tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post4639215521396979470..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Something Good at HuffpoPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25706791843395766782011-07-18T21:39:57.056-07:002011-07-18T21:39:57.056-07:00Maybe I'm a bit late on the "infinity&quo...Maybe I'm a bit late on the "infinity" discussion, but heres a few definitions that may shed some light on why us being finite things can't grasp the infinite....<br /><br />endless time, space, or quantity <br /><br />a distant ideal point at which two parallel lines are assumed to meet <br /><br />a dimension or quantity of sufficient size to be unaffected by finite variations <br /><br />Also, thanks for posting this Phil. I'm working towards a physics degree right now and its nice to read things like this. Gives me good ideas for discussions with other students :]amjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17186241233007711197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38428325679235294042011-07-18T20:06:52.869-07:002011-07-18T20:06:52.869-07:00This is wonderful. Thank you!This is wonderful. Thank you!Meghan Newhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10831662232205100325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72581419917428170792011-07-18T17:08:38.028-07:002011-07-18T17:08:38.028-07:00So if I'm following, scienticians scoff at the...So if I'm following, scienticians scoff at the notion of the supernatural, claim rationalism as the standard, demand that anything true must be observable, measurable, and repeatable...<br /><br />and then constantly appeal to things which are unobservable, cannot be tested/disproven, and are frequently literally inconceivable.<br /><br />Seems a little self-defeating when you stop to think about it.trogdorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452996348717802065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-886355891202762972011-07-18T16:00:59.901-07:002011-07-18T16:00:59.901-07:00It is interesting that so many scientists that are...It is interesting that so many scientists that are determined (one is tempted to say "hell-bent") on proving everything from a materialistic point of view often drift into mysticism. Perhaps it is a way for them to close that gap to God. Sad, when God offers a clearly defined path.<br /><br />The one scientist who comes to mind in this is Sir Isaac Newton. Writings from the latter part of his life are filled with mysticism and alchemy. John Maynard Keynes, the economist, said that "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians."<br /><br />A good friend, Martin Erdmann, has recently lectured and written on this phenone(http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/11/spiritualization.htm).Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091252260331689705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51150079838012445442011-07-18T14:03:45.243-07:002011-07-18T14:03:45.243-07:00Um, the author of the HuffPo article is Dr. Matt J...Um, the author of the HuffPo article is Dr. Matt J. Rossano.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41736427015740963492011-07-18T13:45:09.770-07:002011-07-18T13:45:09.770-07:00I could be off here, but I doubt that Phil (or the...I could be off here, but I doubt that Phil (or the other Pyros) is really looking for a "friend and ally in support of the Intelligent Design movement". I suspect Phil is more interested in straightforward Biblical fidelity, and sees that an article has used some good logic to damage the portrayed invicible veneer a sworn enemy of Biblical fidelity.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16345630463450652762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30842467080824084522011-07-18T13:11:34.525-07:002011-07-18T13:11:34.525-07:00BioLogos published this article some time ago. Ol...<a href="http://biologos.org/blog/are-infinities-more-scientific-than-god" rel="nofollow">BioLogos published this article</a> some time ago. Old news. Judging from <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design" rel="nofollow">this post by Stephen Barr</a> you haven't found a friend and ally in support of the Intelligent Design movement. Stephen Barr and BioLogos are more allies than enemies.Steve Gentryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03641751408024300010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10120254472521680422011-07-18T08:41:05.559-07:002011-07-18T08:41:05.559-07:00I think hearing and meeting Paul Cohen and Hugh Wo...I think hearing and meeting Paul Cohen and Hugh Woodin has disabused me of any notion that I comprehend infinity! <br /><br />My point was not about comprehending the vastness of infinity.<br /><br />But thanks for the reply in any case, brother Phil.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13789950523908306139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34385576962704196912011-07-18T08:28:13.323-07:002011-07-18T08:28:13.323-07:00Thanks for the reply, Mr. Fosi. I'm not sure I...Thanks for the reply, Mr. Fosi. I'm not sure I follow, but I agree that materialism has problems; I'm probably more in line with Dooyeweerd than with Van Til regarding such matters.<br /><br />All the best with your PhD! I'm interested to know what you are researching, feel free to get in touch. I think I've said enough in this thread! :-)Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13789950523908306139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36159385148675685082011-07-18T08:21:51.292-07:002011-07-18T08:21:51.292-07:00Paul: "It's not true, in my experience, t...<b>Paul:</b> <i>"It's not true, in my experience, that I cannot begin to comprehend an infinity of varied planets . . . Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on that."</i><br /><br />Well, yes. That IS the whole point, and the whole problem: People enthralled with scientism have far too high an estimate of human wisdom, personal experience, and their own intellectual powers. Look up the definition of "infinity," and it may help you sort the issue out a little better.<br /><br />Or watch <a href="http://vimeo.com/24551969" rel="nofollow">this video</a> (ht: Fred Butler)--and realize that if you take what you see and multiply it as large as your own imagination will allow. Now multiply that times ten to the hundredth power. If you can conceive of something as vast as all that, you still will not have begun to comprehend infinitude.<br /><br />But I think you have nailed the real issue for us: modern science simply won't acknowledge its own limitations.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33759218926789295802011-07-18T08:12:07.486-07:002011-07-18T08:12:07.486-07:00Hi Paul,
The materialist need not explain the inf...Hi Paul,<br /><br /><i>The materialist need not explain the infinity of entities, and the theist need not explain God. I fail to see the need for any infinite regress of explanations.</i><br /><br />The people that I know personally who ascribe to a greater or lesser amount of materialism do so because of their desire for explanations of observable things or processes. To stop at a certain level of how/when/were either by fiat or because further questions are "unanswerable" shows up a limitation not just of empiricism (since we likely didn't use pure empiricism to get there), but a limit of the materialistic presupposition. The way around this limitation seems to be an appeal to an infinity of some sort, which itself must transcendent (crossing space and time, immutable and non-material) and it must <i>actually actually exist</i> in reality. This be heresy when materialism rules, since all constructs of reason, logic or perception are simply illusory emergent properties of self-assembling complex systems in a purposeless universe.<br /><br /><i>If you are telling me that materialism cannot account for the existence of actual infinities of entities then... it is not to be confused with postulating the existence of an abstract actual infinity in a platonic-type mathematical realm (is this what you mean by transcendent?), a problem which is also not restricted to infinity, but applies to the existence of all mathematical entities, universals, etc.</i><br /><br />On materialism, there is only the material world. There can therefore be no <i>actual</i> dualism of material and non-material. One can postulate some transcendent, non-material property or "law" such as the infinite, so long as one realizes that there can not <i>actually</i> be such a non-material property... That such a thing is only illusory.<br /><br />However, as I noted above, in order for the materialist to bridge the gap, he/she must appeal to a <i>real</i> non-material entity. This appeal to a <i>real</i> and not merely "posited for the sake of discussion" non-material and transcendent property undercuts the internal consistency of the materialistic presupposition.<br /><br />This is making sense in my head, but I'm not sure if I am communicating it clearly. O_oMr. Fosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17652392944938128012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67212843565124364832011-07-18T08:06:58.036-07:002011-07-18T08:06:58.036-07:00Thanks, Phil.
The materialist need not postulate...Thanks, Phil. <br /><br />The materialist need not postulate such an infinity. Even so, and even if we grant that the inference is not scientific as such, I surely have a better scientific grasp of what such an infinity could be. It's not true, in my experience, that I cannot begin to comprehend an infinity of varied planets, but it is true that I cannot begin to comprehend God scientifically. <br /><br />Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on that.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13789950523908306139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69201338044147683722011-07-18T07:47:48.205-07:002011-07-18T07:47:48.205-07:00Hi Mr. Fosi,
I am not sure if I have understood ...Hi Mr. Fosi,<br /> <br />I am not sure if I have understood you, however:<br /> <br />It is not that the question is not allowed, it is that it cannot be answered. The materialist need not explain the infinity of entities, and the theist need not explain God. I fail to see the need for any infinite regress of explanations.<br /> <br />If you are telling me that materialism cannot account for the existence of actual infinities of entities then (i) the problem is not restricted to the origin of the cosmos, and (ii) it is not to be confused with postulating the existence of an abstract actual infinity in a platonic-type mathematical realm (is this what you mean by transcendent?), a problem which is also not restricted to infinity, but applies to the existence of all mathematical entities, universals, etc.<br /><br />I'm struggling to see what the argument is, regarding origins specifically.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13789950523908306139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20162362599140902752011-07-18T07:43:22.049-07:002011-07-18T07:43:22.049-07:00There is a huge flip side to the infinities argume...There is a huge flip side to the infinities argument that undercuts itself: Carl Sagan said that there must be billions of civilizations out there... but if that were true, it stands to reason that at least one of those billions of civilizations would have been heard by SETI or other radio astronomy listening projects. Right?Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58666777416320743592011-07-18T07:41:36.321-07:002011-07-18T07:41:36.321-07:00Paul: "we know how to scientifically study pl...<b>Paul:</b> <i>"we know how to scientifically study planets etc., and have done so, even though there may be infinitely many of them, but we don't know how to scientifically study God"</i><br /><br />You can scientifically study <b><i>a</i></b> planet, or a solar system of planets. But you cannot begin to comprehend—you cannot even imagine—an infinitude of planets, much less study an infinite variety of infinite variables "scientifically."<br /><br />The difficulties with pure materialism are legion (including, of course, the problem of entropy; the fact that genes contain complex information in DNA code; and the big one: the origin of life). When these are ALL dealt with by a fideistic punt to infinite time, infinite space, infinite possibilities, and infinite, impersonal(!) chance—it sounds very much like the argument is simply <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down" rel="nofollow">"Turtles all the way down"</a> couched in geological and biological terminology, so as to give it a facade of scientific respectability.<br /><br />The point being made by that article, I believe, is that when you continually retreat to the realm of hypothetical infinitude in order to explain what cannot be observed or tested in the laboratory, you eventually need to acknowledge that you have left the realm of "science" rightly so-called.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67728144417402743622011-07-18T06:36:08.733-07:002011-07-18T06:36:08.733-07:00That is "exists" not "exits". ...That is "exists" not "exits". :D<br /><br />Word verification: condm. (<_<)Fitting given the discussion about contraception taking place over at Triablogue.Mr. Fosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17652392944938128012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66555535658767196572011-07-18T06:34:37.424-07:002011-07-18T06:34:37.424-07:00Assuming certain questions are not forbidden, in a...Assuming certain questions are not forbidden, in a worldview concerned with with "how", "where" and "when", an infinity of entities leads inexorably to an infinite regress of explanation for those entities.<br /><br />That's not the main point though, as I read it. On materialism, only material exits and there is no "real" transcendence (of anything). An appeal to an infinity of any sort, however, violates that central principle since the person postulating it isn't postulating the illusion of transcendence, but of an actual one.<br /><br />Perhaps there's an even better way to put that, or a more central point that I missed.Mr. Fosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17652392944938128012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31508432655692798412011-07-18T06:00:54.110-07:002011-07-18T06:00:54.110-07:00Hi Steve,
As I understand it -- though the articl...Hi Steve,<br /><br />As I understand it -- though the article is pretty vague -- there is no infinite regress, only a single postulated infinity of entities. I take it that they are "brute", just as God is. The buck has to stop somewhere. But that doesn't undermine materialism any more than it undermines theism. No?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13789950523908306139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81992356534661255692011-07-18T05:37:53.598-07:002011-07-18T05:37:53.598-07:00@Paul:
In any case, even granting for the sake of ...@Paul:<br /><i>In any case, even granting for the sake of argument that it is no more scientifically defensible, why would the infinities undercut the materialist position?</i><br /><br />Could it be that infinities undercut the materialist position in that you then have an infinite regression where nothing is really ever answered? The materialist can posit an answer to an answer, and an answer to that answer, and then another answer to that answer...you get the idea.<br /><br />The materialistic worldview can never account, or give justified warrant, for such things as uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, true right and true wrong, and what Van Til calls the preconditions of intelligibility.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79756491843542400902011-07-18T04:11:28.285-07:002011-07-18T04:11:28.285-07:00I hate it when a trend is over and there are stil...I hate it when a trend is over and there are still Christians on the old trend.<br /><br />But I do love the irony that HuffPo is ahead of BioLogos on the question of teleology. One is setting trends and the other is following.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55202678849626142122011-07-18T01:46:31.018-07:002011-07-18T01:46:31.018-07:00Order arising from chaos, and everything originall...Order arising from chaos, and everything originally coming from nothing ... sounds familiar!<br /><br />I'm a Christian, and there very clearly is a difference; to put it roughly, we know how to scientifically study planets etc., and have done so, even though there may be infinitely many of them, but we don't know how to scientifically study God, an infinite spiritual being (whose existence is brute fact, surely). <br /><br />In any case, even granting for the sake of argument that it is no more scientifically defensible, why would the infinities undercut the materialist position?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13789950523908306139noreply@blogger.com