Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

We Will if You Will

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In response to Dr. Torley’s post here, commenter Graham asks:  “Can we now drop the pretense and just declare UD/ID to be religious”? 

Well Graham, let’s think about that.  ID theory posits that some observations are best explained as the result of the acts of an intelligent agent.  The theory does not posit any particular agent and the agent need not be a deity.  It could, for example, be the aliens Dawkins speculated about in his interview with Ben Stein. 

To be sure, many ID proponents believe the intelligent agent is God.  But that is a possible implication of the theory, not part of the theory itself.

Neo-Darwinian evolution (NDE) posits that unguided material forces are sufficient to produce all that we see and thus there is no need for a designer.  The obvious implication of the theory is that atheism is a valid scientific conclusion.  Again, Dawkins:  “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Many proponents of NDE are atheists.  But atheism is a possible implication of the theory, not part of the theory itself.

You ask if we can declare ID to be religious because some people take ID and run with its implications in theological directions.  Well, a lot of people take NDE and run with its implications in theological directions.  (Atheism is nothing if not a “religous” position)

Tell you what, I am happy to call ID religious if you will also call NDE religous to the same extent.  Deal?

Comments
Jurrasicmac,
A common theme here is attributing words and attitudes to me that I’ve never expressed. I simply don’t know how you got that I was ‘flattering’ myself. I was asked what kind of evidence I would accept, and I made an effort to even explain why I would accept it.
What I said was, "you make it sound like . . .", which makes it clear that it came across as implicit in how you wrote your reply. Whether you feel you are flattering yourself or not, I doubt I'm the only one who would think that's what was being conveyed. You certainly think you are being "more than fair", do you not? Please realize that people tend to pick up on other's thoughts and feelings from what they write. If someone has picked up the wrong "vibe", explain and correct, but just saying, "I never said . . ." doesn't necessarily exculpate you, or anyone else. Now, the implicit is also what you missed in my rebuttal to your initial reply. You note that we agree that seeking a miracle is reasonable, and that verifying claims is good, but that you therefore cannot understand my position that you are being unreasonable. You say, "I missed" where you changed your mind. Well, it should be pretty obvious that my point is that both the miraculous and verifiability of God have already presented themselves to you and the world. You are fine in expecting God to both give signs for His existence and miracles to prove He's more than a man. But to ask for and expect these things when He has already given ample evidence is unreasonable. And this is where it dovetails with my story about my (great) wife. Thanks for your concern over my marriage, lol. But to not discern the connection I was portraying is almost troubling. It's simple, but I'll explain it anyway. If my wife suddenly starts to worry that we're not going to be able to meet our financial obligations, put food on the table, or whatever, it cuts at the heart of my trustworthiness and providence up to that point, whether months or years. But, what am I to do? Say, "don't worry, I really, really promise to not let you down"? But she is already implying with her worry that she doesn't trust me, so why would she trust my words? The only thing that makes sense is to point her back to the months and years before where I was able to meet our needs. If she won't accept that, there is nothing I can do, or would really want to do, either. If she disregards what was done before, she is being unreasonable, NOT ME! Now hopefully you can get what I'm implying already, but I'll explain a little further in case you don't. Your situation is exactly the same. You are asking God to do something super special to help you to trust Him, to believe in Him, but He has already done everything reasonable to help you do so. If you don't accept that, it is your problem. You are the one who is being unreasonable, NOT GOD! He is not going to "bend over backwards" . . . yet again! You also, apparently (i.e., I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt), missed the implicit in my argument that books are enough to believe in other historical figures without further proof, so it should be enough for God as well. You rebut this by saying that there are books that you do not accept the character(s) or "author(s)" as real. That has no bearing on the fact that there are other books where you do accept the historicity of the character(s) and author(s). The implicit point is, it's enough; it's sufficient. Did you really think that I meant that since something is written in a book that one has to accept it as true? I doubt that you did. With that said, see Kairosfocus and other's responses above as to the reliability of the Bible. Look up Gary Habermas and contemplate his arguments from critical scholars, where he makes the case from only what even critics must admit as credible. Please also check out this video. It's short, and I wish for you to pay attention to everything that is said. There happen to be a couple of lines especially that I'd like you to hear and hope they cause you to ponder.Brent
March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
I said:
I do not believe that God does not exist.
Clive Hayden:
This is a double negative, so you do believe that God exists then.
No. I can't understand why sentences with the word 'God' are treated so inconsistently from the rest of the English language. Saying "I do not disagree" (which has two negatives, [do not] and [dis]) does not necessarily mean the same thing as "I agree." It can (and often does) mean simply: "I don't have enough information to say that you are certainly right, nor enough to say that you are certainly wrong." Sometimes, the use of a second negative can act as an intensifier to a negation. So, a 'double-negative' does not always resolve into a positive. The two negatives in the sentence "I am not at a disadvantage," do not cancel out to mean "I am at an advantage. The statement "I believe there is no God," is a positive claim; akin to saying "I believe that there is not a fork in that drawer." It is a claim of knowledge. Stating that you do not possess such knowledge does not mean that you believe the opposite; someone who had not inspected the drawer, when asked if they believed there was no fork inside, (a positive claim) may properly respond: "No, I do not believe there is no fork in the drawer." They may elaborate by adding; "because I have not inspected the drawer, I can not make such a claim," but the meaning of the original sentence is clear enough. For most people, at least. So in that exact same way, saying "I do not believe there is no God," does not resolve into "I believe there is a God," any more than "I do not believe there is no fork," resolves into "I do believe there is a fork." It is simply a way of saying "I do not claim to know that God does not exist." Please pardon me for being repetitive, but this seems to be a serious area of contention. I'm just trying to be as thorough as possible. This is no longer a discussion about the meaning of the word 'atheist', it is about English grammar. Saying "I don't believe Bigfoot exists," Is not the same thing as saying "I believe Bigfoot does not exist." The former is expressing uncertainty, the latter, certainty. There is no reason, in principle, to not believe that there is an as-of-yet undiscovered primate somewhere in the world. It falls completely within the realm of possibility. It would then be inaccurate to say "I believe that no such creature as Bigfoot exists." However, I have not seen convincing evidence that Bigfoot exists. There is evidence , just none that is convincing to me, personally. I don't have a different standard of evidence for establishing the existence of an unknown primate as I would an unknown amphibian or an unknown beetle. Since there is no particular reason to disbelieve in Bigfoot, and no particular reason to believe, it is accurate to say "I do not believe in Bigfoot." I also do not believe intelligent aliens have visited earth, but I would not say that I believe they have not; there is no way I could possibly know that. Again, not believing in the existence of something isn't the same as believing the nonexistence of it. And to be perfectly clear, I am not making the claim that no atheist believes that God does not exist with absolute 100% certainty. Some do, I'm sure. Most though would never say they are certain of His onexistence, not even Dawkins. Certainly not me. If I have been unclear or unconvincing, tell me which part.jurassicmac
March 25, 2011
March
03
Mar
25
25
2011
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
Jurrasicmac,
I do not believe that God does not exist.
This is a double negative, so you do believe that God exists then.Clive Hayden
March 25, 2011
March
03
Mar
25
25
2011
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Brent at [121] thanks for the response. I will try to be delicate in dismantling it. :-)
You say the evidence for God that you would accept is no more or less than for any real person, though you go on to say you’d accept slightly less evidence than for a person. You make it sound not quite like you are bending over backwards, but at least leaning back a little bit, do you not? I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t flatter yourself like that.
