You should be more critical about what constitutes "thought".
Posted on 01/29/2006 8:13:04 AM PST by STD
Design and the Anthropic Principle Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Hugh Ross launched his career at age seven when he went to the library to find out why stars are hot. Physics and astronomy captured his curiosity and never let go. At age seventeen he was the youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouver's Royal Astronomical Society. With the help of a provincial scholarship and a National Research Council (NRC) of Canada fellowship, he completed his undergraduate degree in physics (University of British Columbia) and graduate degrees in astronomy (University of Toronto). The NRC also sent him to the United States for postdoctoral studies. At Caltech he researched quasi-stellar objects, or "quasars," some of the most distant and ancient objects in the universe.
Not all of Hugh's discoveries had to do with astrophysics. He observed with amazement the impact of describing for people the process by which he came to personal faith in Jesus Christ. Some have expressed dismay but most have been overjoyed to meet someone who started at religious ground zero and through scientific and historical reality testing, became convinced that the Bible is truly the Word of God. He was stunned to discover how many individuals believed or disbelieved without checking evidence.
That seems to be a fair explanation of the anthropic principle.
Yes, you are a good illustration: the unwilling can never be convinced of anything. Benchmarks are easier to move than one's own heart.
Your atheism has nothing to do with facts, logic, or evidence. QED
Dan
"Yes, you are a good illustration: the unwilling can never be convinced of anything. Benchmarks are easier to move than one's own heart.
Your atheism has nothing to do with facts, logic, or evidence. QED
"
Watches still don't reproduce themselves, BibChr. You did not speak to my post. Insulting my atheism is not a response.
Hello 2ndreconmarine! It’s so good to see you again!
WRT to the above, I’m not clear what you mean by "Universe" in this statement. Do you mean matter plus physical laws?
The subject matter of the article at the top is so very near and dear to my heart. And yet – I have a “front-burner project” going on now that I have to take care of before I’ll have the opportunity to engage in this discussion. With any luck at all, I’ll be back in a day or so. And I’m most anxious for that to be the case, for this promises to be a great feast!
Meanwhile, I just received a very interesting article from a friend, by George F R Ellis, Mathematics Department, University of Cape Town, entitled “Physics and the Real World.” I haven’t read it through yet, but it appears to be on-topic. Maybe you’ll find it of interest. Here’s the abstract:
Physics and chemistry underlie the nature of all the world around us, including human brains. Consequently some suggest that in causal terms, physics is all there is. However we live in an environment dominated by objects embodying the outcomes of intentional design (buildings, computers, teaspoons). The present-day subject of physics has nothing to say about the intentionality resulting in existence of such objects, even though this intentionality is clearly causally effective. This paper examines the claim that the underlying physics uniquely causally determines what happens, even though we can’t predict the outcome. It suggests that what occurs is the contextual emergence of complexity: the higher levels in the hierarchy of complexity have autonomous causal powers, functionally independent of lower-level processes. This is possible because top-down causation takes place as well as bottom-up action, with higher-level contexts determining the outcome of lower level functioning, and even modifying the nature of lower level constituents. Stored information plays a key role, resulting in non-linear dynamics that is non-local in space and time. Brain functioning is causally affected by abstractions such as the value of money and the theory of the laser. These are realized as brain states in individuals, but are not equivalent to them. Consequently physics per se can’t causally determine the outcome of human creativity, rather it creates the possibility space allowing human intelligence to function autonomously. The challenge to physics is to develop a realistic description of causality in truly complex hierarchical structures, with top-down causation and memory effects allowing higher levels of order to emerge with genuine causal powers.You can download the PDF from this URL:
http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/~ellis/realworld.pdf.
Be back soon, God willing!
Thanks ever so much for the ping, 2ndreconmarine!
Actually, the watch example has real possibilities.
In my lifetime, I've seen numerous changes in watches. Their production and reproduction arm has witnessed a need and opportunity to change and has produced quartz, silent, lcd, etc.
In all cases of change, the initiator of change was intelligent.
