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

veilsofmaya do you believe in God?bornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

@StephenB (#111)
Clearly, you are not going to answer my question.
To use an analogy, you're essentially asking me if the 2009 depiction of high-resolution touch screens, rather than analog odometer-style dials, on the bridge of the NCC-1701 Enterprise conflicts with Star Trek cannon. First, this is not my decision to make. Second, I do not assume the Enterprise is actually constrained by facts about reality because I conceder it fiction. My personal opinion would be no, as our perceived notion of technology would be like in the future (2245-2255) has changed significantly based on recent discoveries and new ideas; just as what is compatible with scripture has changed over the centuries. (which is something I do not recall you having addressed or acknowledged in any of your comments) As a strong agnostic, I think it's highly unlikely that God exists, let alone any of our concepts accurately describe him if he did.
ID does not conclude that “evolution” is false.
Replace "evolution" with TE.
Whether evolution is true or false has nothing at all to do with what kinds of lines that we draw.
Agreed. I was referring to conclusions drawn, not the actual specific state of affairs that exists in reality.
Please [elaborate further].
First, soul building is vague. How does it differ from gaining knowledge or experience? Nor does it seem such things require a physical universe. Second, it leads to the question, when do we obtain souls. Third, It's estimated 43% of conceptions are lost within ten days of ovulation, with the mother often being none the wiser. It would seem that these souls would be missing someone of such importance that God created the entire physical universe to obtain it. As such, what is the implications of a lack of soul building for those souls whom's nervous systems never formed? What of those who started to form, but never matured to the degree necessary to experience anything significant? If there is no implications, then it's unclear as to what purpose "soul building" exhibits other than possible claims that God is "creative" or some other vague notions.
Evidently, you do not understand what a purpose is. A purpose is the ultimate reason someone does something.
You were suggesting TE was purposeless. In doing so you were conflating God's possible use of a natural process (driven by the very laws of nature), with having no ultimate purpose. However, if Collins assumes the very laws of nature were specifically fine tuned to eventually produce life as we know it, then the process of TE was the means by which God implemented his ultimate goal. To use an example, why do human beings make any choices at all? Theists suggest this occurs because God supposedly created us with a kind of baseline which results in such behavior, but he also allows for significant variance, which would account for non-theists. This allowed, yet not dictated, variance is supposedly an intentional part of God's plan.
That was not Nullaslus’ summary;
I was referring the following statement, which Nullaslus summarized.
I can’t imagine how you extracted such a meaning from Scripture.
You wrote:
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?
You would both agree on the ultimate purpose, but not the means by which said purpose was brought about. Please see above. Collins seems to suggest that the purpose of TE is to create life using a natural process. Would you not agree that creating life was one of God's goals and since God is supposedly omnipotent, the specific means by which he did so is an implementation detail?veilsofmaya_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

@gpuccio (#110) Thanks for your clarification. Your position is roughly what I had anticipated.
I am not in any way understating the importance of the first tin. The only error is in believeing it’s the only tin.
In assuming there is a second tin, you're drawing the boundary I'm referring to. Where the boundary is drawn defines what belongs in which tin. For example you wrote:
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.
Here, you're drawn the conclusion that conciseness cannot be explained because it is a first person experience. That is, you've draw an arbitrary boundary beyond where human reason and understanding has no access and problem solving can no longer increase knowledge. Therefore, conciseness belongs in the second tin. However, Solipsism makes a similar claim in that, regardless of the fact that I appear to be interacting with a number of conscious beings in this discussion, we cannot know this for sure since consciousness is a a first-person only experience. Therefore, we should just admit we cannot actually prove reality outside of ourselves exits. While the second tin is not "supernatural" in the case of the Solipsist, the implications of unexplainably for things that reside in it is the same. Given that both of these claims are based on the assumption that first person experiences cannot be explained, why are you not a Solipsist rather than a realist and theist? This is why I'm suggesting that boundary drawing of any kind appears arbitrary.veilsofmaya_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

