Rene Descartes: Catholic attitudes toward him

[Cecilianus]

I believe that I made it perfectly clear that I am unqualified to write the requisite equations. I’m disappointed that you felt a personal need to pile on. Tacky.

I wasn’t “piling on”. Just pointing out that equations relate physical quantities like momentum and mass to each other, and there are no properties of God which are intrinsically quantitative - there are no properties which you COULD put into an equation.

Let me make my limitations perfectly clear. I’m not good at theoretical math and bottomed out at advance calculus. Working in the real world I manged some simple problems like writing pointing equations and code for a spacecraft, and solving theoretical stellar-atmosphere problems, but that’s it. I never heard of an eigenfunction until coming across John Schulenberger’s wonderful little paper in which he used them to prove that the Michelson-Morley experiment could not have detected the aether. Unfortunately I never really understood wave mechanics. I tried sucking up to Schulenberger by bringing along beer and good cigars to our occasional conversation, but by the time he was ready to go into teaching mode (not his thing) he was unfit to do so at my level.

My point in trying to learn that stuff was the same as now. I am certain that the right ideas combined with the kind of advanced math that he was capable of would yield insights into the nature of the physical connection mechanisms between God (and soul) and the physical universe.

You said that if I said something about physics you didn’t understand, than I should explain it to you. Basically in quantum mechanics performing a measurement of an “observable” is mathematically equivalent to operating on a function with an operator (the measurement) to put into an “eigenstate” (German for “characteristic state” - the measurement of that observable). It doesn’t really matter for my point - just that it involves differential equations, and you can’t measure God (measurement is implied by the postulates of quantum mechanics relating observation to mathematics) or put quantitative properties of Him in a differential equation.

i disagree entirely that consciousness is simple. Regarding it thusly is simpleminded, a way to avoid examining it in detail. But again you are writing from dogma, and there is no point is pursuing this. I don’t do dogma.

Looked into phenomenology some years back. Boring philosophical trivia.

This isn’t “dogma” at all, or even theology; it’s pure philosophy. “Simple” of course means indivisible into parts. Part of the reason I believe consciousness is simple comes from my own amateur attempts at phenomenological introspection; part comes from influence from reading Hegel (I finished the Phenomenology of the Spirit about a week ago) and Buddhist and Hindu writings.

Yes, more sophisticated than the pineal gland, in keeping with the inherent complexity of any being capable of consciousness. (Hey! Descartes was making a stab at understanding, not declaring the pineal gland as the true and certain organ of soul connection. Give the maligned genius a break.)

Yeah, he was making a stab at understanding - but I like to poke a little light-hearted laughter at the sometimes rocky road by which early science got rolling.

Try writing a paper describing what “Rational body with selfhood,” actually means.

I refer you to the Opus Oxoniense by Duns Scotus.

I invite you to make a printout of the above paragraph and read it every night before going to bed until you realize that it contradicts your beliefs about soul and body, soul and physics, and most everything else. If that ever happens, come on back. In the meantime, I don’t have the energy to deal with your erudite combination of dogma and philosophical jargon.

You go ahead and enjoy the dark ages. Last I heard, men wrote the Bible, and its many variant translations. Then some other men came along and declared that God inspired every word, and insured the correctness of every translation. More men showed up and claimed that the last batch were absolutely correct.

It does not take a critical thinking class to see that God did not “write” a word of scripture. I do not know what it takes to distinguish an obvious element of physical reality from everyday religious dogma, the same kind of self-reinforced assurances that bring us every other religion on the planet. I think that for one programmed to believe dogma, all facts, and critical thinking are subservient to the dogma.

Geez, Greylorn, you don’t need to get offended, and you want to reconcile theology and physics than you have to talk theology.

I also recommend you examine the Catholic understanding of the inspiration of Scripture, since the straw man you are presenting is a fundamentalist Protestant one. Catholics do not believe that Scripture is dictated, word-for-word, by God. It is written by men, but inspired by God. It is in men’s words, but says what God wants us to hear.

 

[greylorn]

It’s almost always easier to solve problems by the Lagrangian than by Newton’s Laws, but I don’t see how that leads to a broader view of energy.

Neither did any other student that I know of.

Incidentally, I found ways of reducing generalized physics problems to energy formulations before being taught Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, the derivation of which I never quite understood and could no longer replicate.

Then what is your view of God?

I’ve tried to explain that on several occasions here on CAF. The result is like shooting a momma bear with cubs in the butt at short range with a .22 pistol.

In my coming book I have time to mount a Barrett .50 calibre M107, sight it in and check for windage, then hole up and plink away from 500 yards.

Nonetheless, if you’re willing to bend over and throw up a sheet of plywood, here’s an 8 grain .177 air rifle pellet to pick out of the wood. God is the original Maxwellian demon, generalized so as to interact with dark energy on a large scale rather than isolated molecules at small scales. (For any non-physicists, Maxwell’s demon is a good guy, and Maxwell did not confer the “demon” title upon it.)

This is for your consideration, not for argument, which would be beyond the scope of CAF guidelines.

 

[Cecilianus]

Hmmm. ‘Predictions.’ Perhaps you can help me: if I calculate the mass of a proton, what will that help me predict?

To clarify, as you asked and also for Greylorn’s sake since he rebutted my last answer as a “tautology”:

The properties of protons are predicted by a model called lattice QCD. My understanding - granted that this is not taught to undergraduates, and I have not done any research in this field - is that the model predicts the mass of a proton to a very good precision, given certain assumption (quark masses and coupling parameters, for example). This is actually pretty complicated; here is an example from Science which you won’t understand if you’re a physicist (and won’t understand completely even if you are), but gives you an idea of how the process works:

sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2008/11/20/322.5905.1224.DC1/Durr.SOM.pdf

What we want to do is take calculations like this and compare them to the actual mass we measure in the laboratory.

 

[Cecilianus]

JD,
Your final paragraph may be helpful to understanding our communication difficulties. It took me about two minutes to open my Catholic Study Bible and find this:

Matthew 25:15

To one he gave five talents, to another two, to a third, one-- to each according to his ability.

Had you taken the trouble to open for yourself the source of scripture which you claim to set such store by, your previous paragraph could have been eliminated. Likewise this reply.

This is a problem with you. You spout off from ignorance and do not bother to research even the simplest and most obvious sources relevant to your claims. This characteristic of yours is way too tiresome to deal with.

It is made more tiresome by your tendency to become nasty and overweening when your errors are pointed out. You never admit the most obvious errors on your part, but are quick to condemn what you often view as the mistakes of others. This makes you, for me at least, an uninteresting and often unpleasant communicant.

In the preceding sections of your extended post you pose acceptable questions. While I appreciate that you posed them in a well mannered way, every one can be answered by reading my previous posts. Again, failure on your part to do the most basic research. I don’t have the time to be your tutor. Try re-reading.

I know that many non-technical people read things differently from those of us who’ve studied some science and technology. I read everything at least twice. The second pass is to find the things I did not fully understand on the first pass. Then I’ll read a third time, narrowing my clarifications. I will research terms I don’t understand, or am unclear on. When faced with jargon I don’t know, or the names of writers I’ve not read in a long time, I open up Wikipedia. It often requires an hour of research time to produce a 1000 word reply, and even at that I often get things wrong.

It is all the price of understanding. If you really want understanding, pay its fee.

From previous responses to you I’ve come to recognize your style, which is to ask apparently honest and interesting questions, by way of an ideological trap. Basic bait and switch technique (are you a salesman?). When I reply, I find myself sucked into more of your dogma. Guess what, Lucy-- I’m not Charlie Brown and this isn’t Thanksgiving. You can hold that football for a different sucker.

Greylorn, I’m a physicist, and I was unsure of what your point was in referencing the parable after looking it up in my Bible. And I’m bewildered by your personal attacks on jdaniel and his style of argumentation, since I’m enjoying his contribution to this discussion just as much as yours. He asks honest questions and makes honest points, and has stuck to reason - you’re starting to just insult people and make blanket dismissals of arguments in the name of rejecting “dogma” without even using the term correctly.