I have self-learning speech-writer that has been pre-programmed to adapt and increase its vocabulary.
Again, the initiator of changer was intelligent.
Physics, chemistry, brains, information, money and lasers, all tools in the toolbox. In the absense of intellect and will, nothing happens, or rather (I am a laboratory test case) thanks to the laws of thermodynamics, what happens is they scatter and I can't find them anywhere.
Quoting: "Consequently physics per se can’t causally determine the outcome of human creativity, rather it creates the possibility space allowing human intelligence to function autonomously. The challenge to physics is to develop a realistic description of causality in truly complex hierarchical structures, with top-down causation and memory effects allowing higher levels of order to emerge with genuine causal powers."
Whatever that might be imagined to have meaning.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
It's a wet bird that flies by night.
Just where does this differ from scientific and rational thought about "cause and effect"? Is the author saying that psychics, tarot-card readers, and Christian faith-healers have equal standing with biomedical researchers and physicists?
Good old secular engineering works nicely for building bridges and allowing airplanes to fly. Doesn't seem to need a god or a psychic to make it work.
Well jeepers, thomaswest, I don't know -- for as I said, I haven't read Ellis' piece through yet. Have you?
When we both have, maybe then we'll have something to talk about. Best wishes, bb.
Certainly, it doesn't seem so. But are you looking deeply enough into the true nature of things?
As ever, dear balrog666, your eloquence is underwhelming. :^) But I still like you anyway.
Actually, I did speak to your post. I just didn't speak to the part you wanted me to. You aren't in complete charge. Atheism didn't work; it only gives you an illusion.
Dan
"Doesn't seem to need a god or a psychic to make it work."
"Certainly, it doesn't seem so. But are you looking deeply enough into the true nature of things?"
Ah, the Tom Lehrer defense:
"When correctly viewed,
everything is lewd."
Or, in other words, "see it my way, and then all will be revealed".
Obviously, the vast majority of Christians do not agree with your view. They have split into 100 or more sects and cults. Each one claims to have a 'special understanding' of "the Truth". They compete with each other to gain adherents and hold on to some power. Obviously, they can't all be right.
Because it argues that the beneficiary is the cause, not the effect. To use BibChr's example, it is like finding a watch, then asking how the sun and the moon and the stars were all made to reflect the inner workings of the watch. It's inverted cause and effect.
No, this articles deals with a basket full of scientific discoveries, then tries to imply that they exist the way they are because they are necessary to Man's existence. As if Man were the Prime Cause, and the rest of the Universe somehow derivative.
Not only does that contradict every logical principle, it also contradicts Creationism, which holds that God created the Universe first, then Man. He fitted Man to his environment, not vice versa.
By the way, you've been on this site long enough to have seen me around, and I would hope you'd recognize that I'm one of the staunchest defenders of Creationism. I'm not your enemy, although in your zealotry you might perceive me that way.
Okay, by that pre-quantum mechanics theory of cause and effect, you'd be right. Right and almost a 100 years behind the times. Since quantum mechanics we can no longer say that effect does not shape cause. And that post-QM era is what much of this post is about.
I'm sorry I'm not familiar enough with quantum mechanics to understand that. I can't say I've ever heard that claim made though. Would you care to explain, in terms a poor simpleton could comprehend?
And in any case, are you saying that God's creation of the universe was dictated by the nature of Man? I wouldn't think God was ruled by the laws He Himself created. But maybe quantum mechanics can answer that for me too.
Three things:
1. You're probably right, I probably should know you by now. But I really don't. Sorry.
2. No, you're mistaken: it doesn't contradict logic in any way. Or if it does, you've not demonstrated it.
3. No, you're mistaken again: it doesn't contradict creationism. The pattern of the six days of creation (which I take to be six historical, common-sense-of-the-word days, relatively recent) is form and fullness. Day one, light; day four, light-bearers; day two, sky and water; day five, birds and marine life; day three, dry land; day six, animals and man to live on the dry land.
So God was preparing the world for man, the crowning act of creation.
Dan
Well Said
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.