tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post1667558271534989116..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Does Physics Lead to God?john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-56380724290145524322019-05-03T05:29:42.730-07:002019-05-03T05:29:42.730-07:00I'll make this my last comment since I don'...I'll make this my last comment since I don't want to clutter your blog. <br /><br />I find Nicolas of Cusa to be deeply insightful as to the nature of existence in relation to God's knowledge of things. To take the classic question- "If a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a noise?" There's a profound insight in this question, one that intuitively recognizes that the mathematical correlative to the qualitative exzperience of sound is a correlative, not the experience itself. For the theistic idealist, the answer is to challenge the premise of the question. The essential nature of the tree includes its producing certain qualitative experiences. And the giver and receiver is God, who constitutes all things as what they are by His knowing all creation simultaneously from each perspective- thus the perfection of His omnipresence. <br /><br />A creaturely mind is therefore constituted by the actualization of the potential (a second potency, i.e. one not necessary for God to be God) for subjective experience that belongs to God's omniperspectival existence. Since God is Existence itself, for us to exist means to be sustained in that existence by God's sovereign and creative will, giving something of Himself to us. We have a particular perspective in virtue of our partaking of a certain of God's perspectives.<br /><br />As a young-ager, I don't think Big Bang cosmology is accurate, but if it were, the receiver of that qualitative experience would be God who gives all perspectives their ontological content. The material, rather than being an alternative to the ideal, is, on my view, a particular instantiation of the ideal: it is a thing existing in a state of partial potentiality. The cosmos which we identify as material is webbed together so that particular things serve as the efficient cause (i.e. actualizing a natural potential) in other things, with God being the Prime Mover who provides for all things their actuality and their capacity to be efficient causes. Thus the cosmos grows towards maturity corporately, as a single body. This contrasts with the angels who were created instantly, as a host, and perfectly actual. Thomas Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03983232014514100227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-53925477448974383332019-04-30T15:38:37.164-07:002019-04-30T15:38:37.164-07:00Hi Thomas
I concur with much of what you say abou...Hi Thomas<br /><br />I concur with much of what you say about idealism, regarding the reality of mental states and causality. <br /><br />Of course, then we have to differentiate between two types of ideas; type M concerning ideas of material things and their causal relations, and type N concerning ideas of non-material things. Which just brings us back to the usual problems of how these two types of ideas relate. And then Dr. Gordon's interpretation of quantum mechanics leads to the conclusion that type M ideas are really just type N ideas...<br /><br />Other questions arise. If scientific realism entails that certain type M ideas exist, even if we can't experience them ourselves, what is the status of Big Bang cosmology? Are we to suppose that we would have experienced a type M experience of the Big Bang had we lived 14 billion years ago? Who was the recipient of such ideas at that time? Or is Big Bang cosmology just a type N idea, conjectured from our experienced type M ideas? How were our minds created? From certain type M ideas (our parents)? It seems to me that idealism raises more problems than it solves.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-69061686723341267092019-04-21T02:58:58.677-07:002019-04-21T02:58:58.677-07:00Sorry for the double comment!
Per your comment on...Sorry for the double comment!<br /><br />Per your comment on scientific realism entailing the existence of atoms "mind-independently", on the theistic idealist view they certainly exist independently of our minds- which I think what matters to the realist view. They don't exist independently of the Mind of God. If the realist wished to define theistic idealism out of the classification of realism, I suppose he could, but I don't see anything at all about Christian idealism which is logically incompatible with the key ideas of realist phil-of-science. Such a definition would be arbitrary. Physical states are not denied by theistic idealists, but are understood to be particular instantiations of divine mental states. They're just as real as everyone else thinks- the difference, I'd argue, is that if you press others hard enough, they won't be able to give an account of the ontological content they are attributing to "matter." I don't think that anything other than theistic idealism is metaphysically possible as reality- if the logic is explored to its full conclusion, other views would end in self-contradiction, IMO. So to describe the creation as "less real" than on dualist views wouldn't make sense- there's no other way that things actually could exist. This is what it means to exist and to be real. "Truth" is reality as it is seen by God. We are to conform our minds to His and see creation rightly.Thomas Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03996399571986376714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-40481407879084789142019-04-21T02:53:24.012-07:002019-04-21T02:53:24.012-07:00I don't think the use of the word "illusi...I don't think the use of the word "illusion" would be appropriate for theistic idealism, since ideas in the divine mind- contingently actualized in creation- are the only sort of thing which has ontological content in the first place. A thing being present "only" in Mind does not make it unreal, but infinitely real, since this is the eternal, infinitely personal reality. After all, "God remembered" is the hope. Death is to be "forgotten" by God. I am not sure why theistic idealism leads to antirealism. There really are theoretical truths. The mental is real. God really does actively operate and govern the cosmos according to mathematically rich patterns.<br /><br />I'm not sure Dr. Gordon's view on causality, but Christian idealism is compatible with real causality for this reason: a thing's set of causal relations, its being the efficient cause of another thing acquiring X property, is really intrinsic to its nature. The principle of that nature is the idea in the Mind of God contingently realized in the creative act. All things are governed and sustained as exactly what they are by God. The only reason that I can use a hammer to strike a nail is because God sustains me in what I am, the hammer and constituent parts as what it is, and the nail as what it is. But I, in moving the hammer, utilize my capacity to actualize its potential for motion and pressure which, in turn, actualizes the potential of the nail to break through wood in its being pressed. <br /><br />God is actively sustaining and upholding this entire system. He is causing the hammer to do X to the nail and the nail to do Y to the wood. But this isn't arbitrary: He created me, the wood, and these metals, with certain intelligible natures which entail this set of causal relations. <br /><br />I would make the analogy of music. A symphony certainly has its own internal mathematical structure. It is written according to certain patterns of repetition and beauty. Music can even be mathematically quantified and understood to some degree. But the existence of that symphony doesn't make a single sound. The orchestra needs to actively realize the idea of the symphony according to its internal patterns and principles. God is the Divine Musician who actively works to sustain creation according to its regularities, acting "specially" within it but consistently with its overall order to carry the symphony to its next movement. The incarnation of the Word and His resurrection from the dead utterly transformed history, given the internal causal principles of the cosmic system. But it did so in a way that fulfilled creation's original purpose. As Tolkien contrasts the music of Illuvatar and Melkor, Melkor's is pure, meaningless repetition. God's is newness drawn out of the consistency. Thomas Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03996399571986376714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-6962845900866431392018-10-05T19:33:37.092-07:002018-10-05T19:33:37.092-07:00Hi Blake
The relevant question is not whether our...Hi Blake<br /><br />The relevant question is not whether our perceptions are organized by God in a systematic whole (I grant that), but whether there is anything physical beyond our perceptions. Scientific realism, as I noted, holds that theoretical entities such as atoms and stars exist objectively and mind-independently, contrary to idealism.<br /><br />If you want to comment further, please use your real name (see rules below).<br />Thanks.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-91296761449991359502018-10-04T18:22:21.763-07:002018-10-04T18:22:21.763-07:00Idealism does not undercut realism. It only underc...Idealism does not undercut realism. It only undercuts the idea that material substance is something solid. If Berkeley's arguments are correct, and I think they are as strongly supported as a philosophical theory could be, then our idea of matter as anything other than perceptual qualities fails. It doesn't mean that God may not organize our perceptions in a systematic whole.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-8963843772991888482018-10-03T10:46:04.025-07:002018-10-03T10:46:04.025-07:00ctd. (again)
As for Dr. Gordon's stated theme...ctd. (again)<br /><br />As for Dr. Gordon's stated theme, the Big Bang as a proof of God's existence, he seems unfamiliar with the debate itself. His is just a variation of Aquinas' system, a combination of a couple basic concepts within Aquinas' five proofs. But very basic, as he is easily willing to take giant leaps in logic (a "leap of faith" of the blind kind, and not of the Christian kind) here as he does in his science.<br /><br />Okay, I'm done now. <br /><br />I usually do not spend much time on articles that are not directly tied to people in our federation of churches. I generally keep to my own circle because that's where I have a responsibility to speak out. <br /><br />But the theistic evolution side is quiet in that circle right now. And I think it is important to re-establish key points of the issue that the pro-evolution side puts into the shadows so as the be enabled to carry their arguments forward.<br /><br />I agree with you, Dr. Byl: if Dr. Gordon's theory of beginnings fails, which it does, then it would imply that this pointing to a transcendent creator also falls away. He does more damage than good by tying a proof of God's existence to such a poor grounding.<br /><br />JohnVJohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-11221080467883249632018-10-02T05:59:37.833-07:002018-10-02T05:59:37.833-07:00ctd.
So, basically, Dr. Gordon doesn't unders...ctd.<br /><br />So, basically, Dr. Gordon doesn't understand why some of us do not go along with his convictions. Quite simply, he doesn't address our concerns. <br /><br />For me it is the ease with which he dismisses Sola Scriptura. Many do not notice this, but scientific objectivity is closely tied to Sola Scriptura: only the facts, only what is absolutely true. So it is not surprising to see him easily dismiss objectivity as well.<br /><br />JohnV<br /><br />JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-30749912692103063642018-10-01T10:13:44.472-07:002018-10-01T10:13:44.472-07:00Dr. Byl:
Following is my reaction to Dr. Gordon&#...Dr. Byl:<br /><br />Following is my reaction to Dr. Gordon's essays. This is not a critique, but just my reaction. Hopefully it tells him why he misses the mark he intended to hit.<br /><br /><br />Dr. Gordon begins one of his essays with the following theme and basic premise:<br /><br />“So does the reality we inhabit bear the hallmarks of transcendent intelligent causation, and does scientific investigation lead us to its discovery? In a word, yes. It is the purpose of this essay to show how the evidence from cosmology and quantum physics enables us to infer it....<br /><br />Big Bang cosmology—the currently accepted model for the beginning of the universe—has its theoretical basis in general relativity”<br /><br />He mentions just a couple of “confirmed predictions” that this theoretical basis has survived. We should assume from this that there have been many such predictions which have been confirmed. But that is where he stops as far as confirmation for the theoretical basis is concerned: he uses the term “well-confirmed” in one of his essays. <br /><br />This start displays his philosophical grounding. For him the term “accepted” weighs more heavily than it ought to for a scientist. This same bent shows up again when he discusses, although far too briefly, the status of the “anti-intellectual fundamentalists” who refuse to recognize the “currently accepted model for the beginning of the universe.” Without any thought as to relevancy, he would seem to include those with sufficient reason to not believe the Big Bang; to his way of thinking every disbeliever of the Big Bang regardless of reasons is simply being dismissive of science. He seems not to realize that he is guilty of being dismissive of true faith by just lumping them all into an easily refutable category of argumentation. He seems to have spent no time exploring the depth of the Christian confessions, which includes a deeper appreciation of what natural revelation speaks with authority than modern science seems to have.<br /><br />JohnV<br /><br />JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-35768084361223798572018-10-01T08:25:56.305-07:002018-10-01T08:25:56.305-07:00Yes, that is ironic. While theistic idealism is on...Yes, that is ironic. While theistic idealism is one philosophical solution to the conundra posed by quantum mechanics, it obliterates a realist objection to young-earth creaitionism. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-50980184585442791032018-09-27T06:31:09.511-07:002018-09-27T06:31:09.511-07:00Dr. Byl:
I've only read part of Dr. Gordon'...Dr. Byl:<br />I've only read part of Dr. Gordon's two online articles. It strikes me right from the start how the theme he presents is so one-sided, non-objective. I mean, we who are on the side of the historical integrity of the Bible do not get the same leniency as to assumptions as he does.<br /><br /><br />For example, he can assume Penrose and Hawking's theorem as a predicate; we can't even get away with that on something as plain as day as God's existence (i.e. Anselm's ontological argument.) <br /><br />I'm still reading, but you can be sure that I'm actively seeking those " Big Bang cosmology is well-confirmed, justifiably believed" proofs which he boasts of. If he has such obvious proofs, why would he base his argument on a speculation as a premise? Why not prefer more solid ground?<br /><br /><br />That is usually the way with old earth cosmologies, including those trying to reconcile the Bible with old age. Instead of citing actual proofs they usually resort to "most scientists agree...", etc. I fail to see how that avails from a scientific standpoint; yet these are invariably presented as scientific arguments. In Encyclopedia Britannica you'd expect better, but that too amounts to a "most biologists" basis. Very unscientific!<br /><br /><br />I'm still waiting for an actual scientific criticism of the Bible's account of origins. Maybe Dr. Gordon will yet come through, though I doubt it. He's off to a very, very dubious start, as far as I've read. <br /><br />I write this ahead of time simply to say that I find your summary of his argument a very apt summary, as he states it in his abstracts and introductory comments.<br /><br />JohnV<br />JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.com