 

[Cecilianus]

Neither did any other student that I know of.

Incidentally, I found ways of reducing generalized physics problems to energy formulations before being taught Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, the derivation of which I never quite understood and could no longer replicate.

I’ve tried to explain that on several occasions here on CAF. The result is like shooting a momma bear with cubs in the butt at short range with a .22 pistol.

In my coming book I have time to mount a Barrett .50 calibre M107, sight it in and check for windage, then hole up and plink away from 500 yards.

Nonetheless, if you’re willing to bend over and throw up a sheet of plywood, here’s an 8 grain .177 air rifle pellet to pick out of the wood. God is the original Maxwellian demon, generalized so as to interact with dark energy on a large scale rather than isolated molecules at small scales. (For any non-physicists, Maxwell’s demon is a good guy, and Maxwell did not confer the “demon” title upon it.)

This is for your consideration, not for argument, which would be beyond the scope of CAF guidelines.

Thank you.

Of course, both as a religious man and a scientist, I’m going to disagree with it - there should be a purely physical explanation for dark energy, and as such it’s not what people mean by “God”. And there’s no universally accepted description of dark energy, and many theorists regard the current situation with dark energy as an impasse. If you haven’t read it already, I recommend the book Dark Energy by Yun Wang - it’s light reading for an active scientist or student and manageable reading for a scientifically literate audience, and fairly comprehensive (intended as a textbook).

 

[JDaniel]

To clarify, as you asked and also for Greylorn’s sake since he rebutted my last answer as a “tautology”:

The properties of protons are predicted by a model called lattice QCD. My understanding - granted that this is not taught to undergraduates, and I have not done any research in this field - is that the model predicts the mass of a proton to a very good precision, given certain assumption (quark masses and coupling parameters, for example). This is actually pretty complicated; here is an example from Science which you won’t understand if you’re a physicist (and won’t understand completely even if you are), but gives you an idea of how the process works:

sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2008/11/20/322.5905.1224.DC1/Durr.SOM.pdf

What we want to do is take calculations like this and compare them to the actual mass we measure in the laboratory.

Thank you, Cecilianus. Question: now that one can predict the mass of a proton with good precision, what can one do with that proton mass prediction? What’s the next step?

God bless,
jd

 

[Cecilianus]

Thank you, Cecilianus. Question: now that one can predict the mass of a proton with good precision, what can one do with that proton mass prediction? What’s the next step?

God bless,
jd

Not sure. Maybe nothing. On the other hand, it’s not something I’ve studied formally, done research in, or thought a whole lot about.

More fruitful research today usually involves things less well-known and thoroughly studied than protons. For example, a particular theory to explain matter/antimatter asymmetry might predict oscillations between hydrogen and antihydrogen, which could be observed in the laboratory once we isolate stable antihydrogen (I’m thinking of a particular paper I read last spring which made this claim in order to explain this problem).

Or an attempt to explain dark matter might predict axion/photon oscillations in the presence of high magnetic fields, which could be observed in the Sun or in a laboratory setting (no positive findings on that yet).

 

[JDaniel]

JD,
Your final paragraph may be helpful to understanding our communication difficulties. It took me about two minutes to open my Catholic Study Bible and find this:

Matthew 25:15

To one he gave five talents, to another two, to a third, one-- to each according to his ability.

Had you taken the trouble to open for yourself the source of scripture which you claim to set such store by, your previous paragraph could have been eliminated. Likewise this reply.

This is a problem with you. You spout off from ignorance and do not bother to research even the simplest and most obvious sources relevant to your claims. This characteristic of yours is way too tiresome to deal with.

It is made more tiresome by your tendency to become nasty and overweening when your errors are pointed out. You never admit the most obvious errors on your part, but are quick to condemn what you often view as the mistakes of others. This makes you, for me at least, an uninteresting and often unpleasant communicant.

In the preceding sections of your extended post you pose acceptable questions. While I appreciate that you posed them in a well mannered way, every one can be answered by reading my previous posts. Again, failure on your part to do the most basic research. I don’t have the time to be your tutor. Try re-reading.

I know that many non-technical people read things differently from those of us who’ve studied some science and technology. I read everything at least twice. The second pass is to find the things I did not fully understand on the first pass. Then I’ll read a third time, narrowing my clarifications. I will research terms I don’t understand, or am unclear on. When faced with jargon I don’t know, or the names of writers I’ve not read in a long time, I open up Wikipedia. It often requires an hour of research time to produce a 1000 word reply, and even at that I often get things wrong.

It is all the price of understanding. If you really want understanding, pay its fee.

From previous responses to you I’ve come to recognize your style, which is to ask apparently honest and interesting questions, by way of an ideological trap. Basic bait and switch technique (are you a salesman?). When I reply, I find myself sucked into more of your dogma. Guess what, Lucy-- I’m not Charlie Brown and this isn’t Thanksgiving. You can hold that football for a different sucker.

Sorry, Greylorn. I just noticed this post. I shall not respond to it. I think it speaks generously for itself. I will continue, at least for a time, in the same vein as my earlier post.

Again, get to work! Write!

God bless,
jd

 

[greylorn]

I wasn’t “piling on”. Just pointing out that equations relate physical quantities like momentum and mass to each other, and there are no properties of God which are intrinsically quantitative - there are no properties which you COULD put into an equation.

You said that if I said something about physics you didn’t understand, than I should explain it to you. Basically in quantum mechanics performing a measurement of an “observable” is mathematically equivalent to operating on a function with an operator (the measurement) to put into an “eigenstate” (German for “characteristic state” - the measurement of that observable). It doesn’t really matter for my point - just that it involves differential equations, and you can’t measure God (measurement is implied by the postulates of quantum mechanics relating observation to mathematics) or put quantitative properties of Him in a differential equation.

This isn’t “dogma” at all, or even theology; it’s pure philosophy. “Simple” of course means indivisible into parts. Part of the reason I believe consciousness is simple comes from my own amateur attempts at phenomenological introspection; part comes from influence from reading Hegel (I finished the Phenomenology of the Spirit about a week ago) and Buddhist and Hindu writings.

Everything you say is correct, but only from the perspective of the Catholic God-concept.

I neglected to properly reply to an earlier post of yours which stated that if I want to reconcile physics and theology I must also understand theology. Again, this is correct from your perspective.

Slightly over 50 years ago when trying to do that I realized that it cannot be done, and at that point devised an alternative theology. It worked pretty well but there were some consequences of it which did not fit with physics. In the meantime I too studied up on other religions. Buddhism was promising in many respects, but it is an entirely atheistic religion. I’d become imprinted by Catholicism with the idea of a creator, so for that purely emotional reason, plus the fact that Buddhim is no better than atheistic scientism at explaining the beginnings of things, I rejected it. Looked at Mormonism, but it is way too bizarre. The Baha’i faith seemed promising until I realized that it was simply a more socialistic version of Islam.

I checked the core ideas of several philosophers, Hegel being one, and found no theological insights worth adopting. With the exception of Descartes and Kant, philosophers have no worthwhile insights on the subject. Or, perhaps I missed something. If you know of an alternative theology written by a philosopher who knows his physics, please clue me in.

Finding no interesting alternatives, about 7 years back I modified my own theology to accommodate dark energy, and now it seems to work quite nicely.

I do not need to understand conventional theology any deeper than I already do, which is better than most Catholics, because I am not trying to reconcile it with anything. Can’t be done. Instead, I need to understand the implications of my own invented theology with respect to physics and the human purpose. That is plenty enough work. Perhaps after I’ve published, others will step forward to offer insights I’ve missed, and with their assistance we can perfect the alternative.

Geez, Greylorn, you don’t need to get offended, and you want to reconcile theology and physics than you have to talk theology.

I also recommend you examine the Catholic understanding of the inspiration of Scripture, since the straw man you are presenting is a fundamentalist Protestant one. Catholics do not believe that Scripture is dictated, word-for-word, by God. It is written by men, but inspired by God. It is in men’s words, but says what God wants us to hear.

I understand the Catholic understanding towards scripture. It is exactly as you put it. I wrote nothing differently.

You’ve missed my point entirely. Men wrote the words of scripture, which, by the way, included almost no theology whatsoever. God made the universe.

Men declared the words of men to be the inspired words of God. God did not come down and put His imprimatur on any of this. Men wrote the stuff, men made it up that God wrote it.

If you cannot see the difference between this totally man-involved process and the creation of the universe, you are too severely mired in doctrine to be worth further conversation time until you take and ace a course in critical thinking, taught by an atheist.

BTW, my God-concept is such that mathematical descriptions are possible, as are formulas expressing His interactions with various aspects of the physical universe.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn, I’m a physicist, and I was unsure of what your point was in referencing the parable after looking it up in my Bible. And I’m bewildered by your personal attacks on jdaniel and his style of argumentation, since I’m enjoying his contribution to this discussion just as much as yours. He asks honest questions and makes honest points, and has stuck to reason - you’re starting to just insult people and make blanket dismissals of arguments in the name of rejecting “dogma” without even using the term correctly.

Curious that you feel a need to get involved in social issues. JD and I have been having at it for at least two years, off and on, so there’s a lot of history between us that you know nothing of, which is behind every word we exchange. He’s a big boy who’s willing to speak his mind and get ornery in defense of his beliefs. I can deal with that, but as with anyone on CAF, I’ll say when enough is enough, or he will. He seems willing to get off a position when it’s time. Read more carefully. We’re doing just fine.

 

[greylorn]

Thank you.

Of course, both as a religious man and a scientist, I’m going to disagree with it - there should be a purely physical explanation for dark energy, and as such it’s not what people mean by “God”. And there’s no universally accepted description of dark energy, and many theorists regard the current situation with dark energy as an impasse. If you haven’t read it already, I recommend the book Dark Energy by Yun Wang - it’s light reading for an active scientist or student and manageable reading for a scientifically literate audience, and fairly comprehensive (intended as a textbook).

C,
You are not reading thoroughly. Never did I equate dark energy with God.

I know that there is no accepted understanding of it, so I invented my own unaccepted (but so far unpublished) theory.

 

[Cecilianus]

Everything you say is correct, but only from the perspective of the Catholic God-concept.

I neglected to properly reply to an earlier post of yours which stated that if I want to reconcile physics and theology I must also understand theology. Again, this is correct from your perspective.

Slightly over 50 years ago when trying to do that I realized that it cannot be done, and at that point devised an alternative theology. It worked pretty well but there were some consequences of it which did not fit with physics. In the meantime I too studied up on other religions. Buddhism was promising in many respects, but it is an entirely atheistic religion. I’d become imprinted by Catholicism with the idea of a creator, so for that purely emotional reason, plus the fact that Buddhim is no better than atheistic scientism at explaining the beginnings of things, I rejected it. Looked at Mormonism, but it is way too bizarre. The Baha’i faith seemed promising until I realized that it was simply a more socialistic version of Islam.

I checked the core ideas of several philosophers, Hegel being one, and found no theological insights worth adopting. With the exception of Descartes and Kant, philosophers have no worthwhile insights on the subject. Or, perhaps I missed something. If you know of an alternative theology written by a philosopher who knows his physics, please clue me in.

Finding no interesting alternatives, about 7 years back I modified my own theology to accommodate dark energy, and now it seems to work quite nicely.

I do not need to understand conventional theology any deeper than I already do, which is better than most Catholics, because I am not trying to reconcile it with anything. Can’t be done. Instead, I need to understand the implications of my own invented theology with respect to physics and the human purpose. That is plenty enough work. Perhaps after I’ve published, others will step forward to offer insights I’ve missed, and with their assistance we can perfect the alternative.

I understand the Catholic understanding towards scripture. It is exactly as you put it. I wrote nothing differently.

