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

StephenB (203), {sighs} 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. 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. 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).Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya,
So I’ll assume ignorance, a disingenuous misrepresentation or some combination of the two, as you failed to address how any of the “details” I illustrated really do matter.
Ignorance of molecules to man evolution? Yes, you have it too, I think you're starting to get it.Clive Hayden_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, , leaving aside the multiple absurdities of MWI, “transcendent information” when looked at as a unique entity that has a tangible, and even “physical”, presence has far more going for it than just entanglement and teleportation and it (Information considered as a unique entity) ties up many loose ends in science in a very pleasing and coherent manner: the first part of this paper goes into more detail Heady reading! It would help if you would organize the relevant quotes under a single page sometime dealing with transcendent information. I'm fascinated by it. Either way, I want to make things clear. What I see you saying is that information is more fundamental than 'matter' (whatever that is, anymore). I hope you see my point when I roll my eyes at the idea of MWI being a materialist theory. I certainly can see some atheists hoping to rely on MWI to evade some disconcerting conclusions, but not only do I think it's not successful, but I think they don't appreciate just what they're accepting by making the move. Rather like drinking cyanide out of fear that one may be diagnosed with cancer. Now, I have a lot to learn about this subject, even Zeilinger's specific view. But when I hear that information is transcendent, that information underlies the 'material', I immediately think that's a claim with comes prior to a lot of this quantum interpretation talk. To illustrate what I mean, look at Max Tegmark - who accept MWI, and then 'roids it up to something even more breathtaking. But Tegmark, if I read him right, is a hyper-platonist - he thinks that 'information' (in this case, math) is all there is. Math doesn't describe reality. It is reality. I think you and I would both agree that even accepting MWI for the hell of it doesn't disprove ID, much less solve it. Paul Davies caused no end of outrage by admitting as much. And Deutsch? Just look at his interaction with Tipler. Once someone accepts the Omega point, or entertains it as a real possibility/destiny*, they're into theism land. Weird, strange theism land, but theism all the same. (* Destiny, if it hasn't already happened yet. One problem with the Omega Point is if it's true, then the reality we now experience is entirely compatible with it already having taken place.)nullasalus_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Gaz,
Not quite. The “poof” in ID is entirely random and we have no idea where, what or who the designer is or does. On the other hand the situation in QM is that we can at least put probabilistic bounds on events even if we don’t know exactly when or where they will happen.
I'm not arguing that the designer "poofs", though that cannot be ruled out if "poof" is a valid scientific observation, regardless of any associated probabilities involved in QM. The conditions for "poof" in ID, and your assumptions about it, are not what interest me. The causal argument either is or is not adequate, and with regard to QM, you claim it is not, ergo, "poof" is perfectly valid science. If you want to argue particular cases, that is wonderful, but you cannot have it both ways. It's not a matter of knowing when or where these particles will poof, it's the fact that there is no cause (according to you), and the probabilistic predictions do not cause anything. It's an "after the fact" assumption and probabilistic calculation which has no bearing on cause. But the fact within the "after the fact" event is that you claim no cause and effect. Therefore poof equals science, in and of itself, regardless of other considerations about a designer.Clive Hayden_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

---Gaz: "That’s an easy one – no, it can’t." [Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time?] Why not? According to you the principle of causality is negotiable. Why cannot a planet somewhere both exist and not exist at the same time? You stated with certainty that Jupiter cannot exist and not exist? What makes you so certain? ---"But again – yet again – I need to explain to you that the situation is from classical, macro physics, but (for the nth time) the situation is rather different at the micro levels where quantum mechanics operates." As I tried to explain to you numerous times, the point as to whether quantum particles come and go is not the issue. The issue is that the phenomenon is not and cannot be a causeless event.StephenB_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