A common theme here is attributing words and attitudes to me that I've never expressed. I simply don't know how you got that I was 'flattering' myself. I was asked what kind of evidence I would accept, and I made an effort to even explain why I would accept it.
You then go on to explain about your random number test—and that’s what it is, a test, as you point out—in which you wait for God to reveal through some of His “associates” what those numbers are. This simply boils down to seeking a miracle, which I think is fine. After all, we’re talking about God.
O.k., you think this is fine, by which it seems like you mean 'reasonable'. I agree.
You say that it shouldn’t be unreasonable to test God as He has himself given people a challenge in the past to do so. I could say, “well, that was just for a specific thing” (and be right), but then there are examples of this (essentially the same thing) in the NT as well such as when Paul in 1 Cor. 15 appeals to the Corinthians to check his story out, and in Acts 17 where the Berean’s are praised for checking out what Paul was telling them.
Again, good so far. Verifying claims is a good thing. Agree completely.
You wrap up by saying, “Is my standard of evidence unreasonable?” And to this I must say, yes.
You seem to have suddenly changed your mind, but I missed where.
You say that you would accept the same evidence that you would accept for another person, indeed a little less. But undoubtedly you believe in many people whom you only have evidence for through books and writings by and about them.
Here's where your argument breaks down. The question that you asked me, essentially "What evidence would convince you," explicitly presumes that I'm not already convinced, that I harbor doubts for some reason or another. If it were the case with any other individual person that I doubted their existence, I can assure you that books about them or 'by' them alone would not convince me. There are many books about fictional characters, there are many books 'by' fictional characters. (by which the words of the book are said to be those of a fictional character, even though they're transcribed by another.)
And in this case there happens to be a Book, a compilation of 66 in fact, both of and about God.
Like I said, there are books of and about fictional characters. I hope it's not patronizing to point out that this is not evidence.
It’s as if God couldn’t have made it more plain or simple. God, GOD!!! used the most common way of dispensing knowledge among us so that we couldn’t miss it!
Actually, writing is nowhere near the most common way of dispensing knowledge in a historical context. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have been illiterate. And I beg to differ. God could have made it more simple, and in fact he supposedly used to, but stopped for some reason. He used to appear directly to humans and converse in person. He used to perform dramatic miracles on request often. (again, according to scripture)
I pity the poor atheist that can come up with enough courage to ask God on the day that they meet Him why He didn’t make Himself more plain. God will say, “I wrote a bestseller!”
A muslim may pity the poor Christian who can come up with enough courage to ask Allah on the day that they meet Him why He didn't make himself more plain. Allah will say, "I wrote a bestseller too! (and not only that -was it not blindingly obvious that my followers were an order of magnitude more devout? )"
You want a private miracle, too,
You say that as if it's unreasonable, even though you said just a few paragraphs earlier that "This simply boils down to seeking a miracle, which I think is fine. After all, we’re talking about God." Is it ok to seek a miracle, or isn't it. If not, why not?
...but the Book that contains the evidence of the existence of God, which by your own standards you should be required to accept,
My own standards do not require me to accept as evidence things I find in a book. (Where in the world are you are you getting this?)
...has a miracle that far outdoes the random number test, and many, many more!
No, it has claims of miracle that far outdoes my random number test. But so do the Quran, the Book of Mormon, and many other books. I presume you don't accept the miracle claims of these books, yet I'm the one who's called inconsistent and selective.
So let me askyou: Why should God come and pander to your petty little request when He has done so much greater already??? THINK ABOUT THAT!
For the love of- I'm not claiming that He should! I'm answering your question: "What would it take to convince you?" I could ask you an equally valid question: "Why shouldn't God fulfill my 'request'? If he actually has done so much greater already, It shouldn't require a great deal of effort.
Sorry for the caps, but seriously, think about that. I’ll make a frank confession. One of the things that makes me the most borderline insane is when my wife worries about some things because, to me, it just shouts that she is totally disregarding my trustworthiness up to that point in taking care of and providing for our needs.
That is an issue for a marriage counselor; I don't see how it relates to the subject at hand.
I am, however, quite imperfect. God is not. I would think that your position in relation to God is essentially the same as the one that my wife (infrequently, but sometimes) exhibits towards me. I would think that it makes God quite unhappy too.
You're asserting that, not demonstrating it. Remember, this whole conversation is based around the premise that I'm not convinced that God even exists, let alone that He has certain attributes.
So, do you see why I say I think you shouldn’t flatter yourself that you are “leaning” backwards in your requirements for the evidence of God’s existence? You have outlined a stance that paints you in a very awkward position, yes, but “bending over backards”? No.
No I don't see why you say you think I shouldn't flatter myself that I am leaning backwards, because again, I never said that! Read my post one more time. Someone claims to you that Mr. X exists, that he can receive communications from you, that they can receive communications from him, and he has a strong desire that you are convinced of his existence. You then propose a test of his existence that takes all those claims into account. Before you even have a chance to carry out the test, the adherents start trying to explain why the test won't work. "Mr. X doesn't like to be tested," (even though He's often requested to be tested) or "Why should Mr. X demonstrate his existence to you?" (Uh, I thought you said he had both the capability and the desire to) "If the stories you've already heard (written by Mr. X, no doubt) don't convince you, then confirming his existence in an empirical way sure won't" If you heard objections like that, would skepticism wane? It shouldn't. Actually, the hesitancy of the adherents to have their claims tested in a direct manner should increase your skepticism, if anything. You might think them a little kooky, if not deluded. I'm sorry, but you have not explained why my experiment, which would be valid in determining the existence of a human, is unreasonable in determining the existence of another being. You also have not presented a single argument here that doesn't also apply to almost every other religious claim.jurassicmac
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
And remember, just because you don't see a response from me, doesn't mean I haven't responded. If I can get back on the whitelist of commenters, I promise to always be as courteous and polite as possible.jurassicmac
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden [109]
You don’t lack the belief God doesn’t exist, you believe that God doesn’t exist. You have an opinion, and that is a belief.
I used to find it supremely amusing how often I'm told what I believe, but the novelty is wearing off. I will muster up all my linguistic abilities to try and say this as simply and clearly as possible: I do not believe that God does not exist. I don't know any better way to communicate that. If I were to say, as Clive puts it, "I believe God does not exist," that would be inaccurate; it is not a reflection of my position. What more can I say to explain my view? The only possible way I could amend that statement is to throw a 'probably' in there somewhere; I could say that "I think that God probably doesn't exist." Saying I think Bigfoot probably does not exist is not the same thing as saying I am certain Bigfoot does not exist. One is pointing out a lack of positive belief, one is making a claim of absolute knowledge. Frost122585 [123]
In your Bigfoot example- if someone believes Bigfoot exists that formally be anological to the Theist position. If someone was not convinced either way concerning Bigfoot’s existence that would be akin to the agnostic position- and if someone was convinced Bigfoot does not exist that would be the atheist position.
No. No, no, no, no, no. Please invest 30 seconds in looking up 'agnostic' in a dictionary, any dictionary. An agnostic is not someone who simply does not have a belief one way or another. An agnostic is someone who believes that it is not knowable whether something Is true or not. I am not an agnostic with regards to God; I think it would be in principle knowable, if He existed. Frost122585 [123]
Atheism is an active belief- a certain faith, that there is no God without truly knowing this for sure with certainty.
