observe" things popping into existence from nothing. Not even the wildest quantum woo nut will back you up on this. If you want to back off and say "Yeah well, that's what I think is happening", be my guest. You won't be the first engineer with a nutty idea.nullasalus_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

StephenB (220), It's not an issue because if it breaks down then we will see effects with no cause (e.g. radioactive decay). If it doesn't then we see effects with a cause. There is no problem.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

nullasullas (218), it's not just making sense of mathematical formula, it's also based on observations of actual quantum phenomena. If you don't accept that, take it up with Michael Strauss and bornagain77 who brought him into it.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

214 posted prematurely —Gaz: ”It’s not the case that causality is “negotiable”, it’s just that there are certain situations in QM where it breaks down.” If it breaks down in certain situations, why can it not break down in other situations? How would you know which times it broke down and which times it didn't. You could no longer use the deductive principle of causality to make that judgment because you would have already forfeited it in the name of progressive science. I am amazed that you do not grasp this point. Indeed, for you causality is negotiable. By your standards there may be millions or billions of situations in which it doesn't apply. By what principle do you declare that it breaks down in quantum situations and nowhere else? Or, are you saying that it may break down anywhere and everywhere if we probe deeply enough. Clearly, you have not thought this matter through.StephenB_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

StephenB (214), We may be getting somewhere (emphasis on "may"). It's certainly reason and logic that determines whether Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time, but that reason and logic is based on scientific understanding of the classical universe. The problem with the quantum world is that it is highly counterintuitive - phenomena happen that are completely against what we would expect in the classical world (apart from what we have discussed, cosnsider quantum tunnelling - I used to use tunnel diodes in a previous job). I recognise no such law as the "law of non-contradiction" - what is it? There may certainly be other situations where causality breaks down. As for QM, we'' recognise it when we see the phenomena.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Gaz, If you think the difference between the quantum and classical world is special pleading, along the lines of the difference between Cleveland and somewhere else, then I’m afraid you need to go back and study high school physics – this is 10th grade stuff in the UK. Quantum physics is fine. I am talking specifically about your claim that... As for virtual particles popping into existence, it’s not just me saying that, it’s your friend Michael Strauss too (and you brought him into this, rememeber?). It happens. It’s observed. Live with it. No, it has not been "observed", and complaining that "but this is quantum physics!" doesn't help you out here any more than it helps Deepak Chopra. No one observes anything "popping into existence" uncaused or from nothing. What is 'observed' is just what you see on the road. In fact, less so, since a lot of this relies on making sense of math formula - abstractions. I won't deny that your grasping of observation, empiricism, and quantum physics is hovering around the 10th grade level. (Cleveland 10th grade.)nullasalus_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

The last sentence in 214 represents Gaz's comments, not mine. I repeat. ---Gaz: "I explained at 184 why you are wrong about causality at QM level and I don’t propose to waste more time on it until you’ve read that (and understood it." I understand it all too well. According to your source, quantum events are uncaused because we don't know the cause. That is an irrational proposition. ---"Frankly, I can’t be bothered wasting my time continually writing repsonses to you when you just won’t learn, so just look at these sites." But I have already and long ago been where you are now, and I have heard all these irrational arguments. It is you that are in need of instruction, not me.StephenB_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

nullasullas (215), If you think the difference between the quantum and classical world is special pleading, along the lines of the difference between Cleveland and somewhere else, then I'm afraid you need to go back and study high school physics - this is 10th grade stuff in the UK.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Gaz, Sorry, but that’s what happens – it’s everything to do with whether something is macroscopic or not. Like it or not, the quantum universe is totally different to the classical world we live in, and there’s a world of difference between cars spontaneously appearing on the highway and virtual particles popping in and out of existence. Nonsense. It happens all the time, Gaz. You see cars, you don't see cars. You see buildings, you don't see buildings. It doesn't happen in Cleveland during the winter, though. That's an important scientific difference. Happens plenty everywhere else, however. This is empirically observable. Wait, you say I'm engaged in special pleading? Funny you should say that...nullasalus_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