@bornagain77 (#113) You wrote:
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.
Born, I'm not appealing to anything. I'm simply noting where we agree and disagree and why. Again, that there is a relationship between matter and energy and quantum mechanics is non-controversial. That we do not have a unified theory does not mean that we need to assume the missing slices are found in some other pie tin.
Ontological Argument Against Many Worlds – William Lane Craig – video
Again, I'll ask, where are these staggering computational resources coming from, God? If so, how would we convince him to factor a 256 digit number whenever we please? Or are you suggesting that we'll discover that God only chooses to factor integers using Shor’s algorithm when he thinks it suits his perfect will? The many-worlds interoperation explains it by suggesting these few thousand arithmetic operations are being run in 10^500 universes, which are initially identical to each other and varies only in the context of the factorization engine.
You also allude to string theory, a theory I certainly am less than impressed with
You seem to be conflating string theory with the many-worlds interpolation of quantum mechanics.
Veilsofmaya actually the ability to describe space and time accurately breaks down beyond the event horizon of a black hole where the force of gravity equals the speed of light. And would break down completely at the proposed singularity.
Again, this is non-controversial. Your point is?veilsofmaya_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

@nullasalus (#106) You wrote:
‘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’.
I would agree. However, this does not seem to be the case with quantum computing. Historically, the classical Copenhagen interpretation focused primarily on predictions. That is, speculating on how quantum mechanics actually worked was general frowned upon, which represented an instrumentalist position. However, the many-worlds interpretation represents a departure from the classical Copenhagen interpretation as it seeks to provide a specific and hard to vary explanation to why these predictions come about (the interference of many worlds.) The very concept of quantum computing was founded on the specific assumption that the many-worlds interpretation was correct. That is, the specific way that worlds interfere with each other is one of the primary reasons why it's founders thought to attempt using quantum mechanics to perform computations in the first place. This is in contrast to first observing quantum computing, then assuming that there must be some yet to be discovered fact that explained it. Then noting that some quantum algorithms ran faster than classical versions, which was explained by a leap that there might be two universes or maybe three? Then noting that integer factorization occurred in polynomial-time, which was explained by another leap: the existence of 10^500 universes, etc. The many-worlds interpretation came first, then quantum computing was proposed from it's entirety. As such, I would suggest that quantum computing really does collaborate the many-worlds interpretation in a very significant way as it represents a hard to vary explanation. This is in addition to the points made here.
I’m hard pressed to think of anything that can’t be materialism. Something that was not a necessary part of, or for which interaction is non-optional with that which we originally considered material? For example, many theists suggest that it was not necessary for God to make a physical universe and that his interactions are optional. This is in contrast to quantum mechanics, which appears to be both a necessary sub-component of material things and always interacts in a predictable way (despite limitations on what we can simultaneously predict, etc) Some theists suggest that God actively sustains the physical world moment by moment, but they also tend to claim he can choose to only intercede in specific cases that suit his will. 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.
I've hinted at this in previous comments, but did not include them here for brevity. However, these clarifications still leave some mutations in the first tin and others in the second. Of course one could always make the stretch that, if the designer wasn't making changes, neutral or non-significant traits that keep an organism relatively stable also represent intent as the designer intended them to say the same. that is, If human beings are what God intended to produce, then a lack of future evolution due to non-intervention would be intentional. @nullasalus (#107) You seem to be confusing the many-minds interpretation with the many-worlds interpretation. For example, it's unlikely the many-minds interpretation would not have led physicists to think quantum computing was possible as it suggest there are only many-observers (minds) but a single world. In addition, it appears that that many-minds interpretation was abandoned by it's co-inventor, while a 1988 poll suggest broad acceptance among leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists. This includes Stephen Hawking, Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Of course, the exact figures could have changed since them, but MW is still considered a mainstream interpretation.veilsofmaya_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, One thing I forgot to mention in my response to your 131 was your very perceptive point about the breakdown of quantum theory. I assume you mean that, if quantum theory gives one set of phenomena and macro theory gives a different set of phenomena, then there must be a point somewhere between the micro and macro worlds where the two become the same? If that is what you are asking then you are right - it is called the Correspondence Principle. Basically, it means that in states where there are high quantum numbers -e.g. large numbers of particles - the quantum theory using high quantum numbers equates to macro physics theory. Personally - again, only my own personal thought - is that there is probably a vast range around the Correspondence principle whereby at the lower end QM theory and macro theory wash around together, with QM domination, and the reverse at the higher end (i.e. larger quantum number end). But I've no evidence for this, nor come across any.Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Phaedros @ 134, An interesting question - but do YOU know what "nothing" is? In physics, it's a lot more involved than you might expect......Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB (133), No, you still miss the point - you don't need to know where the energy of an isolated system came from to understand the thermodynamics of it. Your continual asking of the question is a lot like saying you can't explain the workings of an internal combustion engine without saying where the petrol (translation if needed: gas) came from. It's completely unnecessary.Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, regarding your comments at 128 to 130 - I heard nothing in the Strauss video about transcendent information networks. What I did hear, though, was Strauss talking about "virtual particles popping in and out of existence", which is precisely my point - something can come from nothing (at the quantum level). Strauss clearly agrees with me. Presumably you can help StephenB to see that Strauss and I are right?Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