@gpuccio (#160) Gpuccio, I'm finding this discussion interesting as well. While your reasoning and assumptions may be different from the Solipsist, isn't the end result the same? I'm a realist because Solipsism consists of the theory of realty with the added exception of it all being elaborate figments of my internal self. As such, It’s a bad explanation which I discard. You seem to hint at this when you say…
We perceive other beings who are similar to us (other human beings) and whose behaviour corresponds very well to our behaviour, which in turn corresponds very well to nour consious states
However, solipsism also makes the prediction that other people would give the appearance of behavior that corresponds with our conscious states. And our observations do support this prediction, right? Where solipsism disagrees is that claims these people only appear to be external to ourselves and therefore are not actually conscious. If consciousness really is a first person experience, then we cannot rely on observations to reject the Solipsist's claim as both realism and solipsism make the same predications. The critical flaw is that solipsism fails to explain why human beings only appear to be separate conscious external entities. This is simply not addressed at all. Instead it attempts to explain way the currently tenable theory of reality. You wrote:
But I am in no way affirming that both consciousness and biological infpormation are not accessible to scientific reasoning. Indeed, I do believe the opposite.
Couldn't the Solipsist make the same claim about Solipsism? After all, he is in no way affirming he cannot use reason to identify that these dream-like beings only appear to be conscious and are really just facets of his own mind. Nor is he affirming that he could not methodically study object-like facets of himself that obey laws of physics-like facets of himself which are discovered by physicist-like facets, which appear to work independently of him. He affirms that he can gain reason about and knowledge of these things, but he denies that we can know that they exist outside of himself.
Now, I do believe in that inference. [other people have conscious states] IMO, it’s one of the best inferences ever made. I like inferences by analogy. ID is an inference by analogy.
Gpuccio, First, this isn't really an analogy. Since you a person, which you know is conscious, you're inferring that the next person should be conscious, and the next person, etc. An analogy would be to illustrate the same point via a different yet related scenario. For example, since you know one computer gave you the right answer, you infer that another computer of the same model would give you the right answer, etc. Second, as David Hume illustrated, inferences are subject to the problem of induction. While you might think that other people are really conscious "one of the best inferences ever made", It's unclear why. Perhaps this is because it implies you are not alone? Rather than say we merely "like" one inference over another, I'm suggesting there is a solution to the problem of induction, which is critical rationalism. This is the process I've used to show that Solipsism is should be rejected.
The error of solipsists is that they seem to think that empirical knowledge about the external world should be “proved” absolutely, in a purely logical and deductive way.
The error of the solipsist is that he provides no explanation as to why human beings only appear to be conscious, why what appears to be external objects only appear to follow the an objective laws of physics, etc. As such, It's a convoluted elaboration of reality. Please note that my reasons for rejecting solipsism is not limited to an inference of consciousness in other people. Solipsism is convoluted elaboration of the entirety of reality (with exception of himself), including objects that follow the laws of physics, other people that surprise the solipsist and even disagree with his position that sophism is true!veilsofmaya_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden (199), Not quite. The "poof" in ID is entirely random and we have no idea where, what or who the designer is or does. On the other hand the situation in QM is that we can at least put probabilistic bounds on events even if we don't know exactly when or where they will happen.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

StephenB (197), "Oh, I don’t know, let’s give it a try. Can the planet Jupiter both exist and not exist at the same time?" That's an easy one - no, it can't. But again - yet again - I need to explain to you that the situation is from classical, macro physics, but (for the nth time) the situation is rather different at the micro levels where quantum mechanics operates. See here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18669-first-quantum-effects-seen-in-visible-object.html Basically, the oscillation can both exist and not exist at the same time - it's in a superposition of two states until the point where it's observed, when the wave function collapses. The quantum effect may also be considered in the familiar "Schrodinger's cat" thought experiment. A cat is put in a sealed box with a radioactive particle, a detector and a poison gas vial set to release gas when the detector picks up radiation from the particle. The cat is said to be in a superposition of two states - dead and alive - until an observer looks in the box. The implication is that the radiation from the particle - a gamma ray, say - is in a superposition of two states (existing and non-existing) until the observer opens the box. So yet again your question gives an obvious answer at the macro level, but not at the micro level - no at macro, yes at micro.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Gaz, You have two options, either their is a cause, and the causal argument applies, or there isn't, and "poof" is legitimate science.Clive Hayden_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden (195), The QM version isn't just "poof" though. As I mentioned in 112, there is an explanation at least for the way in which the energy can be martialled to form the particles. That gets us ahead of ID at least, whereby you would need to explain how the designer did it and also why the designer wasn't apparent when the deed was done (bearing in mind that we do see particles pop in and out of existence all the time).Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

---Rob: “Here’s a crazy thought: Why not respond to the request for clarification? Are you asking about a primum movens or not? If so, then why not just say First Cause instead of talking about external causes, like flames?” I am not raising the bar nearly as high as that. I don’t expect anyone either from a scientific or from a reasoned perspective to identify the cause, first cause or otherwise. 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. Inasmuch as there once was a time when there was no energy at all, this should not be too much to ask. But I realize that it may well be an intolerable stretch for those who are invested in a something-from-nothing ideology where things just pop into existence without a cause. Even in an isolated system, the system itself cannot account for the origin of its energy, much less can it account for the laws that do the regulating. ---“And what counts as “nothing”? Absence of matter? Absence of energy? Absence of quantum wave functions? Absence of the “something”s mentioned in the previous paragraph? ---And what does “comes from” mean? If B comes from A, does that mean that P(B|A)=1, or P(B|A)>>0, or P(B|A)>0? Does it mean that P(B|~A)=0? 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. ---“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?StephenB_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, leaving aside the multiple absurdities of MWI, "transcendent information" when looked at as a unique entity that has a tangible, and even "physical", presence has far more going for it than just entanglement and teleportation and it (Information considered as a unique entity) ties up many loose ends in science in a very pleasing and coherent manner: the first part of this paper goes into more detail: http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.htmlbornagain77_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Gaz, It is a common reproach against ID that the designer just "poofed" something into existence. This is, no doubt, an aversion to style, rather than the impossibility of it. But leaving that on the side, one cannot maintain an argument against anything "poofing" into existence (as with their imagined design method of the designer), because "poof" is unscientific, and maintain, at the same time, that "poof" is indeed scientific to avoid the cause and effect argument. One or the other, one or the other. Both cannot be maintained. If "poof" gets one out of the cause and effect sequence when it is convenient, one must also admit that "poof" is valid in other areas. I am not claiming that "poof" is the way anything was designed in reality, I'm only pointing out the inconsistency of materialists who argue against "poof" when arguing against design, and argue for "poof" when arguing against causation.Clive Hayden_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, I'm not advocating MWI, by the way. I'm just asking some questions. I'd like to read up on this transcendent information you speak of - I have heard of some scientists viewing information as more fundamental than "matter" (Zeilinger, perhaps?) I just don't see the incompatibility of that general idea with MWI. To give an example, Max Tegmark believes in a MWI view that makes the mere QM interpretation seek anemic in comparison. But that's because Tegmark, as near as I can tell, is some kind of strange hyper-pythagorean/platonist who believes that math is the most fundamental reality. That's a lot of things. Materialist? I don't think so. No it absolutely is not! nullasalus I find Many Worlds, which was primarily devised to “get around” the casual inadequacy of materialism to explain wave collapse, to be a completely absurd materialistic postulation. A postulation which has blinded many to seeing “active transcendent information” as what it really is i.e. the dominant, primal, component of reality i.e. Logos. Oh, I think MWI is pretty absurd. What I don't think is that it's materialistic. I mean, come on, let's be frank here: Materialism - what everyone meant by materialism for centuries, possibly millenia if you want to go back that far - is dead. It died a long time ago. That "I" am a smear of probabilities existing in a multitude of universes that are constantly splitting off is a downright supernatural, immaterial claim. That an atheist in a lab coat is making it hardly changes that. Go look at this paper where Tipler responds to some of David Deutsch's endorsement and criticism of his Omega Point to see what I mean. Tipler, recall, is an (admittedly unorthodox) Christian and ID sympathetic. You tell me what Deutsch is. nullasalus please try to answer this question, since materialistic hidden variables are proven not to be entangling particles, in quantum entanglement experiments, exactly what entity is entangling the particles? Do we appeal to an infinity of untestable universes to explain the phenomena? Or do we use the answer that is right under our nose? i.e. That “transcendent information” is its own independent entity? For me the answer is not even close. My understanding is that local hidden variables are ruled out as being the culprit, but "non-local" ones are still considered. Even MWI doesn't get around non-locality, it's just some bizarre cross-world different kind of it, which they think is better because for some reason. I don't think they even really explain "what is entangling", so to speak. Seems like more of a the-world-just-works-that-way thing.nullasalus_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Phaedros (191), There are and have been many scientists - both believers and not - who have sought to understand what is happening in nature without recourse to whether or not a God was behind it all. Nor do I think that cause and effect breaking down is a better explanation than trying to find a cause - as a matter of personal preference, I would always prefer to find a cause simply because, as a human being, I'm used to cause and effect in normal evryday life. It's easier to understand. At the same time, if the evidnce shows effects without cause - as it does in radioactive decay - then we have to accept the evidence. Now, if our knowledge improves and a cause is identified then so much the better. But it hasn't so far, there is no model to suggest one, so the likelihood is there isn't one to find, it's just QM up to its old tricks.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
—Rob: “But the source of thermal energy could be inside the pan, so the pan could heat up even if it were an isolated system. Even the water itself contains plenty of energy. If there’s enough water — say, a solar mass — it will heat up in a spectacular way...” Even if in your wildest dreams a pan of water could heat itself, which it cannot,
Water contains a huge amount of nuclear energy, and I'm guessing that if you had a solar mass of water, the gravitational pressure would result in fusion of the hydrogen atoms, converting some of that nuclear energy to thermal energy. My guess may be wrong, but you've offered no reason to think that it is.
you still have not explained the source of the internal energy that you claim makes it possible. So, you are, again, begging the question, as you always must.
Why is it begging the question to posit an internal cause for an increase in temperature, but not begging the question to posit an external cause, like a flame?R0b_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Gaz- Lol gaz you said exactly what I knew you would say and you betrayed your bias. You're just going to have to get over the fact that Christians believe God created everything and the greatest scientists were in fact trying to figure out how God did it rather than if God did it. It's not a question of "if". You also betray your irrationality again and again. You say that somehow cause and effect breaking down is a better explanation than trying to figure out what thereal causes are since we dont live in a universe where here are effects without causes. You can either take a Francis Collins viewpoint on it, i.e. Deistic, or a Christian, or some variation, as a theist and look for the root causes or you can halt science because some early scientists in the field couldn't work it out.Phaedros_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
—[Rob on the origin of energy]: “Are you asking about a primum movens? If so, I doubt that either empirical science or formal logic can answer that question, so it’s a matter of speculation or personal faith.” Notice that you cannot provide a straight answer to a straight question.
I asked for a clarification of your question, and provided a perfectly straight answer based on a tentative interpretation. The answer is that I don't know what the primum movens is or if there is one, since, as far as I can tell, it's a matter of speculation or personal faith. Here's a crazy thought: Why not respond to the request for clarification? Are you asking about a primum movens or not? If so, then why not just say First Cause instead of talking about external causes, like flames? And why not clarify your "something cannot come from nothing" claim while you're at it? What counts as "something"? A state? An event? A regularity? A statistical regularity? And what counts as "nothing"? Absence of matter? Absence of energy? Absence of quantum wave functions? Absence of the "something"s mentioned in the previous paragraph? And what does "comes from" mean? If B comes from A, does that mean that P(B|A)=1, or P(B|A)>>0, or P(B|A)>0? Does it mean that P(B|~A)=0?
You don’t accept the principle that nothing can begin to exist without a cause. Because of that deficient world view, you cannot interpret evidence reasonably or make reasoned judgments about the world you live in.
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. (BTW, if failing to adopt correct first principles leads to absurdity, then that means that those principles can be reasoned TO via reductio ad absurdum.)
So, you believe that isolated systems can be the sourcee of their own energy. For you, energy can appear “poof.”
No, I was very careful to talk about sources of thermal energy, which consist of other types of energy. Isolated systems obviously obey the 1st Law, modulo the uncertainty principle, and they can heat up if they contain a source of thermal energy.R0b_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden (185), Sorry, you've lost me....Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Phaedros, You're doing what StephenB is doing - coming up with principles that aren't valid. There is not necessarily any "reason" for some things to occur. Like it or not, QM does indeed allow for a breakdown in cause and effect. Many scientists aren't fussed about it either, but accept it's how the universe is and have to live with it. Nor is saying "this is how God works rationally within the universe" any different from saying "God did it" iff there is no underlying explanation for what God is actually doing.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Oh Gaz one more thing. No one is saying "God did it" is an adequate explanation. What they might be saying is something like, "this is how God works rationally within the universe."Phaedros_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Gaz- It is quite incredible that you cannot seewhy things popping into and out of existence uncaused is a highly dubious claim. First, what is existence? Secondly, the principle of sufficient reason tells us that there will be a reason for every contingent entity or effect. Third, there has to be some existence for it to "pop" into. There are also laws by which this would occur we only have to work them out.Phaedros_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Gaz,
Cline Hayden (177), that is what we observe. It’s the explanation that isn’t adequate. But explaining anything in QM is difficult – doesn’t mean it won’t improve though (and it’s certainly better than “God did it”)
We're making progress if you admit that "poof" is indeed scientific. :)Clive Hayden_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

StephenB (183), You're still just plain wrong and you refuse to learn. Your basically making up principles that no-one else uses or accepts. Part of the problem is that you try to use what you see in the everyday world around you and apply it as a general rule. But as has been made clear to you, the classical physics world that you and I inhabit is very, very different to the quantum world (or the cosmic sphere, where general relativity applies) and you can't transfer classical principles to those other regimes - it simply doesn't work. 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics) In particular from the latter, see these paragraphs: "One crack in this belief system has been produced by radioactivity. An atom of some radioactive substance such as radium will eventually decay, and in the process it will emit energy. But there is no known triggering event that could serve as the cause of this decay event. In a large collection of radium atoms the rate of decay can be accurately predicted, but the identity of the decayed atoms cannot be determined beforehand. Their decay is random and uncaused. Of course it is possible to assert that there must be a hidden factor interior to the radium atoms that predetermines their time of decay, but that factor cannot be found. Another crack in this belief system has been produced by quantum mechanical events such that the same sequence of causal events (or causal factors) regularly produces different effects (i.e. results), but the results may repeat themselves in some random (unknowable) sequence. Furthermore, the percentages of results of each kind can be calculated and they are highly predictable. Results of this kind are seen in the macro world of human beings only in the case of crooked roulette wheels or other such crooked gambling devices."Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

--Gaz: "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 one knows exactly what is happening. What we do know is that it is not a causeless event. The causal conditions for the quantum event MUST be present. ---"The entire scientific endeavour is NOT based on “causal adeuqacy”, it’s based on looking at the evidence and deducing what happened." Incorrect. Evidence doesn't speak for itself, it must be interpreted. One can only deduce what happend by using the principles of deduction. Need I repeat some of them. [A]A thing cannot be and not be [B]Nothing can begin to exist without a cause. ---"In the realm of QM cause and effect break down – that’s observed by science and it’s another simple fact that you and StephenB need to get past." There is no cause and effect breakdown in science. Science depends on the law of causality to maintain its rationality. What you need to get past is your something-from-nothing Darwinsm.StephenB_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

StephenB (181), Flattered you're still bothering, but your flagrant misrepresentation of my comments only serves to demonstrate that you really don't have the first clue what you are talking about.Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

---Gaz: "Good questions, but I think you’ll find that in StephenB’s view it’s all my fault for saying petrol/gas comes out of nothing (apparently)." It was your own analogy which exposed the absurdity of your position. Have you given up on your self-sufficient internal combusion system? If so, here is a question on which you can crack your wisdom teeth? Where did the engine come from?StephenB_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

---Rob: "But the source of thermal energy could be inside the pan, so the pan could heat up even if it were an isolated system. Even the water itself contains plenty of energy. If there’s enough water — say, a solar mass — it will heat up in a spectacular wayBut the source of thermal energy could be inside the pan, so the pan could heat up even if it were an isolated system. Even the water itself contains plenty of energy. If there’s enough water — say, a solar mass — it will heat up in a spectacular wayBut the source of thermal energy could be inside the pan, so the pan could heat up even if it were an isolated system. Even the water itself contains plenty of energy. If there’s enough water — say, a solar mass — it will heat up in a spectacular way." Even if in your wildest dreams a pan of water could heat itself, which it cannot, you still have not explained the source of the internal energy that you claim makes it possible. So, you are, again, begging the question, as you always must.StephenB_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 (176), But it was Strauss who said "virtual particles popping in and out of existence"! Now, he may well think that it's God doing that. But that is not a scientific statement, it's a matter of faith. Cline Hayden (177), that is what we observe. It's the explanation that isn't adequate. But explaining anything in QM is difficult - doesn't mean it won't improve though (and it's certainly better than "God did it")Gaz_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

---[Rob on the origin of energy]: "Are you asking about a primum movens? If so, I doubt that either empirical science or formal logic can answer that question, so it’s a matter of speculation or personal faith." Notice that you cannot provide a straight answer to a straight question. You don't accept the principle that nothing can begin to exist without a cause. Because of that deficient world view, you cannot interpret evidence reasonably or make reasoned judgments about the world you live in. So, you believe that isolated systems can be the sourcee of their own energy. For you, energy can appear "poof."StephenB_{June 28, 2010
June
06
Jun
28
28
2010
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply