Part four (though the order doesn't matter) where I try to break down the general areas of Scott Youngren's ignorance. At first I thought he was only truly ignorant of Information Theory, 2LOT, and QM, but it appears I was wrong.
Part 2: Idealism/Materialism
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
Part 5: The "symbolic representation" in DNA (information theory)
Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic
Part 7: Evolution and panspermia
Statistics:
In your “God is Real” article you say, “I am afraid it is alot more than just two people. In my “Some Quotes to Consider” post, I cite a heck of alot more than 2 people. In fact, these quotes reveal that most most astronomers believe in God and most physical scientists believe in God or at least consider the existence of God to be a very real possibility.” (Emphasis mine) This is an error you seem to make quite often. Your few selected quotes might show that some physical scientists believe in God, but quoting a few does not represent the majority. To show a majority you would have to present a majority from a “random sampling” of astronomers and physical scientists. You could also cite poll results, but the poll would also have to represent a random sampling of respondents, and Pew polls show most are non-believers.
Scientific Law:
You seem to think that scientific laws are prescriptive laws, written and enforced, rather than descriptions of regular phenomenon. You quote Boyle (“The nature of this or that body is but the law of God prescribed to it [and] to speak properly, a law [is] but a notional rule of acting according to the declared will of a superior.”) and you italicize the word “notional”. In this very essay, your fifth “riddle” is, “How can an inanimate thing be made to follow a law?” In your “god/luck” article you ask, “Why it is that mindless matter can be compelled to do anything, much less follow a physical/natural law.”
The language is a bit ambiguous, and you–intentionally or not–leave yourself a little wiggle room, but by choosing quotes that highlight ideas of prescription, notion, and compel, you indicate an understanding that natural laws are prescriptive. It’s hard to be sure, since you so often hide behind quotes, almost never exposing your own thoughts on anything.
But scientific laws are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. They describe the relationships between observations we make, and express them as mathematical formulas. ‘When this happens, then that will happen at this rate or in that amount.’ This definition will be found in the first few pages of any introductory Life Sciences textbook.
Nov 6. Scott:
NC: In your “God is Real” article you say, “I am afraid it is alot more than just two people. In my “Some Quotes to Consider” post, I cite a heck of alot more than 2 people. In fact, these quotes reveal that most most astronomers believe in God and most physical scientists believe in God or at least consider the existence of God to be a very real possibility.” (Emphasis mine) This is an error you seem to make quite often. Your few selected quotes might show that some physical scientists believe in God, but quoting a few does not represent the majority.
Non-credenti, that was a comment I made in response to another commenter. Again, my argument is not based upon expert opinion, but rather, it is BUTTRESSED by expert opinion. Consensus opinion can never settle a logical debate…only logical arguments can.
NC: You seem to think that scientific laws are prescriptive laws, written and enforced, rather than descriptions of regular phenomenon….But scientific laws are not prescriptive, they are descriptive.”
Of what relevance is it whether natural laws are prescriptive or descriptive? This is very strange. You appear to be trying to distract attention again by engaging in another tangential discussion. Matter behaves in a regular and orderly way. It is this order that needs to be explained. Whether natural laws are prescriptive or descriptive is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.
In my Riddles for Atheists essay, I cited Albert Einstein as follows:
“You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way… the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.”
So my questions this: WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE “HIGH DEGREE OF ORDERING OF THE OBJECTIVE WORLD” THAT EINSTEIN MARVELED AT?
THE COUNTER FOR THE ABOVE QUESTION IS NOW ON ONE (1).
I am adding a counter to this question because my experience debating atheists very strongly suggests that you will try to evade this question with every tool in your arsenal.
The theistic answer to the above question is obvious….and is strongly supported by the insights of modern physics. The physical world is a construct of a conscious mind (read: God). Max Planck, the Nobel Prize winning physicist who founded quantum theory put it as follows:
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) Part 5: The "symbolic representation" in DNA
No comments:
Post a Comment