That doesn't even begin to make sense. Now it would be one thing if you guys said to me "Jurassicmac, you're using the word 'atheist' improperly," but that's not what's happening. You're telling me what I 'actually' think. I can assure you, that none of you knows what I think better than I do. Obviously a impairment to conversation is that we don't agree on the meaning of the word. Simple enough. For purposes of conversation, let's use a different word, and assign an agreed upon meaning to it. I am a non-theist, one who does not believe that God exists, but is also not certain that he doesn't. (again, this does not make me an agnostic, because I don't claim that knowing whether God exist or is impossible from the outset) Everyone happy? Can we move on?jurassicmac
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
It makes no sense to claim to be an atheist and that it only means a lack of belief because atheism means "without God". As I said earlier, claiming to be an atheist necessarily means to affirm that atheism is true, i.e., God does not exist. I think that atheist can be used in a way that only means "without", or "lacking", God, but when one says of themselves that they are an atheist, it can only mean that they are affirming that atheism is true, and the "is true" part is where the positive assertion comes in. All that said, I do think that there are many truly confused "atheists" out there who really should call themselves agnostics. Sure, they may only mean that they personally are "without God", but if they are not dogmatic about claiming God does not exist, they'd better take up the moniker of agnostic and leave atheist to those who make no bones about the supposed non-existence of God.Brent
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
jurassicmac @ 9, (First, sorry to go way back to an early post and discussion but I wanted to comment) Simply put you are wrong. What you are describing (the simple lack of faith or belief in the existence of God) is not atheism it is agnosticism. Atheism is an active belief- a certain faith, that there is no God without truly knowing this for sure with certainty. Agnosticism is clearly what you are describing in that it is essentially a vacuous position on the existence of God- that is one would have no faith that God exists because they have no reason to think he exists. But this is different than atheism because true agnostics don't militantly argue against God's existence because they don't know whether God exists or not, and hence they recognize that arguing against God's existence would be to argue FOR a position they themselves do not hold. Think of it in terms of a sporting event. The Theist thinks their team will win the game. The atheist thinks that same team will surely loose the game. The agnostic has no belief concerning the games outcome either way. In your Bigfoot example- if someone believes Bigfoot exists that formally be anological to the Theist position. If someone was not convinced either way concerning Bigfoot's existence that would be akin to the agnostic position- and if someone was convinced Bigfoot does not exist that would be the atheist position. Of course, I think God exists and that Bigfoot (most probably) does not. No offense, but this is not that hard to understand.Frost122585
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
bornagain11 @ 120 It would be similar to my experiment (not sure why the quotes are needed) if it were true, and if it were verifiable. Your example does raise an objection to those who would say my standard of evidence is unreasonable. Apparently, that kind of supernatural confirmation happens often. kairosfocus@ 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 115, 117, 118, 119... Seriously dude, your posts are probably north of ten thousand words, with dozens upon dozens of questions/comments. I love conversing with you (you are thoughtful, polite, and thorough) but I can't make this a full time gig :-) Perhaps you could whittle it down to 5-10 questions/comments at a time?jurassicmac
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Jurassicmac, I'll quote you since the post is so far up the page:
There are innumerable types of evidence that would make me provisionally accept the existence of God, so I’ll pick just one type for now. For simplicity’s sake I’ll list what would convince me of the Christian God. (I can’t really say what evidence would convince of ‘a’ god, a generic undefined God, because without specific claims to test, how would one even go about looking for evidence?) Most Christians agree that God is omniscient, and that he can communicate with humans in some way. Some Christians maintain that they can hear God as an audible voice, but far more would say something like God ‘leads’ or ‘guides’ them; at the very least, being omnipotent, if God has an important message to convey, he can do it. Pastors often talk about having God ‘speak through them.’ Another thing that is nearly universally agreed upon is that God wants everyone to know him and to trust in him. Obviously, accepting the proposition that He exists is a prerequisite for that. Also, God is a personal being, with a will, desires, and ability to think and reason. With those things established, we get to one example of one of the types of evidence I would accept. Here’s the simplest way to say it: The standard of evidence I would accept for the existence of God is no more or no less than I would accept for the existence of any real person, with two minor exceptions: Since God is incorporeal in some sense, I would not expect to be able to touch Him or take a blood sample or some such nonsense as that. Also, I would not expect to be able to hear him directly for two reasons: obviously being incorporeal, He would not be able to emit sound waves, and many (but not all) Christians maintain that God mainly speaks to his followers. (being an ex-follower, I would not fit that bill) So essentially, I would be willing to accept slightly less evidence for the existence of God than I would for the existence of a fellow human being, because with the human I would have a reasonable expectation of being able to see them (in at least a photograph if not in person), or if they were in a far away locale, to converse with them on a telephone. So in fairness, I could not demand a different kind of evidence for God then I could demand for a living human (who we’ll cal Mr. X) whom I hand no physical access to, and whom I had only one way communication with (I could send messages to him, but could not receive messages directly from him.) But of course, others who knew him could receive the messages. (For the sake of this thought experiment, the channel of communication is completely secure, no one could possibly intercept my message to him.) So the claim is: There is a person, Mr. X, who exists, can receive secure messages from you, who can communicate directly with his associates who you have direct access to, and he has a desire that you believe he exists. So, how would I test that particular claim? Easy. I could send him a very specific message, one that would be impossible to guess by an outside party. I would then ask those who claim to know him what that message was. If they could recite the message, the existence of Mr. X would be confirmed. If they made excuses as to why Mr. X didn’t wan’t to be tested, or they said they couldn’t hear him because I ‘didn’t believe’, my skepticism would rightfully remain intact. How does this apply to God? Four months back, I used a random number generator to output a series of alphanumeric characters, which I then wrote down and and carefully sealed in manilla coin envelopes, which I keep on my person at all times. (I have three copies, all with different sequences) I mixed them up, so I don’t know which folder contains which sequence; not that I would remember anyways. ( I can’t remember my wife’s cell phone number, let alone a random string of characters.) So, since God is omniscient He knows what is written in each folder, and no one else does, including me. (not even deep in my subconscious) A Christian who is in close relationship should be able to receive the sequence from God, and recite it to me because God, if He exists, can read my mind, and therefore would know that this truly would convince me. (That’s why I went through the trouble of preparing the envelopes in the first place; I thought long an hard about what would convince me) He therefore would have no reason not to participate. I usually get two immediate responses. One is that it is somehow and ‘unreasonable’ expectation. I don’t buy this; as I pointed out, it is actually less evidence than I would require for the existence of another human. The second is that “God doesn’t like to be tested” to which I usually reply: “You mean the God of the Bible? That God? The one who in Malachi 3:10 says: Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. Now, if you weren’t talking about the God of the Bible (the primary deity of interest here, it seems) then that’s a different conversation. Is my standard of evidence unreasonable? If so, why? If not, would anyone care to post the characters God has revealed to them? I’ll record the opening of the envelope and post it for all to see. Anyway, that’s one type of evidence that would convince me.
Well, as is often the case, I seem to be a little late to the party, but I'll set my dish on the table for this potluck anyway . . . You say the evidence for God that you would accept is no more or less than for any real person, though you go on to say you'd accept slightly less evidence than for a person. You make it sound not quite like you are bending over backwards, but at least leaning back a little bit, do you not? I'm sorry, but you shouldn't flatter yourself like that. I'll let you know why below. You then go on to explain about your random number test---and that's what it is, a test, as you point out---in which you wait for God to reveal through some of His "associates" what those numbers are. This simply boils down to seeking a miracle, which I think is fine. After all, we're talking about God. You say that it shouldn't be unreasonable to test God as He has himself given people a challenge in the past to do so. I could say, "well, that was just for a specific thing" (and be right), but then there are examples of this (essentially the same thing) in the NT as well such as when Paul in 1 Cor. 15 appeals to the Corinthians to check his story out, and in Acts 17 where the Berean's are praised for checking out what Paul was telling them. You wrap up by saying, "Is my standard of evidence unreasonable?" And to this I must say, yes. You say that you would accept the same evidence that you would accept for another person, indeed a little less. But undoubtedly you believe in many people whom you only have evidence for through books and writings by and about them. And in this case there happens to be a Book, a compilation of 66 in fact, both of and about God. It's as if God couldn't have made it more plain or simple. God, GOD!!! used the most common way of dispensing knowledge among us so that we couldn't miss it! I pity the poor atheist that can come up with enough courage to ask God on the day that they meet Him why He didn't make Himself more plain. God will say, "I wrote a bestseller!" You want a private miracle, too, but the Book that contains the evidence of the existence of God, which by your own standards you should be required to accept, has a miracle that far outdoes the random number test, and many, many more! So let me ask you: Why should God come and pander to your petty little request when He has done so much greater already??? THINK ABOUT THAT! Sorry for the caps, but seriously, think about that. I'll make a frank confession. One of the things that makes me the most borderline insane is when my wife worries about some things because, to me, it just shouts that she is totally disregarding my trustworthiness up to that point in taking care of and providing for our needs. I am, however, quite imperfect. God is not. I would think that your position in relation to God is essentially the same as the one that my wife (infrequently, but sometimes) exhibits towards me. I would think that it makes God quite unhappy too. So, do you see why I say I think you shouldn't flatter yourself that you are "leaning" backwards in your requirements for the evidence of God's existence? You have outlined a stance that paints you in a very awkward position, yes, but "bending over backards"? No.Brent
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
jurassicmac, your random number 'experiment' reminds me of this 'God's got Your Number' miracle: A musician and inspirational speaker, one day Ken was traveling with his family to his next concert. Contemplating giving up the road, he was growing weary of singing the same songs and repeating the same message. As Gaub shares in his book God's Got Your Number, while the rest of his group went to dinner he stayed on the tour bus to think and pray about his future. After awhile he decided to get a drink at the gas station down the road. As he walked across the parking lot to the station a nearby payphone began to ring. Since no one was around he decided to answer the ringing phone, and seconds later his life was changed forever. On the other end of the line was an operator who said, "Person-to-person call for Ken Gaub." In complete shock Ken told her, "That's impossible." Sure he was the victim of an elaborate prank, he looked around for cameras. "How in the world did you reach me here? I was walking down the road, the pay phone started ringing, and I just answered it on chance." The operator continued, "Is this Ken Gaub." He assured her that it was. At that point the operator connected him to a woman who was ready to commit suicide. He listened as this woman poured her heart out to him, telling him that she told God she needed a miracle if he didn't want her to end her own life. She explained that one day she had seen Gaub on television, and his words provided tremendous comfort and she was desperate to talk to him in person. Suddenly she saw a series of numbers in her mind and dialed them, thinking maybe she had reached his West Coast office. Instead she found out she had been connected to a phone booth alongside a gas station in Ohio. Both of them immediately realized a miracle had happened; evidence for Ken of God's call and evidence for her of God's love. We don't often receive such clear cut verification that our prayers are heard and that God's presence is real. But sometimes moments are emblazoned with the hand of God in a way we can't help but recognize. Most of the time the divine presence is more subtle, yet just as real. As Elizabeth Barrett Browning reminds us, Earth's crammed with heaven, And every common bush afire with God; But only he who sees, takes off his shoes, The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries. http://www.articlesbase.com/spirituality-articles/the-gas-station-miracle-that-saved-a-womans-life-2953498.htmlbornagain77
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
RF/N 3: In 360 BC, Plato knew better, as we may read in his The Laws, Bk X: ________________ >> [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . . >> _________________ We can hardly claim to lack adequate warning and evidence, methinks.kairosfocus
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
F/N 2: Let us hear, yet again, what Lewontin had to say, c. 1997: _________________ >> To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.] >> _________________ A sobering confession, in light of the above.kairosfocus
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
F/N: I observe that JM has focussd on the NT questions, and has so far not responded -- since responses were posted, it does not look like a moderation delay -- on the main set of origins and worldview roots issues addressed from 97 on, and with a point to point response to his earlier remarks, in 99 - 100 on my questions a to e. Let us await his onward response. In the meanwhile, I see in 96, he has issued a challenge for God to communicate with him with a specific message. Apparently, he is unaware of the warning in the story of Lazarus and Dives that such a specific personal message is not on the cards, given that there is already a sufficient message there, the sign of Jonah; resurrection from the dead, leading onwards to the Spirit poured out in miraculous, life-transforming power and with the historically well warranted record to communicate to us in the here and now. Jesus' warning was that if one would not heed the authentic, written testimony, s/he would not believe one risen from the dead. (Which is precisely what happened in C1 and continues to C21.) So, instead of an attempted prophetic revelation of the secrets of men's hearts, I will point out that there is more than enough evidence that is acessible, and that the question is not God proving himself to us, but us revealing the inner councils and intents of our hearts by how we respond to the evidence we already have. On this, the apostle is quite plain:
Rom 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse . . . . 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done . . . . Rom 2:6 God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”[e] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
Those are strong words, but that is the counsel of the apostles. the question, then, is whether we respond to the testimony of the cosmos around us and our minds and consciences within, that point to God as the grounding reality of the world and of our own existence. Beyond that, do we heed the candle within, of conscience guided by right reason? After that, do we seek to heed counsels of authentic prophets and the sign of Jonah? If not, John Locke has a few choice words, from the intro section 5 of his essay on human understanding: _____________ >> Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Text references added to document the sources of Locke's allusions and citations.] >> _____________ I think we all need to pause and reflect soberly on what we are about in this thread. Obviously, if there is no credible evidence form the world witrhout and the inner light within, that points to God, then we have nothing to dear from such texts. But, if there is, and rejecters are forced to resort to closed minded question-begging dismissive tactics to suppress that testimony, then that is a first sign that something is seriously amiss. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
