Is God the Default?
Next: Stamping Out Religion Prev: Designing
Deities TOC
From: Scott Vigil @ svis.com
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 8:29 AM
To: Casey Luskin @ Discovery.org
Subject: The Default
Hello Casey,
So what’s the default?
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM:
Whatever the evidence says.
When searching for string theory, with no
Higgs Boson in sight, they could have just said, “Well, this is the part we
leave to God.” Remember, we’re trying to understand this so we can understand
why gravity is weak. Newton and Einstein didn’t explain everything.
If they had done that, the Higgs Boson may
never have been found.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM:
Newton and Einstein believed in God; that didn’t hinder them from doing good
science.
Scott 2/6/14: Oh yes it did. In A Fresh Look, you mention that you like Michio Kaku. He says empahtically, “God does play dice. Einstein was
wrong.”
http://bigthink.com/videos/why-physics-ends-the-free-will-debate
Why do you think Einstein never came up with
his Unified theory? He was left behind in the theoretical back waters by the
quantum mechanical theorists.
Regarding Newton, you wouldn’t have made that
statement had you viewed Neil
deGrasse Tyson on intelligent design. In that lecture, Tyson spends quite a bit
of time discussing the effect of Newton’s theism on his science. He also
discusses the effect this had on some of the other greats as well. Because of
his religious views, he left it to Laplace and others to prove the stability of
the solar system a hundred years later.
… dugh…
oh! I forgot. You don’t have time for watching videos…
Where would we be if Newton and Einstein
could have allowed their minds to release past those views that stuck them and
thwarted from going past their apogees?
My concern is, “Why was the Higgs Boson not
found here in America?”
We had a particle accelerator in the works in
Texas that was larger than Europe’s LHC.
Personally, I believe that there is an
anti-science movement here in America. If that movement continues, the US will
continue to lose its leadership in the world.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Um,
America leads the world in science. The reason the Higgs Boson didn’t get found
here is because Congress cancelled the accelerator project in Texas that could
have found it. Congress also provides more funding to science than any other
entity in the history of the world. So Congress isn’t “anti-science.” Look, I’m
as bummed that the accelerator project got cancelled as you are—this had to do
with crazy Washington politics. Not “anti-science.” Go find someone else to
scapegoat for this problem, other than the usual predictable target of
fundamentalist Christians.
So, what’s your default? Is everything we
can’t explain done by God? That’s the way ID is structured. Anywhere there is a
break in the bush, it’s God.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: No,
not at all. We only infer intelligence when we find in nature the type of
information and complexity that is known to be produced by intelligence. And
that conclusion, like all scientific conclusions, is held tentatively subject
to discovering new data. ID isn’t an argument for “God” and it isn’t an negative argument. Critics of intelligent design often
accuse ID proponents of using a "god of the gaps" argument, but they
refuse to acknowledge that (1) ID isn't a "gaps-based" argument at
all since it in fact offers a positive argument for design in nature (see http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html) , and (2), in
any event, ID requires no inference to "God." (see
http://www.discovery.org/a/4306 )
I’ve answered this many times but you keep
misrepresenting ID.
Ok, so it’s an “agent”. But you take that
backwards. Where did the agent come from? Ok, he was an alien. Where did the
alien come from? Did he come from God? Where does it stop?
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Now
you’re using a fallback argument. I reply: Your objection essentially boils
down to “what is the origin of the designer?” or “who designed the
designer?” I know one thing is clear: unguided processes do not design
designers. So is it wrong to infer design? Let’s discuss:
As regards the scientific theory of ID, it
doesn't address the origin or identity of the designer (see
http://www.discovery.org/a/4306). One can detect design without
knowing who the designer was, or how the designer originated. Thus, your
objection is not a scientific one but a philosophical / metaphysical objection
to certain types of design. We can talk about it, but this is a discussion that
is outside the scope of science and treads into the realm of philosophy of
metaphysics.