You’ve missed my point entirely. Men wrote the words of scripture, which, by the way, included almost no theology whatsoever. God made the universe.

Men declared the words of men to be the inspired words of God. God did not come down and put His imprimatur on any of this. Men wrote the stuff, men made it up that God wrote it.

If you cannot see the difference between this totally man-involved process and the creation of the universe, you are too severely mired in doctrine to be worth further conversation time until you take and ace a course in critical thinking, taught by an atheist.

BTW, my God-concept is such that mathematical descriptions are possible, as are formulas expressing His interactions with various aspects of the physical universe.

May I ask what contradiction you see between Catholicism and physics?

You wrote earlier that I, like you 50 years ago, am trying to balance the juggling act of reconciling physics and Catholicism. I’m really not. I don’t feel or know of any discrepancy. They’re different, and frankly unrelated - they just don’t touch each other, except for the question of evolution which is biological and not physical and therefore outside my competency to do research in.

It would be nice for the sake of the discussion, from the point of view of someone coming into it just on this thread, to know where the points of irreconcilability are in your view.

 

[Cecilianus]

C,
You are not reading thoroughly. Never did I equate dark energy with God.

I know that there is no accepted understanding of it, so I invented my own unaccepted (but so far unpublished) theory.

But you equated God with the Maxwellian demon governing the evolution of dark energy, i.e. the explanation of dark energy - which is what I said in my post.

 

[greylorn]

May I ask what contradiction you see between Catholicism and physics?

You wrote earlier that I, like you 50 years ago, am trying to balance the juggling act of reconciling physics and Catholicism. I’m really not. I don’t feel or know of any discrepancy. They’re different, and frankly unrelated - they just don’t touch each other, except for the question of evolution which is biological and not physical and therefore outside my competency to do research in.

It would be nice for the sake of the discussion, from the point of view of someone coming into it just on this thread, to know where the points of irreconcilability are in your view.

The Energy conservation principle. E cannot be created or destroyed, period. I’ve addressed this a dozen times on different threads, which can be searched. I’ve already heard the argument that God created a certain amount of energy then decided not to create any more, and explained why that argument is nonsense.

There are the simpler but less striking arguments from evolution: why would a God who could create life in an instant spend 3 billion years on the project? (I don’t have time to argue that one at the moment.)

I misunderstood you about common goals. Wishful thinking, no doubt. Sorry.

 

[greylorn]

But you equated God with the Maxwellian demon governing the evolution of dark energy, i.e. the explanation of dark energy - which is what I said in my post.

I could not have done that because I do not see D.E. as “evolving.” I used the demon as an analogy to describe a necessary property of God. Nothing to do with an explanation of dark energy.

Your reading skills need polishing, or perhaps you have a tendency to spin my statements to suit your beliefs. If that does not stop, we must close this conversation.

 

[JDaniel]

The Energy conservation principle. E cannot be created or destroyed, period. I’ve addressed this a dozen times on different threads, which can be searched. I’ve already heard the argument that God created a certain amount of energy then decided not to create any more, and explained why that argument is nonsense.

Greylorn:

Is it possible that black holes, for instance, are God’s method of maintaining the equilibrium, and that the energy principle you refer to is merely a statement of that and not an absolute? (I ask this of both you and C.)

There are the simpler but less striking arguments from evolution: why would a God who could create life in an instant spend 3 billion years on the project?

3 billion years is all in an Eternal Now: it is preparation for an anthropic universe. Isn’t this a possibility? (Again, I ask this of both of you.)

(I’m still here; lurking.)

God bless,
jd

 

[Cecilianus]

Greylorn:

Is it possible that black holes, for instance, are God’s method of maintaining the equilibrium, and that the energy principle you refer to is merely a statement of that and not an absolute? (I ask this of both you and C.)

3 billion years is all in an Eternal Now: it is preparation for an anthropic universe. Isn’t this a possibility? (Again, I ask this of both of you.)

(I’m still here; lurking.)

God bless,
jd

I didn’t respond to Greylorn because he indicated that it would be redundant via other threads. The creation and sustaining of the universe is a single eternal act, so Greylorn’s statement about God creating a certain amount of energy and then “deciding not to create any more” simply makes no sense from the viewpoint of classical theism, and nor does conservation of energy have any relevance to the fact of God creating the universe.

Conservation of energy means that in any change from one state to another or looking at before and after an event, the total energy is conserved. Creation is hardly a change from one state to another, because there was nothing to be in a state “before” the creation of the universe, and nor was there any “before” time t = 0.

Why would God create the universe in seven 24-hour days when He could do it in 3 billion years? Honestly, why not do it the way He did? It’s cool, and frankly a lot more interesting than the fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of Scripture, and it gives us something to study and get excited about. If you want a more profound reason why He did it the way He did, I would suggest that God tends to like to work through natural causes, and evolution is a natural process.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:
Is it possible that black holes, for instance, are God’s method of maintaining the equilibrium, and that the energy principle you refer to is merely a statement of that and not an absolute? (I ask this of both you and C.)

JD,
There’s been some interesting work on energy generation within black holes, but so far it does not come from nothing. It is more like a gathering of existing energy.

C and I will take opposite points on this.

I operate from the assumption that energy is a kind of “stuff” which always existed, its three laws describing its properties.

From this perspective, God manipulated raw energy to create the stuff of the universe, always within the context of its innate characteristics.

I know that this is a sparse explanation, but you’ll be reading my book someday, where the concepts are detailed and placed into a much broader perspective.

3 billion years is all in an Eternal Now: it is preparation for an anthropic universe. Isn’t this a possibility? (Again, I ask this of both of you.)

Your first clause comes from the perspective of time as a continuum, which is so great compared to the amount of time which we humans have experienced, that all things can happen within its span.

I take a different perspective: There is no such thing as time. There is only a sequence of events.

The development of biological life forms can be most logically evaluated as a sequence of events.

When writing a computer program, I am composing a set of instructions to be executed in various sequences, according to circumstances. It once took me two years to write a sequence of code which executed in less than a minute. Time was irrelevant. Only the sequence of instructions was important. There was an error in this code which took me two years to find, which occurred apparently at random about once every month or so. The error was simply that two instructions were in the wrong sequence, essentially a tpyographical error.

Treat evolution as a sequence of countable events. Primitive cells had to be constructed from scratch. Genes had to be assembled, one base-pair triplet at a time, then put into the field for testing. When the test results were in, a gene could be corrected, or enhanced.

I’ve probably written about 10 million computer instructions in my lifetime, reduced to about 1 million instructions of working code. Each one or group of several had to be tested and corrected, then properly incorporated into a working whole, Even from this background my mind cannot grasp the magnitude, in terms of instructions, of the coding behind biological machinery. Trillions upon trillions of amino-acid triplets inserted into genes during meiosis, sometimes years to wait for the modified critter to grow up and put the modified gene to work— if it survives long enough. The sheer number of steps in the process is overwhelming.

But in all, it is steps and sequences which count, not time.

(I’m still here; lurking.)
God bless,
jd

It is logically impossible to lurk and post simultaneously.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn
**
If you cannot see the difference between this totally man-involved process and the creation of the universe, you are too severely mired in doctrine to be worth further conversation time until you take and ace a course in critical thinking, taught by an atheist.**

All you accomplish with these kinds of juvenile remarks is to reinforce the stereotype of the arrogant atheist. If you could just once step back and see the arrogance in yourself, you might be a bit unpleasantly surprised. But I reckon that’s going to be asking too much.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn
**
There are the simpler but less striking arguments from evolution: why would a God who could create life in an instant spend 3 billion years on the project? (I don’t have time to argue that one at the moment.) **

Since God created time, he didn’t have to “spend” 3 billion years waiting for evolution to produce us. Existing outside of time, why wouldn’t God see His Creation from a perspective we can barely imagine? If 3 billions years seems like a lot to us, that is not a defect in God so much as reflecting an impatience that is typical of humans.