gpuccio (54),
Ah, and the only argument I have ever seen from you is an argument from authority.
I have made no arguments from authority. I reference the peer reviewed literature and publicly available research from the past century and a half of biology and numerous other disciplines. I would love to see more ID proponents learn more about biology and read the literature for themselves rather than making yet more arguments from personal incredulity coupled with probability calculations that utterly fail to take into consideration the underlying science.Cassandra_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, Thanks for your interesting note at 131. To answer your first question, I was a physicist but am now a patent attorney - basically, I get to do the interesting stuff of science and technology, but also law (and more money, I dare say!). QM isn't easy at all. It involves a realm of existence - the very micro levels - that don't directly affect humans as a species in nature and hence we haven't evolved to understand the QM world. Personally - and this is only my personal opinion - I doubt we ever will fully understand it. I agree with you about the interpretation bit. There are different interpretations of the QM world (Copenhagen etc.) but they can only be approximate interpretations to help human understanding and hence will probably always be imperfect. As to the meaning and philosophy - again personally, I don't believe there is any meaning to QM, it's just the way the universe is at the micro level. Nor am I worried about the philosophical implications - for me, we have to try to understand the universe as best we can but if it throws up some odd results that cause us issues then so be it. No sense arguing against facts. It (QM) doesn't alter the way humans live anyway.Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

gpuccio (53), My apologies for the delay in replying -- I've been traveling.
Even for a troll, you are boring:
I see no need for rudeness in this discussion. If an ID opponent were to make that same statement, I suspect he or she would be placed in permanent moderation.
1) The evidence for common descent with designed modification is overwhelming
Please present or reference it, then. Thus far you have completely failed to provide any scientific theory of intelligent design that explains the evidence at least as well as modern evolutionary theory and makes better predictions.
the evidence for common descent with non designed modification is nil.
Like Clive Hayden, you can only make this claim by willfully ignoring 150 years of research, in a wide variety of disciplines.
2) All evolutionary biologists over the past 150 years have not been accomplices in a conspiracy, but have worked under a big cognitive bias, and have been wrong on some fundamental points.
If that is the case, it should be no problem for ID researchers to identify those fundamental points and publish refutations in the peer reviewed literature. Thus far, no such refutations have been forthcoming.
3)ID is not an argument from incredulity, and never has been.
Actually, that is all ID appears to be, based on my reading of this blog and the writings of ID proponents. The lack of any scientific theory of ID that explains the available evidence and makes better predictions than modern evolutionary theory is clear to everyone.Cassandra_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

nullasalus @ 132 LOL ,,, The old faithful If I can't see it it ain't real hypothesis LOL 8)bornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Does Gaz understand what nothing "is"?Phaedros_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

---Gaz: .."is simply incorrect. In an isolated system – an ideal one – the energy within it is maintained anyway, because there is nowehere else for it to go (because the system is “isolated”). That’s the first law of thermodynamics." Sorry, but you continue to avoid the issue, which is the source of the energy. I am not talking about where it goes but rather where it came from. --"What will happen – by the second law of thermodynamics – is that the energy within the system will tend to be distributed throughout it so that it ends up evenly spread throughout the isolated system." That tells me nothing about the power thrust that keeps things moving. It tells me nothing about the origin of the law. What is the source of that law? ---"I don’t need to explain the source of the energy." What you mean is, you choose not to answer the question. --"In most situations, the system received the energy at a time when it wasn’t isolated." Irrelevant to the question. ---"No, because it’s not necessary. You don’t need to say where the energy came from to explain the thermodynamics of isolated systems." You believe that because you are apparently unfamiliar with the metaphysical foundations for modern science. We tend to be down on what we are not up on. Since you cannot or will not answer the question, you declare that it has no importance. Earlier, you insisted that something can come from nothing and that it happens all the time. So, why not just apply that same principle here. Just say that the energy came from out of nowhere and the second law of thermodynamics came from out of nowhere. You may as well be consistent.StephenB_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, So instead of accepting the most parsimonious explanation that transcendent information is what gave (and gives) rise to this universe you say particles pop in to existence from nowhere? Thanks for clearing that up with solid scientific reasoning. Come now, BA77. Things pop into existence from nothing all the time. Ever drive on a highway? You'll see cars, then you won't see cars. You'll see buildings, then you won't see buildings. Where do they come from and where do they go to? The answer is "nothing". I've heard some people say that all these things come from somewhere or something else. Superstitious people, I say, with their supernaturalisms. Science is on my side. (I kid, of course. But really, StephenB has gone over this time and again, and I never cease to be amazed at how many people will honestly assert that something comes from nothing, or worse, that science actually demonstrates this. This is vastly more magical and unverifiable than anything any ID proponent has put forth. Hell, cargo cultists are making a less magical claim. And yet...)nullasalus_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Gaz: Without entering into the details of your discussions with Stephen (which I have followed only in part), I must say that I think that you have a correct view of the matter as far as physics is concerned (are you a physicist?). Even so, I would like to discuss a moment the point of cause and effect breakdown in quantum theory (and if I am wrong, please correct me: I am not a physicist, although certainly sincerely interested in the matter). As far as I understand, quantum theory is at least in part a deterministic theory, and the evolution of the wave function is deterministic. In that sense, the cause and effect relationship is perfectly valid at quantum level, just as it is at non quantum level (I will not say macrolevel, as I believe macroscopic quantum effects do exist). Obviously, there is another aspect to quantum theory, which is the collapse of the wave function, or however one wants to call it. Here, the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function becomes the cause of what is observed, and traditional rigid cause and effect relationship is disrupted. I hope I am right up to now. The interesting point, IMO, is that, while QM has been confirmed extensively at the operational level, the meaning of some aspects of the theory at the level of philosophy of science, or more simply of philosophy, remains open to a rich debate. And, obviously, the meaning of the wave function, of its collapse, the role of the observer and of determinism (or non determinism) at QM level are among the most debated issues. My idea is that exactly this unsolved cognitive status is what makes of QM a really precious subject for general theories of reality, and especially for theories of consciousness. I am not saying that we know enough to really elaborate a detailed theory, but provisional attempts have been made, and I am confident that new knowledge, both experimental and cognitive, is accumulating about those points, and that in time it will give us better tools to integrate QM in those general theories. That's only to say that I agree with what you say abou QM, but that still it is not easy, at present, to give a precise and univocal interpretation of the "cause and effect relationship disruption" at quantum level in a more general picture of reality, or at a purely philosophical level. I remain very interested but cautious about that point.gpuccio_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

As for mass coming from information, come back to me when they find the Higgs Boson then we can hash it out if you want.bornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

correcion: Gaz as for you saying that virtual particles have absolutely nothing to do with the anthropic principle,,,bornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Gaz as for you denying that virtual particles have absolutely nothing to do with the anthropic principle please see the video I listed in which Dr. Strauss, who has a PhD. in particle physics, explains that the "top quark" is a virtual particle, and that without it we would not be here to observe that it is "virtual"!bornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Gaz, So instead of accepting the most parsimonious explanation that transcendent information is what gave (and gives) rise to this universe you say particles pop in to existence from nowhere? Thanks for clearing that up with solid scientific reasoning. I can now go to church and tell everyone to stop worshiping God for now we know for a fact that absolutely nothing gave rise to absolutely everything because Gaz said so! I still have a nagging doubt Gaz,,,,Please tell me Gaz what exactly is entangling particles if it is not hidden variables or transcendent information?bornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 (125), You claim virtual particles arise from a "transcendent information framework", whatever that is. Very well - how do they acquire mass from information? Virtual particles have absolutely nothing to do with the anthropic principle. Aspect and Zeilinger have both done excellent work on quantum entanglement, not a "transcendent information framework".Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Gaz on the quantum level you argue: "not only can something come from nothing but that it happens all the time." Yet that is clearly not true for transcendent information is found to be "real" by the refutation of the hidden variable argument, by Alain Aspect and company, and by the violation of the first law in quantum teleportation, by Anton Zeilinger and company. If you have another materialistic solution besides hidden variables please present it for otherwise transcendent information is shown to be a real entity by at least two lines of evidence! Since I certainly see you presenting no coherent materialistic solution to these mysteries of entanglement and teleportation (many worlds especially included), I hold that what appears to be real is in fact real, i.e. I hold that Transcendent Information is real,,,thus since it is vastly more satisfactory to say that the virtual particles are arising from the transcendent information framework than to suggest that something is coming from nothing I find your suggestion that something does come from nothing to be lacking in understanding to what we are actually dealing with. As well to add further weight to my claim virtual particles popping in from "nowhere" as you would have it, are actually found to be in tune with the anthropic principle and thus are shown to have "purpose": Virtual Particles, Anthropic Principle & Relativity – Michael Strauss – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4554674 Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm "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 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

StephenB (122), I'm afraid your commnts do need correcting because you give incorrect statements about aspects of physics, and anyone reading your comments may be inadvertently misled. As to your final paragraph, my answer is a simple one: the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that, at a quantum level where cause and effect break down, not only can something come from nothing but that it happens all the time. We don't notice (unless you are a physicist) because the amounts of energy concerned are absolutely tiny. But at the macro level - i.e. the scale of Gaz and StephenB - then macro physics, including statistical physics, dominates hugely over quantum physics. The first law of thermodynamics applies and so does the second law. These say you can't get something for nothing at the macro level. The physicists joke, comparing thermodynamics to gambling, is that the first law says you can't win. The second law says you can't break even. And the third law says you can't get out of the game.Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I'm afraid your answer at 120 shows that you're trying to talk about thermodynamics when you don't really understand the basics of it. Your statement: "The energy within the isolated system, ruled by the laws of dynamics, must be maintained. The power source that does the maintaining is the ultimate cause of the changes." is simply incorrect. In an isolated system - an ideal one - the energy within it is maintained anyway, because there is nowehere else for it to go (because the system is "isolated"). That's the first law of thermodynamics. There is no need for any power source. What will happen - by the second law of thermodynamics - is that the energy within the system will tend to be distributed throughout it so that it ends up evenly spread throughout the isolated system. No power source is needed, the energy will just flow through thermal gradients without any interference (and if there was any interference it probably wouldn't be an isolated system anyway!). In the course of this entropic process, you'll find that some localities within the isolated system actually increase in energy because they were at a lower level than the average previously - hence the localised heating. Your then wrote: "You are describing an isolated system in which energy is stored, but you are not explaining the source of the energy. There was a time when there was no energy to be stored, isolated, etc. What is its source?" I don't need to explain the source of the energy. In most situations, the system received the energy at a time when it wasn't isolated. In my example, the system was the water which I then boiled and hence wasn't isolated (because I fed energy into the system). I then isolated it by putting it in a vacuum flask. It's only when I put it in the vacuum flask - i.e. isolated it - that the thermodynamics of isolated systems became relevant. "You have already indicated that you believe that something can come from nothing. Is that your explanation for this phenomenon as well?" No, because it's not necessary. You don't need to say where the energy came from to explain the thermodynamics of isolated systems.Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

--Gaz: "just correcting StephenB’s statements about certain aspects of physics" You are not correcting anything because I have said nothing that contradicts the laws of physics. The physics of isolated systems is not in question here, the substance of which I am familiar. My question is, by definition, metaphysical and it persists. What is the source of the energy contained in the isolated system? Everyone knows that Darwinists believe that quantum events are uncaused, energy comes from nowhere, life comes from non-life, mind [redefined] comes from matter, and that universes just pop into existence. I just wanted you to confirm the point that your something-from-nothing philosophy applies to heat and energy as well.StephenB_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 (118), Believe it or not, the probability that PZ will become Christian is vastly greater! Nonetheless, don't hold your breath waiting! Not sure where you see the futility though, I'm not arguing a position - just correcting StephenB's statements about certain aspects of physics.Gaz_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

---Gaz: "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." It only appears that way. The energy within the isolated system, ruled by the laws of dynamics, must be maintained. The power source that does the maintaining is the ultimate cause of the changes. [“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." You are describing an isolated system in which energy is stored, but you are not explaining the source of the energy. There was a time when there was no energy to be stored, isolated, etc. What is its source? You have already indicated that you believe that something can come from nothing. Is that your explanation for this phenomenon as well?StephenB_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

veilsofmaya; here is a excerpt that drives the point home of the absurdity of your many worlds position, though the excerpt is used in response to the multiverse argument from atheists, the overriding point remains valid against the atheists argument from many worlds of quantum mechanics: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1;10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. --- Penrose puts it bluntly "these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe". http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/multiverse-a-valid-hypotheses-t20.htmbornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Gaz, Is it lower than the probability that PZ Myers will become a Christian? 8) I just mention this since it clearly seems like an exercise in futility for one to argue from that position. Veilsofmaya, I want to clarify this point a little more clearly: 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 space and time accurately breaks down beyond the event horizon of a black hole where the force of gravity equals the speed of light. And would break down completely at the proposed singularity.bornagain77_{June 27, 2010
June
06
Jun
27
27
2010
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply