A key concern for any worldview is the matter of authority; of who has the ultimate authority in the system. As RJR used to say; authority is an inescapable concept.
Quotes and comments;
1. The natural man ''thinks of himself as the ultimate judge of what can and cannot be.He will not allow any authority to stand above him, revealing to him what may or may not have happened in the past...'' [1.]
Let;s imagine that one fine day (in May) an alien spaceship (from an obviously advanced species) shows up on our doorstep. (If it can happen in the pages of SF I see no reason it can't happen in reality. Are these writers not our new prophets? Can they all be wrong?) Let's say these aliens are doing some kind of bureaucratic check up. They tell mankind the (horrible) truth; man did not evolve, they say (doing the alien equivalent of laughing) but was a creation of theirs in the distant past.
"How long ago?"
"It's not important."
Now, having placed this scenario in view, we'll ask a question. What do you think our scientific leaders would say to this? How do you think they'd respond? Do you think they'd accept this 'fact' (of small c creation) or would they reject it, and maintain a belief in (M2M) evolution? (Let's add that these aliens are far more advanced in technology, etc. than we earthlings are, that they can prove they've been touring the galaxy for millions of years.
I don't know your answer might be, but I'm sure our elite would not accept the 'truth' of creation, but would continue to believe in the 'myth' of Evolution.
"They can't prove this," someone would say. "We all know evolution is a fact, so they must be lying."
"Why would they lie?"
"How do I know?"
"We can't accept this, it would mean the end of science, it would prove that all our science is wrong, that our methods are wrong. It would mean the creationists could claim they were right, or at least on the right track, and so on."
"What will we do?''
''We'll just wait for them to leave, and then claim it never happened, they never said it, or it was a bad translation ad they never meant it, or they were just engaging in a humorous prank,'' says a cooler voice. "Don't worry. We can handle it."
"But what if it's true?"
"Doesn't matter if it is or it isn't."
Warning; speculation ahead;
Isn't it amazing how well SF writers (and I'm a failed one) can get inside the heads of aliens (even if they don't have any) and can internalize alien psychology? I find this impressive. How'z cum? as R.C. Sproul likes to quip. Is it because man has lost (forgotten) his true identity, and has become alien-ated from God? Just a thought.
Summary;
If we are looking for transcendent wisdom we can either look to aliens for it, or we can look to God. Despite the talk about aliens helping save mankind with advanced knowledge and thinking, it's clear to me that the natural (apostate) man will never accept an authority higher than his own. If I ever saw it happen, I'd fall out of my hyper-space, inter-dimensional traveling pod. (You can see why I failed.)
Mike Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p. 310
2. The natural man claims that he's competent to judge who should have authority over mankind; the Bible (God's word) says that he's not competent to judge.
3. I wasn't being entirely serious in my speculations.
4. My title makes an oblique reference to 'Calculating God' by Robert Sawyer. (As a Canadian I'm required by law, to read him.)
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Notes on emergence; or, an alien love story; starring Carl Sagan
The closing down of the Allen telescope array was a sad event for SETI fans. The whole search for extraterrestrial life (with its speculations about aliens) is an intriguing one; and one I think reveals a lot about human psychology.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Bob McDonald, commenting on CBC News, feels SETI is worth a lot more than the tens of millions spent on the royal wedding. Just two to three million could have been used to keep SETI going. “That tiny sum pays for a group of very intelligent and highly accomplished people to look for the answer to a fundamental human question, while many times that amount will be spent on security alone for the wedding of two people who have not really accomplished that much.” [2.]
2. 'One of the fundamental unanswered questions in science is whether there is life beyond Earth. [2.]
- I'm interested in why he (or anyone) thinks this is a 'fundamental human question'. Is it? Why is it? How do we explain this? If nothing makes sense apart from evolution (and of course pizza) what's the evolutionary explanation for SETI? What could this possibly have to do with reproduction success rates? Give a slight tug on evolution theory and it unravels. E. theory can't explain this odd human passion; nor can it explain most of the important things in human experience.
If all is merely matter in motion how do we explain that a bit of matter here on earth cares about bits of matter in outer space, in the rest of the universe. That makes no sense to me. Matter doesn't care about anything. The fact McDonald cares about finding aliens is all the evidence he needs to know materialism is a fallacious idea. Materialism is as illusory as green tentacled aliens. If he'd analyze what he said he'd see this.
The materialist can't account for human experience, but instead of curing him of his delusion he pays no attention to this damning bit of knowledge. What he does instead is to say; well, I do care, therefore this creationist is wrong. i.e. he doesn't doubt his materialism, just takes it for granted as true.
If pressed he offers up the idea of emergence. i.e. "yes, it's true Mr. creationist, that matter doesn't care, but people do, and people have emerged from matter and are (obviously you twit) different from matter." The concept of emergence is used to knock down all arguments against materialism.
The concept of emergence is just a ruse in my opinion; nothing but a label on ignorance; a meaningless concept when used in this matter. What we aren't given is an account of how it is philosophical concern (not to mention obsession) can happen in a materialist universe; ie. how does the impersonal become personal. To merely say ''well it emerged I guess'' is to say nothing at all.
3. "The chances of aliens finding the Voyagers in the vast emptiness of space are small—some say infinitesimal—but we took our jobs seriously," recalls team member Ann Druyan. "From the moment when Carl first broached the project to Tim Ferris and me, it felt mythic." [3.]
- It felt mythic she says. I'm not sure what mythic feels like, but how is it a bit of matter can feel 'mythic' about aliens? I don't know how people can believe the theory of cosmic [Cosmos] evolution. The theory demands that a rock transform into a living organism capable of feeling 'nostalgic' for remote life forms it has never seen. I see no way that's possible. The endless stories on how this might have happened (i.e. OOL research) don't impress me in the slightest; one might say they're mythic. (Actually I take back what I said earlier. I do know what it feels like to experience the mythic; I experience it when I read OOL stories.)
Materialism can't give a cogent account for the Voyager love story. (It can't give a good account of much at all when it comes to human experience.) How is it such a worldview is so popular when it fails so badly to offer foundational explanations? Why is it people don't care about this? Why do they care more about phantoms called aliens and nothing about philosophical consistency or cohesion?
4. "I remember sitting around the kitchen table making these huge decisions about what to put on and what to leave off," recalls Druyan. "We couldn't help but appreciate the enormous responsibility to create a cultural Noah's Ark with a shelf life of hundreds of millions of years." [3.]