Thus, let’s say for the sake of
argument that one is operating under a theistic perspective which holds that
the designer is God. (I personally am a Christian so this is my personal
view, though not a conclusion of ID.) If that’s the case, does your
argument philosophically preclude belief in God? No.
Scott 2/6/14: You mentioned you like Michio Kaku. Unlike you, he needs
proof that immortality exists. See 2:30 of Michio
Kaku on Religion, Death, and the Age of the Earth.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: In
fact, the answer to the question is another question: Where did the universe
come from? Atheists / materialists have no answer to that question.
Theists believe that God is eternal and has
no origin. I’m a Christian, and a theist, so I’ll admit, I can't tell you
where God came from, because either (1) nobody knows, or (2) to ask the
question is to commit a category fallacy, like asking why there can't be
married bachelors. This does not trouble me at all; don't throw us
theists in the briar patch of God's origin: atheists / materialists cannot say
where anything came from. All worldviews have, at their base, an uncaused
cause. The question is thus not "is it philosophically acceptable to
believe in God, who has no origin?" but rather it is "Whose uncaused
cause is most reasonable?"
Scott 2/6/14: Excellent use of the word,
“thus”.
Oh come on! A schooled theist like William Craig or even the fundamentalist Michael Brown would never have made such a statement. In A
Fresh Look, you try to
convince me you weren’t born in a barn and you knew of people like Lawrence
Krauss. But clearly you missed, Lawrence M. Krauss || A
Universe from Nothing || Radcliffe Institute. Otherwise, you wouldn’t embarrass yourself
with such a statement.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: This
issue comes down to ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION. We may start with this
question: Is it really true that, philosophically speaking, it isn't acceptable
to believe in God unless we can somehow account for the origin of
God? For the Christian theist, there is no explanation for the
origin of God, for God is by definition a Being existing outside of space and
time eternally in the past, present, and future, from Whom all things which
were created have come, who has no origin: Psalm 93:2: "Your throne was
established long ago; you are from all eternity." Proverbs 8:23: "I
was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world
began." Thus, we can see God as an "uncaused cause."
We don’t need a “greater” cause to explain God because (1) God is by definition
the greatest cause possible, and (2) God by definition has no cause. But is
this a problem for theism?
Scott 2/6/14: OMG! You are quoting Proverbs
and Psalms in a scientific discussion and using the word “thus” after it!!!!
There’s no “thus” after a quotation from a bronze age
document that has absolutely no veracity to it in a discussion of science.
See, you are agitated as you write and you
fall back to your “background abilities”, Casey. John Searle discusses background
abilities copiously.
It’s what you have because of your training.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Not
at all. It actually turns out that we have been asking the wrong
question. Here's why: EVERY WORLDVIEW has an uncaused cause at its
beginning. The WRONG question to worry about is therefore "Is it a
problem that God has no origin?" because EVERY WORLDVIEW, including
ATHEISM, has an uncaused cause at its beginning too. So the RIGHT
QUESTION is thus "whose uncaused cause is most reasonable?"
Atheists assert that the universe is essentially an uncaused cause. So is
it more unreasonable that everything came from nothing, or that everything came
from a mind which never "came" into existence in the first place
(i.e. the mind always has existed)?
So in my view, theists can answer the
question of what was at the bottom of everything: God, who has no origin, is
the root uncaused cause. But atheists have no clue what their uncaused
cause is because at the bottom of their chain, atheists never will have a clue
how the chain started. That's why the acclaimed Oxford atheist,
scientist, and science writer Peter Atkins writes, "In the beginning there
was nothing. Absolute void, not merely empty space.
There was no space and there was no time, for this was before time. The
universe was without form and void. By chance there was a
fluctuation..." (Peter Atkins, Creation Revisited, page 149)
Scott 2/6/14: Your religious thinking is
coming out: that which does not require evidence and simply holds to faith.
It’s exactly this thinking that allows you to posit that your deity (aka,
Intelligent Agent) created all eight million species independently out of thin
air without any transitional or intermediate forms. Your religiosity betrays
you!
I don’t know, maybe we’re showing that books
are too slow or somethun’. You are behind, dear boy.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: But
why was there a fluctuation in the void? "By chance" is not an
explanation. There's no reason for it. There's no reason to have a
fluctuation in the void. At the end of the day, whatever we discover,
materialists are going to come back to a void and something happening for no
reason at all -- "by chance." So that's what's at the
bottom of atheism: An event in a void that happens for no reason. Atheists
can't avoid it. Trying to avoid it will be a lifelong quest for a rabbit
that no atheist will ever catch. Ever.
Theism is superior because theists have a purposeful God who acted for a
reason--an uncaused cause that is entirely consistent with our purposeful,
meaningful universe.
Scott 2/6/14:
Bart Ehrman is an
American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished
Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.
Bart Ehrman:
What Kind of a Text is the King James Bible? (Manifold Greatness exhibition
opening)
Misquoting Jesus
in the Bible - Professor Bart D. Ehrman
Legends,
Fictions, and the Manuscripts that Illustrate Christ's Story
Israel
Finkelstein, an Israeli archaeologist and academic at
Tel Aviv University
Francesca
Stavrakopoulou is
Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion in the University of Exeter's
department of Theology and Religion.
Did
King David's Empire Exist
Did
God Have a Wife?
The
Real Garden of Eden
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: In
this regard, I think that accounting for the order in the universe by
postulating a rational, powerful, intelligent being is far more philosophically
acceptable than postulating "by chance, there was a fluctuation in the
void," which is basically what atheists / materialists say. Please
note again that this little excursion really has nothing to do with the
scientific theory of ID as your objection was philosophical, not scientific.
Scott 2/6/14: Certainly it does. A deity is
the central structure of ID. And, your lack of understanding of your own
religion and physics tells us a great deal about your command of knowledge.
My claim to fame is Physics Student of the
Year Award, Bellevue Community College, 1981. So I’m no physics genius. But
getting “schooled” by a theist (no, strike that, a religious apologist) on
physics just makes me laugh.
As software safety officer for the Navy’s FireScout program, essentially an autonomous
helicopter program, do you know how fired I would be if I said, “Well, let us
pray and I think we can then put this puppy in the air”?
|
|
|
Click for a bigger pic of FireScout and the mother ship. |
|
|
|
Fire Scout MQ-8 |
|
Now I was eventually fired because I slowed
down launch dates to complete my inspections and they eventually found someone
who was cheaper. But I would have been fired on the first day had I used your
thinking, Casey! C’mon! Come down to planet earth, buddy!!!
Try this on for size and stop talking about
stuff you know nothing about and embarrassing every good Christian out there.
2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial
Debate: The Existence of Nothing
Do you believe that it had to come from God
because we can’t get something from nothing? The Europeans—not us—have shown
that this is incorrect.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: OK,
how can we get something from nothing? Do tell. I wasn’t aware that Higgs Boson
created something from nothing. Rather, it created something from something…NOT
nothing.
Scott 2/6/14: “Do tell”, oo-wee,
I like the attitude! Thank-you for taking this discussion to
my strong suit. Now, I really know, Casey, how full of hot air and how
dis-informed you are.
First, listen to the debate listed above.
Second, below are a few resources.
Why do we have to bring God into it? I think
it’s because theists continually attempt to place every science under their
collective thumbs.
Creation ex nihilo - without God - Secular Web
Demystifying the Higgs Boson with Leonard Susskind
Virtual particle - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
Creation of particle anti-particle pairs - Physics Stack Exchange
The whole universe can be created from
nothing. - HyperPhysics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
What is
quantum vaccum?
With all this, I think we addressed the
question, “Is God the default”? In your case, you strongly argue for the
position that God is one of the background facts of our universe. If that
doesn’t prove that you’re a religious apologist rather than a scientist I don’t
know what could.
They, have
created something from nothing.
Best regards,
Scott
Next: Stamping Out Religion Prev:
Designing Deities TOC