KF @ 113, Beautiful post.Frost122585
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
JM: Pardon, but your response at 107, in light of what has long since been put on the table, does not come across as a serious reply. In particular, you know or full well should know that when you used the term "modified" in respect of the NT text, it invites the inference that the variants reflect tampering. And, you know of should know that ill-founded assertions of tampering have been given considerable and sensationalistic publicity, starting with the Jesus Seminar and going on to the bottom feeders like Dan Brown in his novel and film, who tries to vilify the Concil of Nicea and Constantine. [Onlookers, kindly cf here for my slide show summary of 1,000's of pages of research on the relevant subjects. BTW, when JM complained above of 5,000 words, did it ever cross his mind that that may be a summary of 5,000++ pages of research, reading and analysis, not to mention serious dialogue and debates?] You also know or full well should know that the state of the case on textual criticism of the NT is precisely as SB has described: no doctrinally or historically substantial matter is in question, there are two or three well-known passages of at most a few sentences that are questioned (and there are reasonable answers on the texts: Mk 16 may be original, or it may be a rounding off appendix put in early in the life of the text, 1 Jn 5 was a marginal comment that got incorporated into the text but makes no difference to the foundation of Biblical theology. BTW, that seems to be the likeliest explanation of the controversial text in Josephus, too. the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery may or may not belong to Jn but is plainly historically authentic.) Going beyond textual authenticity to accuracy, you know or should know, that the Lk-Ac historical backbone to the NT has been abundantly vindicated, for over 100 years now, starting with Ramsay; who set out to disprove it. When you go on to compare the NT and the history of the life of Jesus and the rise of the church to Hubbard and Dianetics, that tells me that you are not serious, but are simply being dismissively hyperskeptical, on Sagan's blunder: extraordinary [to me . . . closed mindedness and question-begging enter here] claims require extraordinary [ADEQUATE] evidence. And, I need not point out particular documents that you are treating differently, you are playing games with the well-established grounds for evaluating historical and forensic evidence, which I have linked on and explained in adequate details above. What I can do is challenge you: do you or do you not accept the general history of say the Peloponnesian war, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and his successors such as Tiberius and Nero down to Diocletian? If you say yes, then at once the selective hyperskepticism stands nakedly revelaed. If you say no, then at once it still stands revealed,a s you operate in a culture where such history is long since generally understood to be well warranted in the overall pattern [despite debates on details], So, your latterday rejection of such would obviously be driven by desire to dismiss the NT. And, it would expose you as a crank. So, let's cut to the chase, the minimal facts surrounding the events that underlie the 55 AD text in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, which credibly traces to meetings in 35 - 38 and 48/9, in Jerusalem and on testimony of 500+ eyewitnesses to events of c 30 AD, waaaay too short for legendary distortions; and a testimony so strong that the only semi-effective responses were bribery, slander, whips and fire and sword. Habermas and others have surveyed academic opinion across the spectrum, and find the following to be the majority to overwhelming consensus view as accurate, authentic on the ground C1 fact: ____________ >> 1. Jesus died by crucifixion. 2. He was buried. 3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. 4. The tomb was empty (the most contested). 5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof). 6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers. 7. The resurrection was the central message. 8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem. 9. The Church was born and grew. 10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship. 11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic). 12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic). [Cf. Habermas' paper here.]>> _____________ the issue is, what historical explanation best explains these facts -- to reject them, you would have to find good grounds for dismissing the scholarly consensus or overwhelming majority view across the spectrum -- and so commends itself to us as sound history? The astonishing birth, rise and success of the church in the teeth of both Jewish and Greek-Roman objection and opposition up to and including fire and sword, tells us the historic explanation: 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 tells us the plain truth. In recent centuries a welter of skeptical dismissive counter-explanations were advanced, but have deservedly fallen by the wayside. today's favourite tactics, are to try to allege myths and fabrications centuries later [at popular levels] and at more serious levels, to suggest "visions," i.e mass delusions. The former of these is nonsense, and the second runs into the problems that:
(a)that is not how subjective visions work, (b) it still does not explain the missing body and empty tomb, (c) it fails to explain the rise of the church in the face of the opposition in Jerusalem and elsewhere at the hands of competent authorities who would have known the facts, (d) it does not account for the conversion of James and especially Saul, sword of the Sanhedrin, (e) it cannot account for 2,000 years of manifested miraculous life transforming power in the name of Jesus with MILLIONS of cases in point.
In short, the explanation that best accounts for the facts cuts clean across the anti-supernaturalist prejudices and skepticism of our day. Unfortunately, in too many minds, that simply means, so much the worse for the inconvenient facts. So, they closed-mindedly and blatantly beg the question and willfully chose inferior explanations that patently cannot fit the historically -- apart from antisupernatural prejudice -- credible facts. Enough on the side issue relative to the main focus of this blog. (though, the issues go to the heart of the problem of worldview level evolutionary materialism driven closed mindedness, which is also at the heart of the problem with origins science. ) Later . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Hi kuartus, You will see that I do not cite Dembski's summary law of conservation of information. I have no need to cite him as authority, or for that matter his critics; or their ad hominem-laced critiques, e.g. see how RW begin their remarks on Dr Dembski here. Instead, I am going to the heart of the matter based on my own knowledge base on information and communication theory, and thermodynamics in light of the situations with OOL and origin of body plans: what is the empirically and analytically credible source of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information? (Where, I have used 1,000 bits as a reasonable threshold for complex enough to be beyond the search resources of the observed cosmos.) The answer is quite simple, though of course objectors and detractors labour long and hard to obscure it:
(i) in every case where we directly know the answer, the source is intelligence, (ii) thanks to the infinite monkeys type analysis, we see that such islands of function are going to be deeply isolated in configuration spaces, and so it is maximally unlikely and implausible that blind trial and error on a random walk will stumble across such an island, on the gamut of our observable cosmos across its lifespan. (iii) So, we are empirically and analytically well-warranted to see that FSCO/I is a reliable sign that points to intelligent cause.
That is what those committed to evolutionary materialist theories of origins (to the point where they are involved in a question-begging attempted redefinition of science a la Lewontin et al)wish to distract our attention from. And, in absence of active, intelligently directed correction, information does in fact tend to at most be conserved, and actually to deteriorate. That is why we have checksums and error correcting codes. It is why DENA has entire subsystems that are continually at work to repair errors, and why there are cross checks in the cell. Now, on the link I found, Rational Wiki first misrepresents Dembski as a "creationist" arguing against "evolution," so we know from the outset that he issues are being addressed on rhetoric not fairness or soundness. This carries on to how they cite the issue:
As the law goes (no mutation may occur which creates more than 500 somethings of information), evolution cannot give rise to complex structures. Problem is, no one accepts the law of the conservation of information, probably because Dembski came up with it on his own. No new fourth law of thermodynamics here....