- They didn't seem to take their responsibility all that seriously when you consider they might have given some alien race the opportunity to wipe out the entire human race. They violated a basic principle; namely don't take a needless risk. What right did they have to put everyone at risk by their publicity stunt?
Remember; these people are merely bits of matter in terms of materialism; a good materialist has to explain all this behavior (thought, etc.) solely in terms of physics. (No wonder they want to contact aliens, no mere human is up to the above task :=}
Maybe the SETI quest isn't really about finding aliens per se; but about finding someone who can explain OOL; someone who can give a believable account of what is now only a miracle. (Though I would argue that a rock [planet earth] managing to build and send out a space ship would be a miracle in itself.)
Among the gifts Voyager bears is 'the brain waves of a young women in love.' (No SF magazine cover of an alien attacking a bimbo? What a missed opportunity.)
5. "I had this idea," recalls Druyan, "that we should put someone's EEG on the record. We know that EEG patterns register some changes in thought. Would it be possible, I wondered, for a highly advanced technology of several million years from now to actually decipher human thoughts?" [3.]
- It doesn't get wackier than that (he said hopefully). How anyone can conflate squiggles on a page with thought I don't know. (Thus reductionism makes fools out of anyone who comes in 'contact' with it.
6. "My feelings as a 27 year old woman, madly fallen in love, they're on that record,” says Druyan. "It's forever. It'll be true 100 million years from now. For me Voyager is a kind of joy so powerful, it robs you of your fear of death." [3.]
- I won't pretend I understand that, but I see evidence here that the SETI project is somehow connected with the idea of immortality, and or the fear of death.
I don't know how she can conflate an image of brain wave patterns with her feelings of being in love. I guess we could call this an example of Reductionism playing the trickster.
7. 'It has been pointed out that the most probable finders of Voyager will be … us. Eventually, technology may allow humans to overtake and recover the distant probes. In that case, they will be reduced to mere time capsules from the year 1977. [3.]
- If we do catch up with it, maybe we could switch the Beatles for the Rolling Stones, or some Dylan :=}
8. 'Arthur C. Clarke recognized this possibility and suggested adding a note to the Golden Record: "Please leave me alone; let me go on to the stars." [3.]
- I note that he said leave 'me' alone. i.e. this is evidence people into SETI are projecting their own psychologies onto Voyager (etc.) It's not really about aliens but about them. It's about their search for something.
Apparently some people want materialism to be true so badly that they're not 'capable' of critically examining the theory, of accepting the sheer impossibility of it, or of examining the oddity of a bit of matter caring about other bits of matter. (Is it that they want materialism to be true? or is it that they don't want God to exist? What's the stronger drive? Maybe they're so connected that it's impossible to say.)
Whatever the love story here is, it's not love for God. It's love for self or love for aliens; since there are no aliens as far as we know, it can only be love for self.
Maybe that's not it; maybe what's going on here is a desire to defend materialism, a desire to defend the act of rejecting God. Maybe the SETI types want to discover aliens to prove to themselves (and everyone else) that they are right about a-theism. Maybe they get involved out of guilt.
9. ''Notwithstanding the low odds of interception, the Voyager Record served as a statement of earthlings to earthlings. The video clip from NASA ends, “What are the odds of a race of primates evolving sentience, developing spaceflight, and sending the sound of barking dogs into the cosmos? Expect the unexpected indeed.“ [1.]
- How do you 'evolve' a passion for ETs? That would appear to be impossible would it not?
What are the odds? Zero; (or as close to zero as you can get).
Summary;
What I think we see in the search for extraterrestrial life, is the search for a substitute for God. We see this search played out in the pages of sf, with its myriad of 'god machines' (called such by the authors themselves) and awesome relics, and awe inspiring aliens. [4.] Evidence for the Bible's claim (echoed by Calvin) that all men know god is the fact aliens have all the attributes of God. e.g. they're at least nearly omniscient; nearly omnipotent; can read minds, send thoughts telepathically, predict the future, etc.
Augustine said 'all men are restless till they find thee' and that man had a God shaped vacuum in his heart. How big the hole in man's heart is, can be seen by the fact it takes the whole universe to even begin to get the job done. I suspect the project to find aliens will only be successful as long as its unsuccessful; that if aliens are found man will still be restless, still need something to fill the hole in his heart.
Cosmic evolution doesn't come remotely close to being able to explain this search for God (or for a god substitute). There's no possible reason man needs such an ability and capacity of this kind, if he's just an animal. (I can't imagine animals care about the SETI project; I can't imagine any of them are sad one of the projects got shut down.)
Men scan the skies for signs of ET, when they'd be better off scanning their own consciousness. The SETI project is all the evidence anyone could need that Materialism is a false metaphysics.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. SETI in Reverse Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/29/2011
April 29, 2011 — The SETI Institute has had to close down its search with the Allen Telescope Array (08/12/2010) due to lack of funds.'
2. Big questions and big weddings - Bob McDonald
- the money wasted (surely not) on the Royal wedding could have been better spent on the Allen project complained McDonald.
- how could he say these people haven't done very much? They wave beautifully, they wear clothes well, they smile wonderfully. I could name any number of things they do.
3. Voyager, the love story, April 29, 2011 By Dr. Tony Phillips
- there's nothing like the love for an alien to arouse the human imagination, and send his emotions soaring.
4. Much SF is concerned with presenting the reader with an object or being that the reader can be in awe of. As humans we hunger for the awesome. Here's an example of this 'awesome' storytelling; from 'Alone' by Robert Reed [Godlike Machines ed. J. Strahan]
'The hull was gray and smooth, gray and empty, and in every direction it fell away gradually,
vanishing where the cold black of the sky pretended to touch what was real.
What was real was the Great Ship. Nothing else enjoyed substance or true value.
Nothing else in Creation could be felt, much less understood. The Ship was a
sphere of perfect hyperfiber, world-sized and enduring, while the sky was only
a boundless vacuum punctuated with lost stars and the occasional swirls of
distant galaxies.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Bob McDonald, commenting on CBC News, feels SETI is worth a lot more than the tens of millions spent on the royal wedding. Just two to three million could have been used to keep SETI going. “That tiny sum pays for a group of very intelligent and highly accomplished people to look for the answer to a fundamental human question, while many times that amount will be spent on security alone for the wedding of two people who have not really accomplished that much.” [2.]
2. 'One of the fundamental unanswered questions in science is whether there is life beyond Earth. [2.]
- I'm interested in why he (or anyone) thinks this is a 'fundamental human question'. Is it? Why is it? How do we explain this? If nothing makes sense apart from evolution (and of course pizza) what's the evolutionary explanation for SETI? What could this possibly have to do with reproduction success rates? Give a slight tug on evolution theory and it unravels. E. theory can't explain this odd human passion; nor can it explain most of the important things in human experience.
If all is merely matter in motion how do we explain that a bit of matter here on earth cares about bits of matter in outer space, in the rest of the universe. That makes no sense to me. Matter doesn't care about anything. The fact McDonald cares about finding aliens is all the evidence he needs to know materialism is a fallacious idea. Materialism is as illusory as green tentacled aliens. If he'd analyze what he said he'd see this.
The materialist can't account for human experience, but instead of curing him of his delusion he pays no attention to this damning bit of knowledge. What he does instead is to say; well, I do care, therefore this creationist is wrong. i.e. he doesn't doubt his materialism, just takes it for granted as true.
If pressed he offers up the idea of emergence. i.e. "yes, it's true Mr. creationist, that matter doesn't care, but people do, and people have emerged from matter and are (obviously you twit) different from matter." The concept of emergence is used to knock down all arguments against materialism.
The concept of emergence is just a ruse in my opinion; nothing but a label on ignorance; a meaningless concept when used in this matter. What we aren't given is an account of how it is philosophical concern (not to mention obsession) can happen in a materialist universe; ie. how does the impersonal become personal. To merely say ''well it emerged I guess'' is to say nothing at all.
3. "The chances of aliens finding the Voyagers in the vast emptiness of space are small—some say infinitesimal—but we took our jobs seriously," recalls team member Ann Druyan. "From the moment when Carl first broached the project to Tim Ferris and me, it felt mythic." [3.]
- It felt mythic she says. I'm not sure what mythic feels like, but how is it a bit of matter can feel 'mythic' about aliens? I don't know how people can believe the theory of cosmic [Cosmos] evolution. The theory demands that a rock transform into a living organism capable of feeling 'nostalgic' for remote life forms it has never seen. I see no way that's possible. The endless stories on how this might have happened (i.e. OOL research) don't impress me in the slightest; one might say they're mythic. (Actually I take back what I said earlier. I do know what it feels like to experience the mythic; I experience it when I read OOL stories.)
Materialism can't give a cogent account for the Voyager love story. (It can't give a good account of much at all when it comes to human experience.) How is it such a worldview is so popular when it fails so badly to offer foundational explanations? Why is it people don't care about this? Why do they care more about phantoms called aliens and nothing about philosophical consistency or cohesion?
4. "I remember sitting around the kitchen table making these huge decisions about what to put on and what to leave off," recalls Druyan. "We couldn't help but appreciate the enormous responsibility to create a cultural Noah's Ark with a shelf life of hundreds of millions of years." [3.]
- They didn't seem to take their responsibility all that seriously when you consider they might have given some alien race the opportunity to wipe out the entire human race. They violated a basic principle; namely don't take a needless risk. What right did they have to put everyone at risk by their publicity stunt?
Remember; these people are merely bits of matter in terms of materialism; a good materialist has to explain all this behavior (thought, etc.) solely in terms of physics. (No wonder they want to contact aliens, no mere human is up to the above task :=}
Maybe the SETI quest isn't really about finding aliens per se; but about finding someone who can explain OOL; someone who can give a believable account of what is now only a miracle. (Though I would argue that a rock [planet earth] managing to build and send out a space ship would be a miracle in itself.)
Among the gifts Voyager bears is 'the brain waves of a young women in love.' (No SF magazine cover of an alien attacking a bimbo? What a missed opportunity.)
5. "I had this idea," recalls Druyan, "that we should put someone's EEG on the record. We know that EEG patterns register some changes in thought. Would it be possible, I wondered, for a highly advanced technology of several million years from now to actually decipher human thoughts?" [3.]
- It doesn't get wackier than that (he said hopefully). How anyone can conflate squiggles on a page with thought I don't know. (Thus reductionism makes fools out of anyone who comes in 'contact' with it.
6. "My feelings as a 27 year old woman, madly fallen in love, they're on that record,” says Druyan. "It's forever. It'll be true 100 million years from now. For me Voyager is a kind of joy so powerful, it robs you of your fear of death." [3.]
- I won't pretend I understand that, but I see evidence here that the SETI project is somehow connected with the idea of immortality, and or the fear of death.
I don't know how she can conflate an image of brain wave patterns with her feelings of being in love. I guess we could call this an example of Reductionism playing the trickster.
7. 'It has been pointed out that the most probable finders of Voyager will be … us. Eventually, technology may allow humans to overtake and recover the distant probes. In that case, they will be reduced to mere time capsules from the year 1977. [3.]
- If we do catch up with it, maybe we could switch the Beatles for the Rolling Stones, or some Dylan :=}
8. 'Arthur C. Clarke recognized this possibility and suggested adding a note to the Golden Record: "Please leave me alone; let me go on to the stars." [3.]
- I note that he said leave 'me' alone. i.e. this is evidence people into SETI are projecting their own psychologies onto Voyager (etc.) It's not really about aliens but about them. It's about their search for something.
Apparently some people want materialism to be true so badly that they're not 'capable' of critically examining the theory, of accepting the sheer impossibility of it, or of examining the oddity of a bit of matter caring about other bits of matter. (Is it that they want materialism to be true? or is it that they don't want God to exist? What's the stronger drive? Maybe they're so connected that it's impossible to say.)
Whatever the love story here is, it's not love for God. It's love for self or love for aliens; since there are no aliens as far as we know, it can only be love for self.
Maybe that's not it; maybe what's going on here is a desire to defend materialism, a desire to defend the act of rejecting God. Maybe the SETI types want to discover aliens to prove to themselves (and everyone else) that they are right about a-theism. Maybe they get involved out of guilt.
9. ''Notwithstanding the low odds of interception, the Voyager Record served as a statement of earthlings to earthlings. The video clip from NASA ends, “What are the odds of a race of primates evolving sentience, developing spaceflight, and sending the sound of barking dogs into the cosmos? Expect the unexpected indeed.“ [1.]
- How do you 'evolve' a passion for ETs? That would appear to be impossible would it not?
What are the odds? Zero; (or as close to zero as you can get).
Summary;
What I think we see in the search for extraterrestrial life, is the search for a substitute for God. We see this search played out in the pages of sf, with its myriad of 'god machines' (called such by the authors themselves) and awesome relics, and awe inspiring aliens. [4.] Evidence for the Bible's claim (echoed by Calvin) that all men know god is the fact aliens have all the attributes of God. e.g. they're at least nearly omniscient; nearly omnipotent; can read minds, send thoughts telepathically, predict the future, etc.
Augustine said 'all men are restless till they find thee' and that man had a God shaped vacuum in his heart. How big the hole in man's heart is, can be seen by the fact it takes the whole universe to even begin to get the job done. I suspect the project to find aliens will only be successful as long as its unsuccessful; that if aliens are found man will still be restless, still need something to fill the hole in his heart.
Cosmic evolution doesn't come remotely close to being able to explain this search for God (or for a god substitute). There's no possible reason man needs such an ability and capacity of this kind, if he's just an animal. (I can't imagine animals care about the SETI project; I can't imagine any of them are sad one of the projects got shut down.)
Men scan the skies for signs of ET, when they'd be better off scanning their own consciousness. The SETI project is all the evidence anyone could need that Materialism is a false metaphysics.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. SETI in Reverse Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/29/2011
April 29, 2011 — The SETI Institute has had to close down its search with the Allen Telescope Array (08/12/2010) due to lack of funds.'
2. Big questions and big weddings - Bob McDonald
- the money wasted (surely not) on the Royal wedding could have been better spent on the Allen project complained McDonald.
- how could he say these people haven't done very much? They wave beautifully, they wear clothes well, they smile wonderfully. I could name any number of things they do.
3. Voyager, the love story, April 29, 2011 By Dr. Tony Phillips
- there's nothing like the love for an alien to arouse the human imagination, and send his emotions soaring.
4. Much SF is concerned with presenting the reader with an object or being that the reader can be in awe of. As humans we hunger for the awesome. Here's an example of this 'awesome' storytelling; from 'Alone' by Robert Reed [Godlike Machines ed. J. Strahan]
'The hull was gray and smooth, gray and empty, and in every direction it fell away gradually,
vanishing where the cold black of the sky pretended to touch what was real.
What was real was the Great Ship. Nothing else enjoyed substance or true value.
Nothing else in Creation could be felt, much less understood. The Ship was a
sphere of perfect hyperfiber, world-sized and enduring, while the sky was only
a boundless vacuum punctuated with lost stars and the occasional swirls of
distant galaxies.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The slow miracles of materialism
In chapter 12 of his book 'The Information' James Gleick offers us some speculation about the origin of life.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Whatever the basic processes involved, physical or biological, something is under way that begins to resemble computation. [1.]
- Whatever is underway? This is an admission no one (in OOL research) has a clue.
Computation? As far as we know intelligent agents are the only ones capable of computation; either they are the ones who compute, or they are the ones who give this ability to other objects.
So we ask how it is that inert matter can begin to compute? How is it that mere matter can do computations like e = mc2? This appears to be nothing but wishful thinking by the materialist. He can give us no explanation of how this is possible. This is akin to saying a rock can learn to do calculus.
2. 'He applied the idea of logical depth to the problem of self-organization: the question of how complex structures develop in nature. Evolution starts with simple initial conditions; complexity arises, apparently building on itself. [1.]
- Complexity arises? He writes this as if it means something, when it means nothing at all. It's meaningless. This isn't science; no one observed or observes this. This is merely theory dependent speculation. e.g. if materialism is true, we suspect initial conditions must have been simple.
We know how complex structures develop, we don't need to speculate about it. Complex structures develop by the expression of genetic code; the code comes first and the structure after. We know the only source code comes from; intelligence. The great 'problem' that materialists talk about is no problem at all; it's only a 'problem' if you reject God and creation.
3. Let's take a look at the word Compute;
1. 'To determine by mathematics, especially by numerical methods: e.g. computed the tax due.
- As far as I know, rocks have no need to compute anything, and have been left curiously exempt from paying taxes.
Gleick knows how absurd it is to say matter computes things, so he qualifies (in good Fabian fashion) by saying matter 'begins' to compute. This allows the materialist miracle to occur you see. Apparently any miracle is possible if it happens slowly, in stages.
Notes;
1. The Information - James Gleick p. 342
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Whatever the basic processes involved, physical or biological, something is under way that begins to resemble computation. [1.]
- Whatever is underway? This is an admission no one (in OOL research) has a clue.
Computation? As far as we know intelligent agents are the only ones capable of computation; either they are the ones who compute, or they are the ones who give this ability to other objects.
So we ask how it is that inert matter can begin to compute? How is it that mere matter can do computations like e = mc2? This appears to be nothing but wishful thinking by the materialist. He can give us no explanation of how this is possible. This is akin to saying a rock can learn to do calculus.
2. 'He applied the idea of logical depth to the problem of self-organization: the question of how complex structures develop in nature. Evolution starts with simple initial conditions; complexity arises, apparently building on itself. [1.]
- Complexity arises? He writes this as if it means something, when it means nothing at all. It's meaningless. This isn't science; no one observed or observes this. This is merely theory dependent speculation. e.g. if materialism is true, we suspect initial conditions must have been simple.
We know how complex structures develop, we don't need to speculate about it. Complex structures develop by the expression of genetic code; the code comes first and the structure after. We know the only source code comes from; intelligence. The great 'problem' that materialists talk about is no problem at all; it's only a 'problem' if you reject God and creation.
3. Let's take a look at the word Compute;
1. 'To determine by mathematics, especially by numerical methods: e.g. computed the tax due.
- As far as I know, rocks have no need to compute anything, and have been left curiously exempt from paying taxes.
Gleick knows how absurd it is to say matter computes things, so he qualifies (in good Fabian fashion) by saying matter 'begins' to compute. This allows the materialist miracle to occur you see. Apparently any miracle is possible if it happens slowly, in stages.
Notes;
1. The Information - James Gleick p. 342
Monday, May 9, 2011
Browsing the Logosphere
The field of mimetics depends upon god's revelation (of Himself) in creation. It's more than a metaphor to say researchers are reading God's book of creation; this is literal truth.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'We all know how they crawl, but did you know caterpillars invented the wheel? “Some caterpillars have the extraordinary ability to rapidly curl themselves into a wheel and propel themselves away from predators,” the article said. “This highly dynamic process, called ballistic rolling, is one of the fastest wheeling behaviours in nature.” [1.]
- How is it that with this example in front of them some civilizations didn't invent the wheel? Was it because they didn't notice it? Didn't make a connection to human locomotion? because they didn't think creatively? because the wheel was forbidden? God gave them all the help they needed; even if they didn't take advantage of it.
To study a creature is to read the mind of God; or let's say, to acquaint yourself with with one of His thoughts (to acquaint yourself at least partially with divine intelligence.) God gave us all the information we would ever need, when he created the world we (by his grace) live on. The creation is the greatest library ever assembled; and it's free for every man, available to every child. You don't need a library card, all you need is eyes and ears.
We are all creationists; the only difference between the Christian and the materialist is that the christian gives God the credit for the biosphere (the Logosphere as I like to call it) and the materialist does not. We live within God's revelation of himself; we ''live, move and have our existence'' within a steady stream of intelligently composed information. We live within God's mind made incarnate.
I believe this library contains all the knowledge man needs to survive and thrive on planet earth; even knowledge such as that needed to predict earthquakes and avoid them. God has provided for our every need. That we neglect and abuse this gift is no fault of His. If man would rather spend his days high on hallucinogens rather in study of creation is no fault of god's. That man would rather waste his time in hedonistic pursuits than study is man's fault alone. Man has suffered greatly from disease and famine down the millenia, but it has been his own fault; due to his own lack of diligence and study.
"All the treasures of wisdom are found in Christ,'' wrote the apostle Paul, echoing earlier Biblical writers, who wrote of the great wisdom with which god had created the world.) Most of what we call natural evil has not be the fault of god, but the fault of man. (The 'evil' that isn't directly the fault of man, through ignorance, sloth, etc. is the the result of the Fall, which was caused by man's rebellion. eg. mutation.) [2.]
Praise and worship is the only proper response to this great gift; to this great gift giver. (No teacher ever did a fraction as much for his or her students. No lesson has ever been as inspiring as the one God gives all of us every day.) God is our source of wisdom; both creaturely and divine. He is our teacher and our judge; our prophet, king and savior. If man doesn't affirm God's existence it's because he's spiritually dead; poisoned by his own sin and rebellion.
Notes;
1. Animal Tricks Inspire Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/26/2011
2. Is it possible to create a world that doesn't suffer from mutations? I don't know. God (who is infinitely wiser than any of us) tells us 'death' came by sin, so I have to assume that it is possible, even though I don't see how. (I take the position that when Genesis speaks of death coming by sin it's referring strictly to humans.) There's much we can't be certain about at the present time, and may never know for sure.
3. The Logosphere is a data stream that had/has an intelligent source, and that is intelligible.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'We all know how they crawl, but did you know caterpillars invented the wheel? “Some caterpillars have the extraordinary ability to rapidly curl themselves into a wheel and propel themselves away from predators,” the article said. “This highly dynamic process, called ballistic rolling, is one of the fastest wheeling behaviours in nature.” [1.]
- How is it that with this example in front of them some civilizations didn't invent the wheel? Was it because they didn't notice it? Didn't make a connection to human locomotion? because they didn't think creatively? because the wheel was forbidden? God gave them all the help they needed; even if they didn't take advantage of it.
To study a creature is to read the mind of God; or let's say, to acquaint yourself with with one of His thoughts (to acquaint yourself at least partially with divine intelligence.) God gave us all the information we would ever need, when he created the world we (by his grace) live on. The creation is the greatest library ever assembled; and it's free for every man, available to every child. You don't need a library card, all you need is eyes and ears.
We are all creationists; the only difference between the Christian and the materialist is that the christian gives God the credit for the biosphere (the Logosphere as I like to call it) and the materialist does not. We live within God's revelation of himself; we ''live, move and have our existence'' within a steady stream of intelligently composed information. We live within God's mind made incarnate.
I believe this library contains all the knowledge man needs to survive and thrive on planet earth; even knowledge such as that needed to predict earthquakes and avoid them. God has provided for our every need. That we neglect and abuse this gift is no fault of His. If man would rather spend his days high on hallucinogens rather in study of creation is no fault of god's. That man would rather waste his time in hedonistic pursuits than study is man's fault alone. Man has suffered greatly from disease and famine down the millenia, but it has been his own fault; due to his own lack of diligence and study.
"All the treasures of wisdom are found in Christ,'' wrote the apostle Paul, echoing earlier Biblical writers, who wrote of the great wisdom with which god had created the world.) Most of what we call natural evil has not be the fault of god, but the fault of man. (The 'evil' that isn't directly the fault of man, through ignorance, sloth, etc. is the the result of the Fall, which was caused by man's rebellion. eg. mutation.) [2.]
Praise and worship is the only proper response to this great gift; to this great gift giver. (No teacher ever did a fraction as much for his or her students. No lesson has ever been as inspiring as the one God gives all of us every day.) God is our source of wisdom; both creaturely and divine. He is our teacher and our judge; our prophet, king and savior. If man doesn't affirm God's existence it's because he's spiritually dead; poisoned by his own sin and rebellion.
Notes;
1. Animal Tricks Inspire Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/26/2011
2. Is it possible to create a world that doesn't suffer from mutations? I don't know. God (who is infinitely wiser than any of us) tells us 'death' came by sin, so I have to assume that it is possible, even though I don't see how. (I take the position that when Genesis speaks of death coming by sin it's referring strictly to humans.) There's much we can't be certain about at the present time, and may never know for sure.
3. The Logosphere is a data stream that had/has an intelligent source, and that is intelligible.
Friday, May 6, 2011
What is Hell?
The 'new atheists' like to use the 'horrors of hell' as a way to mock Christianity. It's an outrage, they say. How can anyone hold to such an evil doctrine? What is Hell? Is it real or just a delusion? [Warning; speculation up ahead.]
Quotes and comments;
1. "...you deserve to live forever without God if you do not own and glorify Him as your creator..." [1.]
- In our day (degenerate as it is in so many ways) even so called Reformed theologians and pastors have abandoned the doctrine of Hell. (eg. John Stott) I don't think anyone knows in any kind of exact way what hell is. All the bible clearly reveals to us is that it will be eternal separation from God, and from God's people. If that's all it is, it would be more than enough to fear it, and to see an existence in such a 'universe' as a horrible, painful thing.
If there are one or more universes beyond our own (as cosmologists are beginning to claim) maybe this is what they or it are for. Maybe hell is living in a universe utterly devoid of God and his influence. If man were spiritually alive this would be a fiercesome thing to contemplate. It would mean never meeting Christ or his redeemed. It would mean never living with him for a day, let alone eternity. It would mean never being free of the torments of sin. It would mean never learning the answers to questions that now seem unsolvable mysteries.
To the Christian this would be a horrible thing, and well deserving the name hell. This would mean little or nothing (I assume) to the non-christian. He might even look forward to an existence in the universe called hell. After all, don't some people dream of living forever? Isn't that what the 'transhumanist' movement is all about? Maybe hell is the process of men becoming machines, and losing their humanity. Maybe hell is the 'throwing off' of the image of God. (I don't know if that's possible.)
Is hell a horrific idea? To me it is, I certainly don't want to end up there. So the new atheists are right in saying hell is a horrible idea, but not in the way they suppose. Who knows, maybe hell only looks bad from the outside, from the Christian point of view. (e.g. "If I were to end up in such a place I would feel as if I were on fire, walking through a wasteland of fire, in constant pain and torment.") Maybe it won't seem bad from the inside, by the people living there.
Will people in hell live forever? I don't know. There is no dictionary I can go to that tells me how long the 'forever' in the bible is. Perhaps it (eternity) is forever, perhaps it's only a long time, or as long as one desires.
Can people in hell die? I don't know. Perhaps they can if they want to. Will they want to? Maybe some will and some won't.
Will people be miserable in hell? Perhaps some will and some won't.
Will anyone in hell desire to be in heaven? I don't know; but that would be hell indeed.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen/p.128
- quote is from Van Til's pamphlet 'Why I believe in God'
2. I'm not claiming that all of what I've written above is necessarily true.
- I guess that went without saying didn't it.
Quotes and comments;
1. "...you deserve to live forever without God if you do not own and glorify Him as your creator..." [1.]
- In our day (degenerate as it is in so many ways) even so called Reformed theologians and pastors have abandoned the doctrine of Hell. (eg. John Stott) I don't think anyone knows in any kind of exact way what hell is. All the bible clearly reveals to us is that it will be eternal separation from God, and from God's people. If that's all it is, it would be more than enough to fear it, and to see an existence in such a 'universe' as a horrible, painful thing.
If there are one or more universes beyond our own (as cosmologists are beginning to claim) maybe this is what they or it are for. Maybe hell is living in a universe utterly devoid of God and his influence. If man were spiritually alive this would be a fiercesome thing to contemplate. It would mean never meeting Christ or his redeemed. It would mean never living with him for a day, let alone eternity. It would mean never being free of the torments of sin. It would mean never learning the answers to questions that now seem unsolvable mysteries.
To the Christian this would be a horrible thing, and well deserving the name hell. This would mean little or nothing (I assume) to the non-christian. He might even look forward to an existence in the universe called hell. After all, don't some people dream of living forever? Isn't that what the 'transhumanist' movement is all about? Maybe hell is the process of men becoming machines, and losing their humanity. Maybe hell is the 'throwing off' of the image of God. (I don't know if that's possible.)
Is hell a horrific idea? To me it is, I certainly don't want to end up there. So the new atheists are right in saying hell is a horrible idea, but not in the way they suppose. Who knows, maybe hell only looks bad from the outside, from the Christian point of view. (e.g. "If I were to end up in such a place I would feel as if I were on fire, walking through a wasteland of fire, in constant pain and torment.") Maybe it won't seem bad from the inside, by the people living there.
Will people in hell live forever? I don't know. There is no dictionary I can go to that tells me how long the 'forever' in the bible is. Perhaps it (eternity) is forever, perhaps it's only a long time, or as long as one desires.
Can people in hell die? I don't know. Perhaps they can if they want to. Will they want to? Maybe some will and some won't.
Will people be miserable in hell? Perhaps some will and some won't.
Will anyone in hell desire to be in heaven? I don't know; but that would be hell indeed.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen/p.128
- quote is from Van Til's pamphlet 'Why I believe in God'
2. I'm not claiming that all of what I've written above is necessarily true.
- I guess that went without saying didn't it.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
An early prediction of man's greatness
The atheist in our day likes to claim that people believe what the Bible says simply because they have to. This is a distortion of the actual case. I believe the Bible is what it says it is because what I read there impresses me it is indeed the word of God.
It's easy to forget how 'spot on' the Bible was in its characterization of man. In the first few chapters of Genesis (written originally perhaps 6000 years ago) we read that man was created in God's image. We can see this as a prediction of man's future greatness. It expresses a profound understanding of man's intellectual capacities.
Remember that this was before the pyramids, before Pythagoras, before Euclid and Galen, before the Parthenon and Plato, before the great cathedrals, before the universities, before Kepler and Newton, before the microscope and the computer.
Thousands of years before all this (evidence of man's greatness) when man was still dressed in animal skins, the writer of Genesis tells us man was made in the image of God (the all wise creator of heaven and earth). If that's not enough to knock your socks off - you aren't wearing any :=} I find this to be a staggering confirmation of the Bible's divine origin; confirmation it is what it claims to be.
Summary;
I'm afraid people are so used to hearing the phrase 'in the image of God' that they've lost sight of how staggering an idea (conception of reality) this is. Only the One who created man truly knows who he is, and what he's capable of.
Notes;
1. I agree with the scholars who claim Genesis was likely compiled by Moses (and or those associated with him) from ancient records that went back to the pre-Flood world, and all the way back to creation and Adam.
- e.g. all throughout Genesis, new passages are introduced by the phrase ''these are the records of..."
2. I'm aware that the 'liberal' (Humanist) scholar rejects the above view; but even given that, Genesis still stands as an amazing 'prediction' or understanding of man's intellectual capacity.
It's easy to forget how 'spot on' the Bible was in its characterization of man. In the first few chapters of Genesis (written originally perhaps 6000 years ago) we read that man was created in God's image. We can see this as a prediction of man's future greatness. It expresses a profound understanding of man's intellectual capacities.
Remember that this was before the pyramids, before Pythagoras, before Euclid and Galen, before the Parthenon and Plato, before the great cathedrals, before the universities, before Kepler and Newton, before the microscope and the computer.
Thousands of years before all this (evidence of man's greatness) when man was still dressed in animal skins, the writer of Genesis tells us man was made in the image of God (the all wise creator of heaven and earth). If that's not enough to knock your socks off - you aren't wearing any :=} I find this to be a staggering confirmation of the Bible's divine origin; confirmation it is what it claims to be.
Summary;
I'm afraid people are so used to hearing the phrase 'in the image of God' that they've lost sight of how staggering an idea (conception of reality) this is. Only the One who created man truly knows who he is, and what he's capable of.
Notes;
1. I agree with the scholars who claim Genesis was likely compiled by Moses (and or those associated with him) from ancient records that went back to the pre-Flood world, and all the way back to creation and Adam.
- e.g. all throughout Genesis, new passages are introduced by the phrase ''these are the records of..."
2. I'm aware that the 'liberal' (Humanist) scholar rejects the above view; but even given that, Genesis still stands as an amazing 'prediction' or understanding of man's intellectual capacity.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
A refutation of Richard Dawkins
When he makes his attacks on Christianity, Richard Dawkins doesn't have an epistemological leg to stand on. Given his worldview he has no basis for the criticisms he makes.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'New Scientist has posted several articles recently about the subject [free will]. In one, MacGregor Campbell promoted the answer from some secular neuroscientists that free will is an illusion.
The video states without criticism that “every choice you have ever made was predetermined billions of years ago at the moment of the big bang...” [1.]
- That my friends is the ugly reality of materialism. A consistent application of its message would entail the death of all we consider human.
In other words, Einstein formulating his famous equation was just a matter of physics; a moment predetermined at the moment of the big bang. This show us the falseness and inadequacy of materialism to provide the foundation for a livable worldview.
If my every 'choice' was predetermined, it wasn't a choice then was it?
Notice how materialists will tell you how evil the Bible's message of predestination is... but then have a secular version of their own? They don't seem to find anything evil about that. Ever wonder why that is? (I don't think you'll have to ponder the question long to get an answer.)
Christianity asserts that both God's predestination and man's freedom are possible. How this can be we don't know; we must accept God's word for it, accept that he is much more wise than we, that he comprehends the true nature of reality while we do not.
There can be no freedom for the materialist; not if he's honest.
That the materialist believes this metaphysical view, but then goes on to criticize Christians makes no sense at all. e.g. the anti-theist campaign of Rich Dawkins. [2.] There's utter hypocrisy in 'preaching' change to people who aren't free. You have no right to criticize someone if they bear no responsibility for their behavior. Dawkins shows himself to be an intellectual buffoon. On the basis of his very own worldview, he has no basis for criticizing anything. If all was determined at the moment of the big bang he should shut his cake hole.
How this scenario can explain the fact I'm a creationist and Dawkins is a materialist I don't know. Was the Big Bang undecided about the origins issue, and what had caused it? Maybe MacGregor can tell us :=}
2. 'As scientific justification for these radically deterministic views, the narrator says, “Many neuroscientists think that what we call free will is just the result of electrical and chemical signals in the brain, explainable ultimately by the laws of physics.” [1.]
- I take it this means there is no free will.
If there is no free will how could you know this? i.e. how could you know anything? If you're not free to accept or reject an idea about X, you can't be said to know X. All you have is an opinion. We see here that m. destroys the ability to have knowledge. If we do have knowledge (and I think we do) it's only because materialism isn't true.
If there is no free will, all my opinions were forced onto me; the outcome of a chain of reactions going back to the Big Bang, and thus I have no knowledge, and can acquire no knowledge. i.e. not in the sense we think of knowledge. (My opinion might be correct but I couldn't be said to know it. I wouldn't be able to justify holding it... as I had no choice in the matter.)
If neuroscieentists had no free will why would their opinions be worth listening to? They're not speaking trruth to the universe, but are only repeating opinions, are only repeating opinions under duress.
If there is no free will it's hard to imagine how creativity is possible. Doesn't creativity depend on freedom?
If there were no free will it's hard to see how people could even think. At best we would be animal type robots. Isn't thinking evidence for free will?
The language here is confusing. If free will is the 'result of' electrical and chemical signals it would still exist... but I don't think this is what the author means. I think he's claiming free will is an illusion. (If it was merely an illusion how would you know this?)
3. “Free will: the illusion we can’t live without.” [1.]
- An illusion we can't live without is a strange kind of illusion isn't it? We normally think of an illusion as something we don't need; as something we can easily live without.
One wonders how X can be an illusion if it's necessary for our survival. Isn't that too a strange kind of illusion? Isn't the fact we can't live without it evidence the claim is false?
Scientists can't tell us whether we have free will or not. Scientists can't tell us whether all acts were predetermined in the big bang. The belief the lab coats can answer all questions is a delusion; a delusion called scientism.
In terms of biblical creation, an 'illusion' we can't (honestly) live without isn't an illusion; not God, and not free will. (The same goes for truth, moral truth, love, reality, Design, the mind, etc.)
4. 'freelance writer Dan Jones again gave the scientific edge to neuroscientists who present the “manifest truth of determinism”. [1.]
- If materialism were true, there would be no truth. The concept is meaningless in a universe determined by matter in motion. A little reflection shows this I believe. (I guess science types don't think they have to study philosophy anymore. Maybe they think they can discover philosophical truths in the lab, or see them in a microscope.)
To acquire true knowledge a subject must be free of the cause and effect chain of material determinism. He must transcend the mere flow of matter. If he doesn't transcend matter, his opinion is just the 'opinion' of matter on matter; ie. it's not a truth claim but a chemical reaction.
Can there be truth without error? but if all is matter in motion there can be no error. ie. how can a chemical reaction be an error?
If the Big Bang produced richard dawkins what produced the big bang? Something very strange must have been going on :=}
This notion plays havoc with our theories of causation. It reduces all causal agents to one; ie. the big bang is the cause of everything.
eg. Q. What caused me to spill my coffee? A. the big bang. (Since the cosmologists can't tell us what caused the big bang, the final cause of everything is a mystery.)
Q. What caused X, Y, or Z? A. Who knows? Stuff happens.
If you reject God and creation, this is the hopeless position you find yourself in. i.e. the cause of all things is unknown. God is thrown out in favor of the unknown. This is an unknown that will never be known; so the only alternative to creation is to have no answer at all.
Addendum;
5. 'He made matter-of-fact statements claiming materialism is scientific truth, such as Francis Crick’s remark, “you are nothing but a pack of neurons.”
- When you read phrases like 'nothing but' you know you're being fed some reductionism.
Crick is wrong. The most vital aspect of a human being is not the matter he's made of (e.g. neurons) but the information that has coded that matter. i.e. you are matter plus information; you are informed matter. (You are information made incarnate.)
I deny the claim matter in motion can compose true (specified, complex) information. We only know of one source of life giving information.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. Scientists Invade Religion Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/21/2011
2. Squawkin' Dawkins as I call him.
- Although Dawkins speaks of the 'god delusion' in reality, given his metaphysics, everything has to be an illusion. His model of reality claims that only matter exists, and that reality exists at the invisible level. He claims man is a 'robot slave' that is manipulated by genes. Every thought of man then is gene given; has its source in the gene's desire to reproduce, and thus can't be trusted to reflect reality. Given all this he has no way to posit truth or reality. Everything must be an illusion given that metaphysics and that epistem0logy. When he looks in the mirror he sees an illusion. When he looks out the window he sees an illusion. There cannot be something called reality for such a worldview.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'New Scientist has posted several articles recently about the subject [free will]. In one, MacGregor Campbell promoted the answer from some secular neuroscientists that free will is an illusion.
The video states without criticism that “every choice you have ever made was predetermined billions of years ago at the moment of the big bang...” [1.]
- That my friends is the ugly reality of materialism. A consistent application of its message would entail the death of all we consider human.
In other words, Einstein formulating his famous equation was just a matter of physics; a moment predetermined at the moment of the big bang. This show us the falseness and inadequacy of materialism to provide the foundation for a livable worldview.
If my every 'choice' was predetermined, it wasn't a choice then was it?
Notice how materialists will tell you how evil the Bible's message of predestination is... but then have a secular version of their own? They don't seem to find anything evil about that. Ever wonder why that is? (I don't think you'll have to ponder the question long to get an answer.)
Christianity asserts that both God's predestination and man's freedom are possible. How this can be we don't know; we must accept God's word for it, accept that he is much more wise than we, that he comprehends the true nature of reality while we do not.
There can be no freedom for the materialist; not if he's honest.
That the materialist believes this metaphysical view, but then goes on to criticize Christians makes no sense at all. e.g. the anti-theist campaign of Rich Dawkins. [2.] There's utter hypocrisy in 'preaching' change to people who aren't free. You have no right to criticize someone if they bear no responsibility for their behavior. Dawkins shows himself to be an intellectual buffoon. On the basis of his very own worldview, he has no basis for criticizing anything. If all was determined at the moment of the big bang he should shut his cake hole.
How this scenario can explain the fact I'm a creationist and Dawkins is a materialist I don't know. Was the Big Bang undecided about the origins issue, and what had caused it? Maybe MacGregor can tell us :=}
2. 'As scientific justification for these radically deterministic views, the narrator says, “Many neuroscientists think that what we call free will is just the result of electrical and chemical signals in the brain, explainable ultimately by the laws of physics.” [1.]
- I take it this means there is no free will.
If there is no free will how could you know this? i.e. how could you know anything? If you're not free to accept or reject an idea about X, you can't be said to know X. All you have is an opinion. We see here that m. destroys the ability to have knowledge. If we do have knowledge (and I think we do) it's only because materialism isn't true.
If there is no free will, all my opinions were forced onto me; the outcome of a chain of reactions going back to the Big Bang, and thus I have no knowledge, and can acquire no knowledge. i.e. not in the sense we think of knowledge. (My opinion might be correct but I couldn't be said to know it. I wouldn't be able to justify holding it... as I had no choice in the matter.)
If neuroscieentists had no free will why would their opinions be worth listening to? They're not speaking trruth to the universe, but are only repeating opinions, are only repeating opinions under duress.
If there is no free will it's hard to imagine how creativity is possible. Doesn't creativity depend on freedom?
If there were no free will it's hard to see how people could even think. At best we would be animal type robots. Isn't thinking evidence for free will?
The language here is confusing. If free will is the 'result of' electrical and chemical signals it would still exist... but I don't think this is what the author means. I think he's claiming free will is an illusion. (If it was merely an illusion how would you know this?)
3. “Free will: the illusion we can’t live without.” [1.]
- An illusion we can't live without is a strange kind of illusion isn't it? We normally think of an illusion as something we don't need; as something we can easily live without.
One wonders how X can be an illusion if it's necessary for our survival. Isn't that too a strange kind of illusion? Isn't the fact we can't live without it evidence the claim is false?
Scientists can't tell us whether we have free will or not. Scientists can't tell us whether all acts were predetermined in the big bang. The belief the lab coats can answer all questions is a delusion; a delusion called scientism.
In terms of biblical creation, an 'illusion' we can't (honestly) live without isn't an illusion; not God, and not free will. (The same goes for truth, moral truth, love, reality, Design, the mind, etc.)
4. 'freelance writer Dan Jones again gave the scientific edge to neuroscientists who present the “manifest truth of determinism”. [1.]
- If materialism were true, there would be no truth. The concept is meaningless in a universe determined by matter in motion. A little reflection shows this I believe. (I guess science types don't think they have to study philosophy anymore. Maybe they think they can discover philosophical truths in the lab, or see them in a microscope.)
To acquire true knowledge a subject must be free of the cause and effect chain of material determinism. He must transcend the mere flow of matter. If he doesn't transcend matter, his opinion is just the 'opinion' of matter on matter; ie. it's not a truth claim but a chemical reaction.
Can there be truth without error? but if all is matter in motion there can be no error. ie. how can a chemical reaction be an error?
If the Big Bang produced richard dawkins what produced the big bang? Something very strange must have been going on :=}
This notion plays havoc with our theories of causation. It reduces all causal agents to one; ie. the big bang is the cause of everything.
eg. Q. What caused me to spill my coffee? A. the big bang. (Since the cosmologists can't tell us what caused the big bang, the final cause of everything is a mystery.)
Q. What caused X, Y, or Z? A. Who knows? Stuff happens.
If you reject God and creation, this is the hopeless position you find yourself in. i.e. the cause of all things is unknown. God is thrown out in favor of the unknown. This is an unknown that will never be known; so the only alternative to creation is to have no answer at all.
Addendum;
5. 'He made matter-of-fact statements claiming materialism is scientific truth, such as Francis Crick’s remark, “you are nothing but a pack of neurons.”
- When you read phrases like 'nothing but' you know you're being fed some reductionism.
Crick is wrong. The most vital aspect of a human being is not the matter he's made of (e.g. neurons) but the information that has coded that matter. i.e. you are matter plus information; you are informed matter. (You are information made incarnate.)
I deny the claim matter in motion can compose true (specified, complex) information. We only know of one source of life giving information.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. Scientists Invade Religion Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/21/2011
2. Squawkin' Dawkins as I call him.
- Although Dawkins speaks of the 'god delusion' in reality, given his metaphysics, everything has to be an illusion. His model of reality claims that only matter exists, and that reality exists at the invisible level. He claims man is a 'robot slave' that is manipulated by genes. Every thought of man then is gene given; has its source in the gene's desire to reproduce, and thus can't be trusted to reflect reality. Given all this he has no way to posit truth or reality. Everything must be an illusion given that metaphysics and that epistem0logy. When he looks in the mirror he sees an illusion. When he looks out the window he sees an illusion. There cannot be something called reality for such a worldview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)