---Gaz: "Jupiter cannot exist and not exist at the same time for the simple reason that the quantum numbers for the system we call “Jupiter” are far too large for QM effects to have any bearing on it." So, in your opinion, it is quantum mechanics and not reason's principles that determine the fact that Jupiter cannot exist and not exist at the same time? So you are saying that the evidence science can decide whether the law of non-contradictionn is true or how and where it can be applied? ---"It’s not the case that causality is “negotiable”, it’s just that there are certain situations in QM where it breaks down." If it breaks down in those situations, how do you know it may not break down in other situations. There are trillions and quadrillions of situations that we are not aware of. Could there be millions of other such instances in which causality breaks down? If so, how would you know how to identify those situations since Jupiter is not a QM situation, its a classical physics situation where causality hasn’t broken down. I explained at 184 why you are wrong about causality at QM level and I don’t propose to waste more time on it until you’ve read that (and understood itStephenB_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden (211), "Poof" isn't scientific, but again I don't concede QM is "poof". Go back to my 112. Now then: QM explains phenomena we see at the microscopic level. That's what we use to try to explain quantum phenomena. QM is the tool, quantum events are the phenomena we seek to understand using the tool.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

nullasullas (209), Sorry, but that's what happens - it's everything to do with whether something is macroscopic or not. Like it or not, the quantum universe is totally different to the classical world we live in, and there's a world of difference between cars spontaneously appearing on the highway and virtual particles popping in and out of existence.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Gaz,
I would always rather know more about the physics, including cause and effect in QM situations, but the simple fact is QM explains vastly more than ID does.
I would like you to concede that "poof" is now scientific. And what does QM explain? Aren't we trying to explain QM?Clive Hayden_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
I am simply asking allegedly reasonable people to acknowledge the fact that the original source of energy in an isolated system could not have come from that system.
I'm happy to acknowledge that, again, modulo quantum uncertainty. But it does not follow that "nothing can change itself and nothing can heat itself." A system that consists of energy and matter can change itself and heat itself. To say that it can't, but that an external flame can heat it, makes no sense. We can redefine the system to include the stove and the propane tank, and we have an isolated system that's heating itself.
It is hard to believe that someone could get so invested in the world of symbolic language that he would claim not to know what “nothing” means.
Do you think that "something cannot come from nothing" is an unambiguous claim? If you can answer the questions, I think there would be value in fleshing out your claims. Who knows, you might see a need to modify them. We're both using symbolic language. I'm trying to use language that's less equivocal. Disambiguation should be the start of the discussion, not the fallback after wasting our time going around in semantic circles.
—“So you say. But of course, you can’t back it up, since alleged principles of right reason cannot be reasoned TO or demonstrated empirically. Oh, I don’t know, let’s give it a try. Can the planet Jupiter both exist and not exist at the same time?
I have no problem saying no. Does this empirically demonstrate the LNC? Does this constitute reasoning TO the LNC? If not, then what do you mean by "let's give it a try"?R0b_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Gaz, It’s not the case that causality is “negotiable”, it’s just that there are certain situations in QM where it breaks down. Jupiter is not a QM situation, its a classical physics situation where causality hasn’t broken down. Saying that utterly uncaused things/events are subject to rules and specific conditions is just a roundabout way of denying that utterly uncaused events aren't possible. What's more, the very idea of "observing" particles popping into existence either uncaused or out of nowhere is silly. Again, that's like me saying that I see things pop in and out of existence uncaused all the time on the highway. I start seeing them, then I don't see them anymore. Where did they come from? Where did they go? "Nowhere". At the absolute best, all you can ever "see" is some thing where it was, that wasn't there before. What you never "see" is it coming into existence without a cause, or from absolutely nothing. Just as, when I turn my head on the highway and see a car that wasn't there before, I did not "observe it coming into existence uncaused". And the reason I didn't has nothing to do with it being macroscopic.nullasalus_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden (204), I would always rather know more about the physics, including cause and effect in QM situations, but the simple fact is QM explains vastly more than ID does.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply