Discussion with JC

[Guest]

Asimov, for a moment there I thought you had completely written me off. I'm honored to once again have your ear for this dialogue.

It seems a little disingenuous to use scientific arguments merely to find common ground with non-Christians, if you don't actually accept any of it. Anyways, using Newtonian physics to apply to quantum states is not a valid criticism of "naturalism" in regards to the universe.

I actually accept a great deal of scientific truth, so don't think it disingenuous of me to present an argument from it. I was just giving my opinion on epistemology, which differs from yours. Establishing some sort of common ground is necessary to form a "jumping off" point in any discussion. If we have no common authority, we'll just be talking past one another. When discussing different ideas with other Christians, I will use the scriptures. When talking to naturalists, I often find an authority in science. Since you are not a strict naturalist, that may not be the best course of action. You're more familiar with my beliefs than I am with yours so I'll let you pick a common authority from which to argue.

I could say you place far too much faith in your religion, and I think it would be a good time to ask: Do you ever question your beliefs? Do you challenge yourself and ask why you believe what you believe? Do you try to find the weakest parts of your belief and why they are weak?

Excellent question... allow me to share some background information. I was raised by agnostic, hippie parents. My father, an engeineer by trade, was a big fan of Stephen J Gould. He was a bit of a lay philosopher and taught me to devour books. So I was raised in an openly pagan home in which free thought was greatly encouraged. I became exposed to Jesus through picking up a Bible one day and reading the words highlighted in red. The things I read struck me as absolutely mind-blowing. Here's this guy talking about loving your enemies and doing good to those who hate you. In fact, everything he said seemed completely opposite to what I'd learned up to that point. I couldn't understand why no one was talking about this... it was revolutionary!

I believed that Jesus had special insight because his words seemed to match everything I observed in the world. This is all quite subjective, obviously. With those teachings in the back of my mind, I decided that Jesus was probably who he claimed to be (the son and voice of God) but I found following him quite difficult... so I stopped. I began reading a bunch of new age books and became convinced that this was true... although none of it seemed as true as the wisdom I had read from Jesus. Nevertheless, it was more fun and I got to indulge in my pleasures... which included women. That's a fringe benefit of the new age movement... sexual discovery.

It wasn't until my first year of college that I read some books by Christian apologists. I was surprised to find that there were not only good arguments for Christianity and the bible, but the arguments also seemed far more convincing than my new age/psudo-scienticfic beliefs. The arguments also seemed difficult to answer from a naturalistic standpoint. Since I'd already found Jesus to be rather unique among all the wise sages I had read... this sort of catapulted me toward belief in him. The problem was, I remembered that following him was quite hard and wouldn't allow me to indulge in my favorite activities. So it wasn't an easy decision, by any means. But nevertheless, I decided if anything were true, it was this. It answered every question I had about life, death, purpose, the problem of evil, justice.... and seemed to have some historical and philisphical backing.

Since that time I've read the opinions and challenges of many non-Christian thinkers and have pondered my own objections to the faith that they didn't think to ask. I've changed my opinion on many things over the years as my knowledge and experience progresses. The end result of all that is that I'm quite sure of my position at this time. So... my very long-winded answer boils down to this: yes, I've questioned quite a number of things. It's a recurring theme in my life.

Science is philosophy, an empirical philosophy, so empirical facts about reality are not ignored or denied simply because the topic of discussion changes. If we have the possibility that events occur with no cause, then the "law" of cause and effect is not valid in all events.

For me, it doesn't come down to what's possible... it comes down to what's more reasonable. I think my position is the most reasonable of all the available options.

Because it doesn't explain anything. Why does it make more sense? What does an intelligent creator answer about the existence of the universe any more than an eternally existing universe or a universe that began ex nihilo?

It's just not reasonable to conclude that the universe is eternal because science has proven (through red shift, radiation, thermodynamics, etc) that it's finite. It's also not reasonable to assume it sprang forth ex nihilo because we've never observed this happening. It's an unstable theory. An intelligent creator is the best option because:

A) The universe began to exist at a point in time, and

B) Intelligence and complexity exist

In other words, something had to have always existed to set everything else in motion. We know the universe is not that causal agent because it's finite.

And I fully agree. So, in case I missed it, what views do you want me to provide a positive, assertive argument for? I'm not playing dumb, it has been awhile since I posted.

If I say God exists I will explain why that's the most reasonable view. If you say God does not exist, then I'd like you to demonstrate how that's the most reasonable view.

Take care.

[Guest]

Asimov, for a moment there I thought you had completely written me off. I'm honored to once again have your ear for this dialogue.

Sorry about that. I was training for a bodybuilding show, and time seemed to have been dedicated solely to that. It was a nice break, but it's good to be back again. Thanks for the quick reply!

[Guest]

I actually accept a great deal of scientific truth, so don't think it disingenuous of me to present an argument from it. I was just giving my opinion on epistemology, which differs from yours. Establishing some sort of common ground is necessary to form a "jumping off" point in any discussion.

I agree with that, and I retract my claim that it is disingenuous. It was a little confusing.

When talking to naturalists, I often find an authority in science. Since you are not a strict naturalist, that may not be the best course of action. You're more familiar with my beliefs than I am with yours so I'll let you pick a common authority from which to argue.

For the sake of my own intellectual honesty, I cannot be an absolutist when it comes to sciences. That would be against the nature and meaning of not only science, but of philosophy in general.

So... my very long-winded answer boils down to this: yes, I've questioned quite a number of things. It's a recurring theme in my life.

Great, I would also note that your continued engagement in discussion also allows you to be exposed to differing viewpoints. If your own personal values match with Christianity, I cannot criticize that, because they are your values. As long as you're consistent, that's at least something to respect, even if I don't agree with many of the other bits.

For me, it doesn't come down to what's possible... it comes down to what's more reasonable. I think my position is the most reasonable of all the available options.

I first analyze the possibilities, then I try to figure out the more reasonable options. From what I've seen, appeals to intelligent design appear to be emotional-laden reasoning through probability.

It's just not reasonable to conclude that the universe is eternal because science has proven (through red shift, radiation, thermodynamics, etc) that it's finite.

It hasn't, though. Again you're taking Newtonian physics and attempting to apply them to a quantum state.

It's also not reasonable to assume it sprang forth ex nihilo because we've never observed this happening. It's an unstable theory. An intelligent creator is the best option because:

We've never observed an intelligent creator designing a universe either.

A) The universe began to exist at a point in time, and

No, the universe began to inflate from a very hot and dense state at a point in time. I am not aware of any modern, even popular concepts of the universe which state that the universe began to exist at the Big Bang.

B) Intelligence and complexity exist

Non sequitur.

In other words, something had to have always existed to set everything else in motion. We know the universe is not that causal agent because it's finite.

Not necessarily, a quantum event is finite, but it is also uncaused.

If I say God exists I will explain why that's the most reasonable view. If you say God does not exist, then I'd like you to demonstrate how that's the most reasonable view.

Ok, well I think we're in the middle of discussing the former. On the idea of the latter, I believe we are starting in on that.

The basic necessary qualities that Hoffman and Rosenkrantz say that God has to have...IOW, the Divine Attributes...God would have to be maximally powerful, maximally knowledgeable, temporally eternal (that is, has no beginning or end temporally, but still exists in a concept of action and therefore time), incorruptible (cannot become less than what he is).

He would also have to be necessary. That means he would have to exist in all possible worlds. Would you agree with that?

[Guest]

It hasn't, though. Again you're taking Newtonian physics and attempting to apply them to a quantum state.

By "quantum state" I assume you're talking about the unpredictable nature of compacted energy... since that would be an argument against the more concrete "mechanical" physics. It's very difficult to test things like quantum states so I stick to the things that have been tested, like Newton's law of motion and the philisophical principle of cause and effect. Perhaps my thinking is a bit simplistic here because (a) I'm not a phycisist and (b) Hakim's Razor appeals to me.

We've never observed an intelligent creator designing a universe either.

I think you mistook my argument to be "only that which is observed can be proven." While that might be a true statement, it's not the point I'm making. The universe is made up of physical properties (matter and energy). So are elephants. If you saw me walking down the street with an elephant, and had never seen one, you might ask, "Where'd you get that thing?" Let's say I reply, "Oh this... he burst forth from compacted energy, why do you ask?" Even though you'd never seen anything like an elephent, you'd immediately assume it came from its parents, since that's the pattern we see in nature. Your opinion that the elephant came from its parents would be more reasonable than my explanation that it did not.

Quantum energy is all around us, yet elephants don't pop into existence. So why assume quantum mechanics explains something as grand as the universe? I understand why people use quantum theory as an "out" when confronted with more concrete physics, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me. Possible... yes. Reasonable... no.

No, the universe began to inflate from a very hot and dense state at a point in time. I am not aware of any modern, even popular concepts of the universe which state that the universe began to exist at the Big Bang.

A hot and dense state. Hmm. This is a bit nebulous. What caused this state of heat and density or did it exist for eternity past? Also, what is it that was hot and dense? Matter? Do you hold that matter is eternal?

Not necessarily, a quantum event is finite, but it is also uncaused.

This is where I dislike theoretical physics. There comes a point where matter and energy are so small that we can no longer make observations. At that point we form theories about what's going on. I'm not saying quantum theories are unnecessary but one should never use that as a primary argument for one's beliefs.

For example, if you split the nucleus of an atom, a massive explosion of energy will occur. We've actually seen this happen in our day and age. What was the result of that explosion of compacted energy? Did it give rise to a more ordered state, or a more disordered state? Did it serve to create life or destroy life?

The basic necessary qualities that Hoffman and Rosenkrantz say that God has to have...IOW, the Divine Attributes...God would have to be maximally powerful, maximally knowledgeable, temporally eternal (that is, has no beginning or end temporally, but still exists in a concept of action and therefore time), incorruptible (cannot become less than what he is). He would also have to be necessary. That means he would have to exist in all possible worlds. Would you agree with that?

Actually, I disagree with them philisophically. The only way we'd know what God's attributes are is if he told us. I do imagine, though, that God is quite amused when we talk about what he could or could not be. If we didn't have direct revelation from God, anyone's opinion would be as good as anyone else's. My contention, of course, is that he did communicate to us.

Also, I don't believe that God cannot change. If Jesus was correct, God took on human flesh. Is that not a change? I'm not an open theist, but I agree with many of their assertions. So I guess I disagree with them philisophically as well as biblically.

[Guest]

By "quantum state" I assume you're talking about the unpredictable nature of compacted energy... since that would be an argument against the more concrete "mechanical" physics. It's very difficult to test things like quantum states so I stick to the things that have been tested, like Newton's law of motion and the philisophical principle of cause and effect. Perhaps my thinking is a bit simplistic here because (a) I'm not a phycisist and (b) Hakim's Razor appeals to me.

Then we have a problem here, because Newton's theories are macroscopic in nature, and have no application in microscopic observances. This was shown to be true 80 years ago.

Your opinion that the elephant came from its parents would be more reasonable than my explanation that it did not.

It might be more reasonable, but I'd be reasoning inductively, based on experience. You might have cloned an elephant and grown in it a lab for all I really know.

Quantum energy is all around us, yet elephants don't pop into existence. So why assume quantum mechanics explains something as grand as the universe?

I don't, I'm assuming that possibilities arise given what we know of microscopic states. Again, you misunderstand that I'm not being definitive.

I understand why people use quantum theory as an "out" when confronted with more concrete physics, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me. Possible... yes. Reasonable... no.

Could you please explain how QM is not a concrete physics? You appear to have no real knowledge of QM or what's involved, yet you reject it apparently out of hand for simpler stuff that really has no application in the atomic reality.

A hot and dense state. Hmm. This is a bit nebulous. What caused this state of heat and density or did it exist for eternity past? Also, what is it that was hot and dense? Matter? Do you hold that matter is eternal?

1. I have no idea what caused it. I see no reason to accept any explanation as a definitive answer. I do see no reason to think that God is the answer.

2. Matter didn't form until after the Big Bang. Energy was what comprised the universe at the time of the Big Bang. I don't hold that matter is eternal.

This is where I dislike theoretical physics. There comes a point where matter and energy are so small that we can no longer make observations. At that point we form theories about what's going on. I'm not saying quantum theories are unnecessary but one should never use that as a primary argument for one's beliefs.

We've never directly observed an atom, either, that doesn't mean we can't make indirect observations.

Particle accelerators, for instance, are based on the interactions of leptons, quarks, photons and gluons. We can use particle accelerators to test the behaviour of such elementary particles.

For example, if you split the nucleus of an atom, a massive explosion of energy will occur. We've actually seen this happen in our day and age. What was the result of that explosion of compacted energy? Did it give rise to a more ordered state, or a more disordered state? Did it serve to create life or destroy life?

The net result is always the dispersion of energy, making the universe higher in entropy.

Actually, I disagree with them philisophically. The only way we'd know what God's attributes are is if he told us. I do imagine, though, that God is quite amused when we talk about what he could or could not be. If we didn't have direct revelation from God, anyone's opinion would be as good as anyone else's. My contention, of course, is that he did communicate to us.

Ok, so then what are we discussing?

Also, I don't believe that God cannot change. If Jesus was correct, God took on human flesh. Is that not a change? I'm not an open theist, but I agree with many of their assertions. So I guess I disagree with them philisophically as well as biblically.

I don't think Jesus personally claimed that God took on human flesh, but interpret that as you like.

[Guest]

Then we have a problem here, because Newton's theories are macroscopic in nature, and have no application in microscopic observances. This was shown to be true 80 years ago.

So the physical laws of nature are dependent upon the size of the sample? This is a serious question... I have no idea.

Could you please explain how QM is not a concrete physics? You appear to have no real knowledge of QM or what's involved, yet you reject it apparently out of hand for simpler stuff that really has no application in the atomic reality.

I don't claim to have any real knowledge of QM, but if you do, then I'm willing to learn. In fact, that's the only reason I'm in this discussion... to learn. Sorry to be blunt.

The reason I say QM is less concrete is because the smaller the sample we're looking at, the more guessing will have to take place. Isn't this a rather obvious point? If I can see a virus under a microscope then I'll be better informed when making assumptions about it, opposed to just seeing the virus' effect and then drawing a definitive conclusion from that. If you look at quantum states and sub-atomic particles, much of what's theorized can't be looked at and tested as concretly as the laws of motion or reaction. I'm sure we'll get there one day. Again, feel free to correct any of my misconceptions I have about QM. You'll find that I'm quite correctable. The human ego is that which blunts the cultivation of knowledge, so I dare not feed it.

The net result is always the dispersion of energy, making the universe higher in entropy.

That's also my understanding. When energy is dispersed, entropy is increased (in a closed system). But why? Where do these consistent laws come from? I realize your answer thus far has been "I don't know" but that leaves me very unsatisfied. Philisophically, you always need a prime mover that is not restrained by the movement (natural laws) it creates. Hence, God can create laws (like cause and effect) that don't apply to him. A hot and dense state of energy had to be birthed by something other than itself, or else you must concede that energy is eternal. Sorry to take this one a different direction, but your answers often dictate where I go.

Ok, so then what are we discussing?

I believe you started this thread to argue against my position on theistic creation. It somehow spun into QM and Issac Newton. I don't mind indulging you though because this is an opportunity for me to learn. My strengths are theology and philosophy, but I don't mind talking science... if you have something to show me. I can't debate you because you don't hold any firm positions. Such encounters will always lead to a "maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong" resolution.

You asked me if I agreed on several assertions about God and I said "no." Those are classic attributes given to God, but I don't find them biblical. It seems to me that the God of the bible is quite capable of change and seems to change his mind at times. This gives weight to the open theist view and I'll just leave it at that.

I don't think Jesus personally claimed that God took on human flesh, but interpret that as you like.

Who did Jesus claim to be, in your opinion?

[Guest]

So the physical laws of nature are dependent upon the size of the sample? This is a serious question... I have no idea.

At the atomic and subatomic level, matter behaves differently. Let's take the behaviour of the nucleus of an atom and an electron orbiting around it. Newtonian mechanics predict that the electron will rapidly travel around and eventually collide with the nucleus. This was one of the key problems that helped develop QM.

Whenever you see things like "Classical" in front of theories, it's usually theories that are macroscopically useful, but have no real application at the quantum level.

I don't claim to have any real knowledge of QM, but if you do, then I'm willing to learn. In fact, that's the only reason I'm in this discussion... to learn. Sorry to be blunt.

Bluntness is appreciated over excessive writing. I have more knowledge than the average person, but I'm by no means an expert.

The reason I say QM is less concrete is because the smaller the sample we're looking at, the more guessing will have to take place. Isn't this a rather obvious point?

No, you appear to confuse empirical with "seen with your own eyes. QM is solidly in both the experimental and theoretical aspects of science. Ideas such as the apparent "wave/particle duality" seen in the double-slit experiment is direct empirical observation.

That's also my understanding. When energy is dispersed, entropy is increased (in a closed system). But why? Where do these consistent laws come from? I realize your answer thus far has been "I don't know" but that leaves me very unsatisfied. Philisophically, you always need a prime mover that is not restrained by the movement (natural laws) it creates.

1) Although it's possible, you don't always need a prime mover that is not restrained by the movement it creates. The problem with that explanation is that now you need an explanation for why the prime mover behaves the way it does and where those behaviours came from and why they exist.

2) It could be that this is the way the Universe has to be, and the only way a Universe could be.

3) It could be that there are multiple universes that exist. Tegmark's proposal is that any mathematically consistent universe exists. As long as one can conceive of a non-contradictory universe, it exists.

Hence, God can create laws (like cause and effect) that don't apply to him.

Which then makes God's actions arbitrary and completely random. Causality denotes determinism, acausality denotes randomnimity.

A hot and dense state of energy had to be birthed by something other than itself, or else you must concede that energy is eternal. Sorry to take this one a different direction, but your answers often dictate where I go.

My question is why does it have to be birthed by something other than itself? Your answer so far has been insufficient appeals to classical physics and philosophy.

What if the universe is infinite and unbounded, as Hawking proposes it to be? That means there was no t=0, nor a t=-1. No creation point.

I can't debate you because you don't hold any firm positions. Such encounters will always lead to a "maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong" resolution.

I hold firm positions on other things. Being confident about the nature of reality generally leads one to putting ones foot in ones own mouth.

You asked me if I agreed on several assertions about God and I said "no." Those are classic attributes given to God, but I don't find them biblical. It seems to me that the God of the bible is quite capable of change and seems to change his mind at times. This gives weight to the open theist view and I'll just leave it at that.

What I meant about "what are we discussing" was...What's God? The divine attributes do not state that God is not capable of change, only that he is incapable of corruption. He can't become less than who he is.

Who did Jesus claim to be, in your opinion?

It appears to me that Jesus claimed to be more of a prophet of God. Given that anything Jesus did do, he stated that any one of us could do it. It also appears that he felt he was no more special than any of us, and did what he felt God wanted him to do.

[Guest]

Which then makes God's actions arbitrary and completely random. Causality denotes determinism, acausality denotes randomnimity.

Actually, causality does not imply determinism ---- not when free agents are factored in as multiple "first causes" in the many causal chains.

For determinists, there is no first cause, but an infinite chain of causes regressing into the past. They assume that indeterminism must assume randomness. This is not the case.

[Guest]

Actually, causality does not imply determinism ---- not when free agents are factored in as multiple "first causes" in the many causal chains.

For determinists, there is no first cause, but an infinite chain of causes regressing into the past. They assume that indeterminism must assume randomness. This is not the case.

Prove it. Free agentry implies that there is no external influence or restrictions. If there is no reason why a choice is made, then it is randomly made.

[Guest]

At the atomic and subatomic level, matter behaves differently. Let's take the behaviour of the nucleus of an atom and an electron orbiting around it. Newtonian mechanics predict that the electron will rapidly travel around and eventually collide with the nucleus. This was one of the key problems that helped develop QM.

I'm still curious to know why things behave differently at the subatomic level. What are the current theories you find plausible?

1) Although it's possible, you don't always need a prime mover that is not restrained by the movement it creates. The problem with that explanation is that now you need an explanation for why the prime mover behaves the way it does and where those behaviours came from and why they exist.

That is a common misconception that atheists often use to argue against causality. They say, "So what if you can prove that the universe must necessarily have a beginning because even if you do so, then God also needs a beginning... thus the argument is cyclical." That's just bad logic. The universe consists of matter and energy so when a theist proves that it needs a cause, he is only proving what guys like Hubble have demonstrated to be true in a world consisting of matter and energy.

What theists call "God" is not a product of matter and energy and thus arguments from entropy and casusation are not a necessity. You are making a category error. We can apply our current knowledge of science to the universe but not to that which exists outside the universe.

What if the universe is infinite and unbounded, as Hawking proposes it to be? That means there was no t=0, nor a t=-1. No creation point.

William Lane Craig takes this argument to task in the following video clip:

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/v ... robelT1203

Let me know what you think of Dr. Craig's argument.

Which then makes God's actions arbitrary and completely random. Causality denotes determinism, acausality denotes randomnimity.

I don't follow your train of thought here. Perhaps you and Paidion can argue this point since he takes issue with it.

I hold firm positions on other things. Being confident about the nature of reality generally leads one to putting ones foot in ones own mouth.

You may hold firm positions on other things but we're not discussing those other things. You believe my view of reality is incorrect, so you'll need to firm up your position if you hope to entertain someone like myself in discussion.

What I meant about "what are we discussing" was...What's God? The divine attributes do not state that God is not capable of change, only that he is incapable of corruption. He can't become less than who he is.

My apologies. I totally misunderstood you and looking back, I now see what you were driving at.... so let me address that question.

I feel the classical view of God that you've presented is intellectually restrained, in that it limits God to neat little categories. My concept of the Creator is quite expansive and if he did manage to fit into man's restrictive categories then he'd be quite less than I imagine.

My knowlege of God and his attributes comes from careful study of what I believe to be his revelation to mankind, as well as a great deal of personal reflection and self-questioning. The apostle John writes in his epistles as well as his gospel that God is love. That seems clear enough, but doesn't totally satisfy because we need to see an expression of what that means exactly.

Paul wrote that the fullness of Deity dwelt bodily in Jesus. Jesus told his disciples that if they've seen him, they've seen the Father. So my belief is that God's personality is exactly revealed in Jesus. He modeled his father's words and actions to an exact measure so that we now have a "face" to put with the "name." If you want to relate to an ant, you'd have to come down to that level (becoming an ant) and then model (in antform) what you are like as a human.

It appears to me that Jesus claimed to be more of a prophet of God. Given that anything Jesus did do, he stated that any one of us could do it. It also appears that he felt he was no more special than any of us, and did what he felt God wanted him to do.

Are you tossing me a softball here or what? I realize your field of specialty isn't in-depth biblical study but your opinion on this matter must not be informed by scripture. If your views of what Jesus thought about himself come from another source, then so be it. But if this is your actual "theology" then I am very disappointed in your preparedness to discuss such things. I don't mean that as a slam, because you seem like a bright enough fellow, but it might benefit you to read through some of the theological topics discussed elsewhere on this forum.

Ps - Asimov, you need an avatar. Don't you work in computer science? Come on... throw up something cool. 8)