This is a strawman, where they cannot even accurately cite what Dr Dembski has argued, much less what its evidential and analytical base is, much less the antecedents in the stream of academic thought on the matter -- names like Orgel, Wicken, Polanyi, Brillouin, Szillard and more. The "no one accepts . . . because Dembski came up with it on his own" is both a mocking ad hominem and a fallacious appeal to the crowd, as well as the consensus of the evolutionary materialist high priesthood duly dressed in the holy lab coat. (See how the shoe pinches when it is on the other foot?) The real issue is that 500 BITS of functional information specifies a configuration space of 3.27 * 10^150 possibilities. Where, the ~ 10^80 atoms of our observed cosmos, across its thermodynamic lifespan, about 50 mn times the time since the usual date for the big bang, and changing state every Planck time -- about 10^20 times as fast as the fastest, strong force interactions -- would go through about 10^150 states. So, if something is at least as deeply isolated in a config space as that, it is not credibly reachable on a blind random walk fed into trial and error. And, mechanical necessity, by definition, is about natural regularities, not contingency. (Natural law explains how a heavy object falls, it is not responsible for how a die may come up in diverse values under similar circumstances. That is due to chance and/or intelligence.) What Dembski actually said, as is easily accessible at ARN, is: ______________ >> I shall (1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured [he develops in outline the usual negative log probability metric that traces to Hartley], and (2) formulate a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information. My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow . . . . In Steps Towards Life Manfred Eigen (1992, p. 12) identifies what he regards as the central problem facing origins-of-life research: "Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the origin of information." Eigen is only half right. To determine how life began, it is indeed necessary to understand the origin of information. Even so, neither algorithms nor natural laws are capable of producing information . . . . What then is information? The fundamental intuition underlying information is not, as is sometimes thought, the transmission of signals across a communication channel, but rather, the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others. As Fred Dretske (1981, p. 4) puts it, "Information theory identifies the amount of information associated with, or generated by, the occurrence of an event (or the realization of a state of affairs) with the reduction in uncertainty, the elimination of possibilities, represented by that event or state of affairs." . . . . For specified information not just any pattern will do. We therefore distinguish between the "good" patterns and the "bad" patterns. The "good" patterns will henceforth be called specifications. Specifications are the independently given patterns that are not simply read off information . . . . The distinction between specified and unspecified information may now be defined as follows: the actualization of a possibility (i.e., information) is specified if independently of the possibility's actualization, the possibility is identifiable by means of a pattern. If not, then the information is unspecified. Note that this definition implies an asymmetry between specified and unspecified information: specified information cannot become unspecified information, though unspecified information may become specified information . . . . there are functional patterns to which life corresponds, and which are given independently of the actual living systems. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. The functionality of organisms can be cashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters (1995) cashes it out globally in terms of viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe (1996) cashes it out in terms of the irreducible complexity and minimal function of biochemical systems. Even the staunch Darwinist Richard Dawkins will admit that life is specified functionally, cashing out the functionality of organisms in terms of reproduction of genes. Thus Dawkins (1987, p. 9) will write: "Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is . . . the ability to propagate genes in reproduction." . . . . To see why CSI is a reliable indicator of design, we need to examine the nature of intelligent causation. The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities. This is true not just of humans, but of animals as well as extra-terrestrial intelligences . . . . A bottle of ink spills accidentally onto a sheet of paper; someone takes a fountain pen and writes a message on a sheet of paper. In both instances ink is applied to paper. In both instances one among an almost infinite set of possibilities is realized. In both instances a contingency is actualized and others are ruled out. Yet in one instance we infer design, in the other chance. What is the relevant difference? Not only do we need to observe that a contingency was actualized, but we ourselves need also to be able to specify that contingency. The contingency must conform to an independently given pattern, and we must be able independently to formulate that pattern. A random ink blot is unspecifiable; a message written with ink on paper is specifiable . . . . CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally. In general, to recognize intelligent causation we must establish that one from a range of competing possibilities was actualized, determine which possibilities were excluded, and then specify the possibility that was actualized. What's more, the competing possibilities that were excluded must be live possibilities, sufficiently numerous so that specifying the possibility that was actualized cannot be attributed to chance. In terms of probability, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly improbable. In terms of complexity, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly complex . . . . To see that natural causes cannot account for CSI is straightforward. Natural causes comprise chance and necessity (cf. Jacques Monod's book by that title). Because information presupposes contingency, necessity is by definition incapable of producing information, much less complex specified information. For there to be information there must be a multiplicity of live possibilities, one of which is actualized, and the rest of which are excluded. This is contingency. But if some outcome B is necessary given antecedent conditions A, then the probability of B given A is one, and the information in B given A is zero. If B is necessary given A, Formula (*) reduces to I(A&B) = I(A), which is to say that B contributes no new information to A. It follows that necessity is incapable of generating new information. Observe that what Eigen calls "algorithms" and "natural laws" fall under necessity . . . Contingency can assume only one of two forms. Either the contingency is a blind, purposeless contingency-which is chance; or it is a guided, purposeful contingency-which is intelligent causation. Since we already know that intelligent causation is capable of generating CSI (cf. section 4), let us next consider whether chance might also be capable of generating CSI. First notice that pure chance, entirely unsupplemented and left to its own devices, is incapable of generating CSI. Chance can generate complex unspecified information, and chance can generate non-complex specified information. What chance cannot generate is information that is jointly complex and specified. Biologists by and large do not dispute this claim. Most agree that pure chance-what Hume called the Epicurean hypothesis-does not adequately explain CSI. Jacques Monod (1972) is one of the few exceptions, arguing that the origin of life, though vastly improbable, can nonetheless be attributed to chance because of a selection effect. Just as the winner of a lottery is shocked at winning, so we are shocked to have evolved. But the lottery was bound to have a winner, and so too something was bound to have evolved. Something vastly improbable was bound to happen, and so, the fact that it happened to us (i.e., that we were selected-hence the name selection effect) does not preclude chance. This is Monod's argument and it is fallacious. It fails utterly to come to grips with specification . . . . The problem here is not simply one of faulty statistical reasoning. Pure chance is also scientifically unsatisfying as an explanation of CSI. To explain CSI in terms of pure chance is no more instructive than pleading ignorance or proclaiming CSI a mystery. It is one thing to explain the occurrence of heads on a single coin toss by appealing to chance. It is quite another, as Küppers (1990, p. 59) points out, to follow Monod and take the view that "the specific sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA molecule of the first organism came about by a purely random process in the early history of the earth." CSI cries out for explanation, and pure chance won't do. As Richard Dawkins (1987, p. 139) correctly notes, "We can accept a certain amount of luck in our [scientific] explanations, but not too much." If chance and necessity left to themselves cannot generate CSI, is it possible that chance and necessity working together might generate CSI? The answer is No. Whenever chance and necessity work together, the respective contributions of chance and necessity can be arranged sequentially. But by arranging the respective contributions of chance and necessity sequentially, it becomes clear that at no point in the sequence is CSI generated. Consider the case of trial-and-error (trial corresponds to necessity and error to chance). Once considered a crude method of problem solving, trial-and-error has so risen in the estimation of scientists that it is now regarded as the ultimate source of wisdom and creativity in nature. The probabilistic algorithms of computer science (e.g., genetic algorithms-see Forrest, 1993) all depend on trial-and-error. So too, the Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection is a trial-and-error combination in which mutation supplies the error and selection the trial. An error is committed after which a trial is made. But at no point is CSI generated. Natural causes are therefore incapable of generating CSI. This broad conclusion I call the Law of Conservation of Information, or LCI for short. LCI has profound implications for science. Among its corollaries are the following: (1) The CSI in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or decreases. (2) CSI cannot be generated spontaneously, originate endogenously, or organize itself (as these terms are used in origins-of-life research). (3) The CSI in a closed system of natural causes either has been in the system eternally or was at some point added exogenously (implying that the system though now closed was not always closed). (4) In particular, any closed system of natural causes that is also of finite duration received whatever CSI it contains before it became a closed system.>> ______________ That was in 1998, 13 years ago. One would hope that objectors could have found time to excerpt what was actually said, and address it on the merits. That they have instead consistently strawmannised what was actually said, and its context, tells us that they do not have a cogent answer on the merits. That boils down to, once we see at least 500 - 1,000 bits of functionally specific, complex information, on analytical and empirical grounds, this is best explained by intelligence, rather than blind mechanical necessity and/or chance. I have used 1,000 bits as that is a threshold where the Planck time state capacity of the observed cosmos is 1 in 10^151 of the possible configs, i.e. the odds of finding ANYTHING that is deeply isolated have fallen to something that approaches 1 in 10^150. This gives teeth to the infinite monkeys analysis. Or, in search terms, the search of 1 in 10^150th part of a space rounds down to so superficial a look, that it is functionally equivalent to no search. And yet, 1,000 bits is 125 bytes or 143 7-bit ASCII characters, leaving off the usual parity check bit. That is a small amount of information for an intelligent cause to produce. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
That should read, "on the average, about one or two words per page have been affected"........StephenB
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
---jurrasicmac: "There are innumerable types of evidence that would make me provisionally accept the existence of God, so I’ll pick just one type for now. For simplicity’s sake I’ll list what would convince me of the Christian God." What are the arguments in favor of the Christian God that you are aware of and have found wanting? ---“Barry, I agree with you 100% that the books of the New Testament are the most highly authenticated ancient documents by an order of magnitude. I’m not sure how you got that I was arguing against that. But “best, compared to others” does not mean “good.” Again I point you to the uncontested 200,000 textual variants in the manuscripts. (there are more textual variants in greek manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.)” Your comment about "200,000 textual variants" needs a context. Who is making this claim? How many texts are involved and how many variations per text are being claimed? What is a variant? How are the variations measured? How many variations should be expected per manuscript as a standard for reliability? The Scriptural science for determining the level and amount of corruption that has occurred over time is called textual criticism. I will not spend a good deal of time discussing methodology [unless you need it] but I will give you the bottom line. An average of about one to two words per page has been affected and the integrity of the Gospel narratives, epistles, and basic Biblical teachings are completely in tact. There are many ways to measure these results, some internal to the text and some external to the text.StephenB
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
Brent, I look forward to it. :-) I hope you mean that you're going to explain why my criteria for evidence is flawed, but any other critique is welcome as well.jurassicmac
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
Jurrasicmac, ”If they made excuses as to why Mr. X didn’t want to be tested" Of course, such excuse-making would offer some sense of confirmation. But the idea that such excuses might appear actually presupposes at least two prior conditions. In one instance they could be completely genuine and genuinely want to fulfill your request. And in the another, Mr X might not submit to your test. How is it that your experiment could tell the difference? Or should we assume your answer from the start?Upright BiPed
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
jurassicmac, You don't lack the belief God doesn't exist, you believe that God doesn't exist. You have an opinion, and that is a belief.Clive Hayden
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Jurassicmac, thanks for pointing out your response that appeared directly after my question posed to you. I may well have missed it had you not pointed it out. I'll commence with destroying your position later ;) P.S. Be careful how you respond to Kairosfocus. I'm watching . . . LOLBrent
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying in post 105. It seems to be written hastily, and I can't make out some of the sentences. Are you saying that I'm taking the 200,000 textual variances out of context? Or are you saying that I took your questions out of context? If the latter, perhaps you missed the fact that I cited the post that your questions were posed in, so readers could read the questions in their entirety. I placed ellipses to indicate where I had only repeated part of the question, to save space. If you're accusing me of the former, would you please indicate how many of the 200,000 variances are 'important', and how many are 'unimportant'?
...you have distracted from the material fact that the underlying text is actually highly c4redible and shows no overall across the board centrally controlled tampering...
When did I ever say, indicate, insinuate, hint at, or otherwise allude to anything about a 'centrally controlled tampering? Please tell me. And you accuse me of erecting straw men? This is at least the fifth time you've tried to rebut claims I haven't made. The main point I was trying to make, and I apologize if I didn't communicate this clearly, is that it wouldn't matter if one could demonstrate that the Bible we have to day is exactly the Bible that was written down; that is a necessary condition for accepting its veracity, but by no means is it a sufficient one. I have good reason to think that Dianetics is almost exactly as L. Ron Hubbard wrote it; that fact alone does nothing to convince me that it is true or even useful. So again, unless you can point out another document that I'm treating differently, I'm afraid your charges of 'selective hyperskepticism' are entirely vacuous.jurassicmac
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Hello KairosFocus. Pardon me if this is besides the point, but I wanted to find a comprehensive rebuttal to rationalwiki's critique of Dr. Dembski's law of conservation of information. Do you know where I could look or maybe do you have any thoughts on this? Thank Youkuartus
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
JM: I will be brief for now, save for a contextual excerpt that will show plainly what is going on. If not to you, then at least to onlookers. I will simply note that the precise problem is that Ehrman wrenches a number out of its context, and turns it into an extravaganza of selective hyperskeptical rejectionism. The material issue is not that there are 200 k variants, across up to 24,000 MSS, but that these include every misspelling or variant spelling or the like. By picking on a number out of context, you have distracted from the material fact that the underlying text is actually highly c4redible and shows no overall across the board centrally controlled tampering, a la Dan Brown's assertions or the like; and by direct contrast with the issue over Uthman with the Quran. @Which I noticed you seem to have overlooked, but this is precisely a hard hiatorical data point that shows what happens when the sort of centralised tampering you suggest is done. And indeed, someone did try, Marcion. He was rejected and dismissed, indeed a major gift was it 12,0000 sesterces, was returned to him by the church of Rome in C2. In short, the evidence is that deliberate modification was not done, was not tolerated, and that he text as a whole is very reliable. Observe, therefore, what you have precisely not cited, from my remark, and then see what has gone wrong from there on with your response:
3 –> Your “accounts that have been modified over time” and appeal to the want of the autograph copies are both strawmanish and a snide suggestion of overall deliberate falsification. So is your comment on more variants than places in the NT. 4 –> Any reasonable, as opposed to selectively hyperskeptical examination, would accept that it is NORMAL for texts of classical times, not to have autographs — though the Rylands fragment c. 125 AD [and which aptly contains Pilate's cynical: what is truth] is so close to autograph times as makes little difference — so, the “no originals” claim is blatantly selectively hyperskeptical. So also you know or should know that we are dealing with in the main scribal errors in MSS typical of any document [where the same variant spelling or mis-spelling 100 times, is 100 variants by the way such are counted], and that there is a whole discipline that compares across 24,000+ MSS and is highly confident of the integrity of the original text. There is no good evidence of organised, continent-wide text tampering, by direct contrast with the Uthman attempted recension of the Quran on Hafsa’s copy that left such a noise of protest in the record and variant readings intact down to today that show what was done and that it was done. Ehrman’s army of strawmen and sensationalising that exploits our ignorance of the wider context have misled you badly. 5 –> Worse, you pass over in a convenient silence the abundant corroboration of the accuracy of the NT as historical documentation, and that of its provenance in C1; whilst the gnostic works that many are wont to promote nowadays, are equally plainly of C2 and later provenance. That is, the one is eyewitness lifetime and credibly eyewitness based, the other is not — indeed the plain evidence is that it is a syncretistic accommodation to the vulgarised platonism and the popular magical views of the time. The NT stands out by direct contrast with such views. (And, BTW, speaking of appeal to prejudice on the temper of the times: there is a lot more and a lot more objective evidence of the continued, present day reality of the demonic than you are wont to think. Your evident evolutionary materialistic prejudices are closing your mind.)
In short, snipping out of context makes for a nice strawman set up for a selectively hyperskeptical dismissive rebuttal -- I am sure you would not treat any other serious document like that. This is the proverbial slice of the cake that has in it the ingredients form what follows. Including on the scientific and worldview level issues. G'day for now, GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Brent, since my responses take up to a few days to go through moderation they sometimes get lost in the conversation since they appear in place, and not at the bottom. (especially when kairosfocus or bornagain77 are posting mini-novels as responses) My answer to your question "What evidence would you accept for the existence of God?" is at post [96]jurassicmac
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Well, that's quite a barrage, KF :-) (and, a five thousand word diatribe is hardly a 'selective' reply to 4 questions) Since I often don't know if or when my replies will make it through moderation, I don't have the inclination to write novellas to match your (thoughtful) replies. I'll start with your numbered objections from 98:
1 –> You here immediately reveal your reliance on a selectively hyperskeptical former evangelical.
Quite the opposite. It was the data point I was highlighting. (200,000 variants) I mentioned Ehrman specifically to showcase that I wasn't relying on him; that that number is uncontested even among evangelicals. And you keep using the term 'selectively hyperskeptical'. I take it that you don't believe that the Koran or Book of Mormon are true. Are you being selectively hyperskeptical in rejecting those books out of hand? Why not?
2 –> You resort to the uncalled for injection of a radical disharmony into accounts where there is diversity...
Again, putting words into my mouth. I never made any comment whatsoever as to the amount of conflict. I never said anything to the effect of 'radical disharmony.' Please read what I say.
3 –> Your “accounts that have been modified over time” and appeal to the want of the autograph copies are both strawmanish and a snide suggestion of overall deliberate falsification. So is your comment on more variants than places in the NT.
I'm not sure how that is strawmanish, or snide. The documents have been modified over time. Are you suggesting that an evolutionist thinks that modification over time implies willful intent? ;-) That there are more textual variants in the Greek New Testament manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament is a simple fact. If you see presenting facts as 'snide', well, there's nothing I can do about that.
4 –> Any reasonable, as opposed to selectively hyperskeptical examination, would accept that it is NORMAL for texts of classical times, not to have autographs...
This is where your argument gets bizarre. I've NEVER said, implied, suggested, or hinted that it's not perfectly normal for ancient texts to not have autographs. You're practically putting words in my mouth. (that's a much more appropriate use of the term 'strawmanish') You proclaim that I'm being selectively hyperskeptical with the NT compared to other ancient documents without knowing my views on other ancient documents. If, over the next few decades, 10,000 autographs of the Odyssey were found, each in perfect harmony with each other, I still wouldn't then start believing it was a true story. That a text has been adequately preserved through time is a necessary condition for accepting it as 'true', but is by no means a sufficient condition. Like I've pointed out, we have good reason to think that the Book of Mormon is nearly identical to what was originally written, but that has no bearing on it's veracity. Accurate preservation over time is simply the least one would expect from a book written by God.
5 –> Worse, you pass over in a convenient silence the abundant corroboration of the accuracy of the NT as historical documentation,
That's a critique of something I didn't say! Is there an expectation that every single post has to include every fact about the subject ever put forward? (buy the length of your posts, I fear the answer may be 'yes')
6 –>... And, we are fully capable of obtaining moral certainty about the past, on testimony, record and supportive evidence of that record.
No, we are not. History is about determining what probably happened, not what certainly happened. If you don't already see the problem in your claim, it is beyond the scope of this post to explain it.
7 –> What you have done then is two things: (a) implicitly you are holding historical record you would dismiss to the standards of present day observations, and (b) you are INCONSISTENT in your standards of dealing with history.
It would facilitate things if you would just directly claim to be psychic. In the case of (b), there is no possible way you could know that, even if it were the case, because you haven't asked me the first thing about how I deal with other areas of history. It is absurd to accuse someone of being inconsistent in their views, when you have only a single instance of one of their views.
8 –> How can I know this last? Simple, science itself relies on historical record for many of its key findings, and to make progress. So, historical standards of evidence cannot neatly be severed from scientific work. So, to imply such a severance, is to be selectively hyperskeptical and inconsistent.
When did I ever imply such a severance? Or did I merely think it?
9 –> Going beyond, you are passing over in silencethe minimal facts issue,
Again, you're criticizing me for something I did not say. Astounding.
10 –> Where, the standard skeptical explanations of the past have fallen apart, and the common one today, “visions,” is equally impotent in the face of the body of evidence as a whole. (Cf also here.)
I'm not sure what that means, let alone how it relates to anything I've said.
11 –> Any way, this excursus on the NT side issue, is about showing the selective hyperskepticism problem you need to address, it is not the main focus.
Again, in order to say that I'm 'selective' or 'inconsistent' you need to know something about my other views. I could just as easily accuse you of being selectively hyperskeptical in rejecting the truth claims of the Book of Mormon.jurassicmac
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
F/N 3: If space-time is more complex than we commonly understand scientifically, of course this also opens up possibilities for the reality of sci fi's hyperspace or fold space! (Just saying, let's keep an open mind. I do confess to wishing that one true, though; I would love for there to be a means to travel truly long disstances across the cosmos!)kairosfocus
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
F/N 2: I think some remarks on temporality are in order. a: Consider a sheet of graph paper with the usual origin in he middle and axes like: + b: For any point on the Y-axis, all points along X correspond, and vice versa. c: In particular, the origin is a polar point, where all points along both axes correspond. d: Now, let us consider our globe. What is the time at the North Pole? (Since all lines of longitude intersect there and all lines of hours of right ascension in the celestial sphere intersect at the North Celestial pole above it, THERE IS NO ONE LOCAL TIME AT THE NORTH POLE. Usually, we arbitrarily reckon it in universal -- Greenwich -- time and done.) e: This brings out a broadening of our concepts, helping us in understanding of time and times and eternity. f: Extending, if one sits at the metaphorical "north pole of time" -- notice that text on the sides of the north BTW -- one is simultaneously present at all times and the focal time is a matter of what is important. g: Likewise one can be at the metaphorical north pole of space. (BA will appreciate that this view allows for non-locality of hidden variables in quantum mechanics etc.) h: Now, we are not saying that this is the case, only that the contradictions and apparent absurdities many perceive are more a matter of inadequacy of concept than of true logical challenges. (I used to ask whether it was possible to be at one and the same point and be due north of London UK 0 long, Bridgetown Barbados 59 W and Kingston Ja 76 W. usually, people were puzzled until the north pole was highlighted.) i: Now, when we look at the Hubble results, we see that the observed cosmos' expansion points back to a singularity, usually estimated at 13.7 BYA. So, credibly, our cosmos had a beginning and is a contingent being. j: That means there are external circumstances under which it was not possible, and others under which it was and became actual. That is, it is caused. k: Even through a multiverse and/or an oscillating cosmos model, that points onward to a necessary being as the root of the observed contingent cosmos. Such a necessary being has no beginning, has no necessary external causal factors, and cannot be of the material order thst our cosmos is -- for matter plainly [consider E = m*c^2] is contingent. l: In other words, if something now is, which is self-evidently so, SOMETHING always was. That root something is a necessary, immaterial being, the foundational cause of our contingent cosmos. m: In addition, as has been discussed and linked -- and fallaciously dismissed -- our cosmos is on many diverse aspects credibly fine tuned for the existence of C-chemistry, cell-based intelligent life. n: That points to a necessary being with the knowledge, skill power and intent to cause the existence of such a cosmos. o: One may choose to reject the line of reasoning, but one then has an intellectual responsibility to provide a superior explanation per inference to best explanation; not merely one that better fits how one wishes the world were. p: Such abductive reasoning is of course the foundation of science, especially origins science. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply