tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post6487179597164003330..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: You go Ken!mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-89598458276175792972014-02-05T07:58:52.151-05:002014-02-05T07:58:52.151-05:00But then, you're not running around saying, &q...But then, you're not running around saying, "YECs are stupid, ignorant (possibly anti-Christian) hicks ... who give me a bad name with the Christ-haters ... because '<i>Science!</i>'"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-77288702962614637632014-02-05T07:50:46.635-05:002014-02-05T07:50:46.635-05:00M.Egnor: "How would you conduct this blog? I&...<b>M.Egnor:</b> "<i>How would you conduct this blog? I'm serious. What tack do you believe I should take?</i>"<br /><br />JQ is either:<br />1) an atheist, trying to play the false "Jesus was a door-mat" card, with its corollary, "Therefore, you Christians have to be 'nice' and let those who want nothing but your extinction lie to your faces";<br />2) a 'dhimmi' to the atheists, someone suffering 'Stockholm Symdrome' with respect to atheism and atheists;<br />3) a "nice" person who imagines she is thereby a Christian -- and who has never actually read the Bible and thus has no idea what Jesus was really like, has no idea how God really deals with liars and hypocrites -- and who is going to throw a royal shit-fit whenever she encounters another person who claims the name of Christ but who isn't as "nice" as she is.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48512556534798004442014-02-05T05:41:31.259-05:002014-02-05T05:41:31.259-05:00I know that they can be bilious. I see it on this ...I know that they can be bilious. I see it on this blog every day.<br /><br />I think I've made my point. Persuasion can be hard work but it's worth it. <br /><br />When you use rhetoric like >>disease<< to describe atheism, atheists think you're calling them diseased, and that's not such a bad inference. That doesn't persuade them that you're right but it does hurt. People can have different reactions to being hurt but changing their mind isn't usually one of them. <br /><br />Like I said, think of atheists as souls to be won. Win them by gentle persuasion and nothing more. <br /><br />JQAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-9343856454163159422014-02-04T18:51:55.051-05:002014-02-04T18:51:55.051-05:00JQ:
How would you conduct this blog? I'm seri...JQ:<br /><br />How would you conduct this blog? I'm serious. What tack do you believe I should take?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41689232489529651202014-02-04T17:04:29.412-05:002014-02-04T17:04:29.412-05:00Some are certainly bilious. Don't be like them...Some are certainly bilious. Don't be like them.<br /><br />The hardcore atheists who hate Christianity are a subset of atheists. When you say that atheism is a disease you allow for no such differentiation. They're all in the same boat.<br /><br />JQAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72031449983487624152014-02-04T17:03:15.483-05:002014-02-04T17:03:15.483-05:00In addition, the atheists with whom I am dealing a...<i>In addition, the atheists with whom I am dealing are not mainstream atheists-- they're not polite thoughtful folks who are struggling with the question of God's existence (as I was and as most atheists are). This crowd is nasty, vindictive, full of hate (just consider some of troy's vile spew against Christians and the Church). </i><br /><br />What makes you think most atheists are struggling with the question of God's existence? It's certainly not true for the atheists I know. Perhaps the atheists you know are lapsed Christians who suffer from severed ties with relatives and friends. Most of the atheists I know were raised non-religiously. Religious kids went to different schools and you hardly met them. troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28123698608863042014-02-04T16:27:52.388-05:002014-02-04T16:27:52.388-05:00I am talking about that very thing, Michael. I don...I am talking about that very thing, Michael. I don't think you understand the topic well enough. <br /><br />I have explained why your suggestion that <i>the measurement of one particle causes the entangled property to manifest in the entangled particle "instantaneously"</i> is nonsense. In my example, <i>both</i> particles are measured at the same time. Which one causes the collapse of the other's wavefunction? The question cannot be answered either way. <br /><br />The paradox illustrates that entanglement is an example of quantum <i>correlations</i> and not of <i>causation</i>. <br /><br />You've read this a third time now, but I suspect that you still don't get my point. :)<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68897049328952433132014-02-04T16:23:00.446-05:002014-02-04T16:23:00.446-05:00I'm referring to Bell's Theorem an the exp...I'm referring to Bell's Theorem an the experiments of Aspect and others. Entangled particles have properties that are caused by the measurement of one particle that causes the entangled property to manifest in the entangled particle "instantaneously", regardless of the distance between the two particles. The concept of "causation in time" is meaningless with instantaneous appearance of a property in an entangled particle. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-31306294414076682812014-02-04T15:20:43.493-05:002014-02-04T15:20:43.493-05:00I do know what you are talking about, Michael, but...I do know what you are talking about, Michael, but what you are saying makes little sense. :) <br /><br />The collapse of the wavefunction is not a real thing because it concerns the wavefunction, which is not a physically meaningful quantity. The wavefunction cannot be measured, so its collapse happens in our heads, not in real life. Our description of the physical world relies on notions that are themselves unphysical. Predictions that come out at the end of a calculation concern physical, measurable quantities. The wavefunction itself is unphysical and its collapse is inconsequential. <br /><br />Let's connect this to our Gedankenexperiment with Alice and Bob. They both measure the state of the spin. Which one of them causes the collapse of the wavefunction at the other end? Alice's measurement causes the collapse of the wavefunction of Bob's electron? Bob's measurement causes the collapse of the wavefunction of Alice's electron? It cannot be both. A cannot be cause of B if B is also cause of A. That's really what you are trying to suggest here. <br /><br />Alice's and Bob's measurements exhibit a <i>correlation</i>, but they do not <i>causally</i> influence one another. You can't say that Bob's measurement is up <i>because</i> Alice's is down. It's a completely symmetric situation. You might as well say that Alice's measurement is down <i>because</i> Bob's is up. And you can't have both. :)<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42844262065757019442014-02-04T15:07:24.240-05:002014-02-04T15:07:24.240-05:00JQ,
And regarding your point that I could make mo...JQ,<br /><br />And regarding your point that I could make more headway with unerring courtesy etc, I tried that early in my blogging career. I tried to avoid anything stronger than mild sarcasm, and the stream of hate I received was something I never imagined possible. The stuff that was said about me and to me on blog after blog was remarkably vile-- and that was when I was being <em>nice</em>. <br /><br />The tougher I got, the more reluctant they were to fight. It isn't as much fun when the target hits back. I didn't hit back with the same nasty stuff done to me, but I hit back hard. A lot of them came to understand that if they want to have a public debate on these issues, they're going to take casualties. The stuff they say is stupid and vile, and it needs to be called out. <br /><br />As I said, I'm not doing it to convert the feral atheists. They often seem to be sociopaths that there's not much I can do to help. I'm trying to strengthen Christians and people on the fence who may be swayed by the loudness and vigor (but not by the logic) of the atheist argument. <br /><br />I have been very inspired by Christians who are willing to strip the bark off of idiot atheist arguments (Feser and David Hart come to mind), and I hope I can be of help to other Christians.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80832024248447408312014-02-04T14:58:47.118-05:002014-02-04T14:58:47.118-05:00You know what I'm talking about, and you'r...You know what I'm talking about, and you're evading it. With collapse of the waveform at the moment of measurement, separated entangled particles have properties that are caused by the measurement but that are acquired without relativistic time intervals. <br /><br />That kind of causation is extra-temporal. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90250152158679349822014-02-04T14:56:20.129-05:002014-02-04T14:56:20.129-05:00Ilion:
You're right. Scientism is very much a...Ilion:<br /><br />You're right. Scientism is very much a problem, not only for atheists, but for many Christians as well. I think that it has influenced some of the Thomist rejection of ID. <br /><br />But I am not a YEC because I don't think the Bible should be interpreted that way. And that is the traditional view of the Church for a couple of millennia. YEC is a relatively new phenomenon, one which I respect, but it is not my view. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-22047557361218723812014-02-04T14:52:53.449-05:002014-02-04T14:52:53.449-05:00JQ:
Your points are well taken. I've thought ...JQ:<br /><br />Your points are well taken. I've thought about it a lot, along the lines you have suggested.<br /><br />First, dealing politely with serious error is certainly not a Biblical theme. From the Prophets to Paul to Peter to the Lord Himself, the godless and other serious sinners-- especially those luxuriating in the sin of pride-- are denounced in ways that make me seem like Mother Theresa. One certainly does not get the sense that tact and gentle correction of serious error is Biblical. Just the opposite. <br /><br />Second, my immediate goal is not to convert atheists. I would love to do that, of course, but that is not a job I am engaged in here. In addition, the atheists with whom I am dealing are not mainstream atheists-- they're not polite thoughtful folks who are struggling with the question of God's existence (as I was and as most atheists are). This crowd is nasty, vindictive, full of hate (just consider some of troy's vile spew against Christians and the Church). <br /><br />My goal is not to convert them, as wonderful as that would be. My goal is to provide other Christians and sincere seekers of God (who may be atheist in this stage of their lives) with sharp clear refutations of atheist propaganda and lies. I hope to provide ammunition to Christians in what will be a very nasty struggle with atheism in our country in the next generation or two.<br /><br />I deal with atheists like I would have dealt with Nazis and Communists when they were a threat to our civilization. My goal is to defeat them and shred their ideology.<br /><br />After that, when they have no influence and no answers, then we can talk nice.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64020745583092349452014-02-04T13:27:04.206-05:002014-02-04T13:27:04.206-05:00It's hard to call something a disease and then...It's hard to call something a disease and then say that those who have it are not diseased.<br /><br />What you're doing is not gentle persuasion. You're just insulting atheists. Maybe you're just giving your most honest opinion as an ex-atheist yourself, but from where I'm sitting the rhetoric seems over the top, counterproductive, and insulting. <br /><br />Persuading by insult is usually the method of the Left. They don't like your beliefs so they mock you, hoping you will abandon your belief if you are teased enough. >>You hate science!<< is a favorite one. <br /><br />No one really likes being called a science hater so, at some point, people decide to just shut up about their beliefs. No one's mind is really changed this way. They just get sick of paying the social penalty. They are shamed into silence not persuaded.<br /><br />Your tactic is similar.<br /><br />JQ Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-71128587939967385772014-02-04T12:17:50.317-05:002014-02-04T12:17:50.317-05:00Modern science does not concern itself with truth,...Modern science does not concern itself with truth, and does not even contain the tools to distinguish truth from non-truth.<br /><br />Persons who will not understand that fact, and will not understand what it means, always end up shilling for scientism.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90897675857131185322014-02-04T12:14:31.949-05:002014-02-04T12:14:31.949-05:00M.Egnor: "So I politely point out to my ID an...<b>M.Egnor:</b> "<i>So I politely point out to my ID and Thomist friends who take Ham to task: reality is not a true or false question; it is an essay question, and there's lots of partial credit.</i>"<br /><br />It seems that the reason most non-YECs have such an opposite, hostile-and-unreasoning attitude toward YECs is because they, the anti-YECs, are just as caught up in <i>scientism</i> as the typical so-called atheist is.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27485678157744727512014-02-04T12:03:12.468-05:002014-02-04T12:03:12.468-05:00You are making a very basic error, Michael. Quantu...You are making a very basic error, Michael. Quantum entanglement is an example of correlation, which, as we all know, does not equate with causation. <br /><br />To see how badly you are mistaken, consider a spin-0 state of two distant electrons (one in Alice's lab, the other in Bob's), a classic example of quantum entanglement. <br /><br />If Alice and Bob simultaneously measure the projections of spins of their electrons onto the same axis, they will obtain random, but perfectly anticorrelated values. If Alice measures +1/2, Bob measures −1/2, and vice versa. <br /><br />Is the result of Bob's measurement <i>caused</i> by Alice's? No. The situation is entirely symmetric. If B were caused by A, by symmetry A would be caused by B. That would be nonsense! <br /><br />Instead we say that the two measurements are correlated with one another, but not caused by one another.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28817029535356819132014-02-04T11:33:45.723-05:002014-02-04T11:33:45.723-05:00Causation by accidental and essential causal chain...Causation by accidental and essential causal chains is elementary metaphysics, no less accepted today than in Aristotle's time. <br /><br />Final causation retains a central and respectable place in metaphysics today. <br /><br />And physics most definitely embraces non-temporal causality, as demonstrated by quantum entanglement in which widely separated particles can take non-deterministic values without regard to relativistic constraints, which inherently places quantum entanglement outside of temporality. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36245923228576549282014-02-04T11:06:30.948-05:002014-02-04T11:06:30.948-05:00You have a rather nonstandard view of causality. M...You have a rather nonstandard view of causality. Maybe it was in vogue in the times of Aquinas, but it isn't now. <br /><br /><a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/" rel="nofollow">The standard view in metaphysics</a> (and the only one in physics) is that causality is temporal. That there will be a stack of books on my desk in the future in no way causes the one book on the desk now to levitate. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-67107877358719602932014-02-04T10:54:07.133-05:002014-02-04T10:54:07.133-05:00Causality does not imply a temporal relationship. ...Causality does not imply a temporal relationship. <br /><br />In a series of accidental causes, there is a temporal relationship. (Grandfather begats father begats son...)<br /><br />In a series of essential causes, there is not necessarily a temporal relationship. (in a stack of books, the position of the book at the top is caused by the books below it, which are below it simultaneously)<br /><br />Final cause involves causes that are in the future. <br /><br />Causality involving a cause that temporally precedes the effect is only one kind of cause. There are others. <br /><br />My question was simple: do you assert that the universe does not necessarily have a cause? mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-59534633902279463162014-02-04T10:41:52.039-05:002014-02-04T10:41:52.039-05:00I am asserting that I have not a foggiest idea abo...I am asserting that I have not a foggiest idea about the origin of the Universe. <br /><br />Part of the difficulty with this question is that causality implies a temporal relationship. Cause A precedes effect B in time. There was no time "before" the origin of the Universe, so it's not even clear to me how one can speak of causation outside of time. <br /><br />You can speculate about God being outside of time and causing the Universe to originate, but you have no idea what this means. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91567138633445759482014-02-04T10:14:40.825-05:002014-02-04T10:14:40.825-05:00Hoo:
So you are asserting that the universe doesn...Hoo:<br /><br />So you are asserting that the universe doesn't necessarily have a cause?megnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-70822248077506309422014-02-04T09:56:18.774-05:002014-02-04T09:56:18.774-05:00Hoots Toots: "OECs deny science because they ...Hoots Toots: "OECs deny science because they adhere to their religion."<br /><br />First, I'm unconvinced there is a "they". Most people familiar with the subject acknowledge there are a number of religious and scientific viewpoints under the OEC umbrella.<br /><br />But assuming you can identify a "they", what science, specifically, do "they" deny? Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-85332356237419828372014-02-04T09:44:43.901-05:002014-02-04T09:44:43.901-05:00I have responded to that.
HooI have <a href="http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2014/02/you-go-ken.html?showComment=1391522766585#c4858641513093558412" rel="nofollow">responded to that</a>.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72164097271227902402014-02-04T09:16:08.023-05:002014-02-04T09:16:08.023-05:00Hoo:
Does the universe have a cause?Hoo:<br /><br />Does the universe have a cause?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.com