Happy Winter Solstice

(Patrick ) #1

To all at Biologos. Reasons Greetings. May you and your family have a joyous, healthy, and happy 2016 full of purpose and meaning.

(George Brooks) #2

May we one day discover that God is as natural to the Cosmos as Entangled Particles are … SUCH A GRAND MYSTERY …

Merry Christmas to all in the Forum, and the BioLogos staff !!!


(Brad Kramer) #3

Merry Christmas to you too, Patrick! :christmas_tree:

(Robert J. Kurland, Ph.D.) #4

Hear! Hear! There is in fact a net book by Michael Redhead and Sam Groom that explains how quantum entanglement supports the presence of a deity. See "God, Belief and Explanation"
And a Blessed Christmas to all–may we think on the Incarnation of our Savior as we celebrate.

(Patrick ) #5

I read the net book by Redhead. First of all it is very dated on the results of quantum entanglement. Just this year major experimental results have been released that shows unequivocally that quantum entanglement is how nature works. So the legs gets taken out of quantum entanglement supporting the presence of a deity as no diety is needed to explain quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is how nature works, it is now established physics both theoretically and experimentally. My expectation is that the technology of quantum entanglement will become commonplace in a few years with quantum crypto keys and quantum cryptographic systems.

(Robert J. Kurland, Ph.D.) #6

Patrick, when you say

“First of all it is very dated on the results of quantum entanglement. Just this year major experimental results have been released that shows unequivocally that quantum entanglement is how nature works.”

I don’t quite understand where you’re going. Redhead assumes that quantum entanglement is “part of nature”. His philosophical analysis deals with what factors–determinism, locality (in various forms), hidden (stochastic) variables–are necessary or not as conditions for quantum entanglement to hold. The religious consequence of his philosophical analysis is not a proof, but an argument (I quote from another article by Redhead summarizing the work in the book)

"The aim of this essay has been to produce arguments for invoking either indeterminism or holistic non-separability in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The theological implications should be clear."
Michael Redhead, [Quantum Mechanics–Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action p.158

And, by the way, I don’t understand how these latest results (please cite the ones to which you refer) vitiate earlier experiments; the new results I know about extend early work by increasing distance between correlated particles and tightening the conditions of the correlation. So, please explain in detail how these later experiments vitiate Redhead’s philosophical analysis.

And, also please respond to my comment on another post that you made about dark holes circling in quantum orbits to give a cloverleaf pattern. As I explained in my comment the cloverleaf is very likely an aspect of the effects of gravity manifest in general relativity, just as is the advance in the Perhelion of Mercury, which was used to validate Einstein’s theory.

Finally, I hope you aren’t crusading to show science disproves God. A great many great scientists, including a lot of Nobel Prize winners, would disagree with that proposition. Science can neither disprove, nor disprove the existence of a deity. But we can always know, as Psalm 19a says, “The heavens declare the glory of God”.

And finally, Patrick, a Happy Christmas to you and a Merry New Year!

(Stacey) #7

Merry Christmas! You’re all so very much cleverer than I am, I’m learning a lot from your discussions.
I hope you have a fabulous Christmas - and - childlike as I am, I hope you all say a simple prayer to God to reveal himself to you, and that he does so.

(Patrick ) #8

Merry Christmas to you.

(Patrick ) #9

I guess I was reading Redhead as saying the quantum entanglement needs God to operate. Looking at it more carefully, he is accepting the results which have been experimentally proven this year to extremely high precision. No I am not out to disprove God, I am just continue to hold that invoking God when doing scientific research is both unnecessary and unprofessional/dishonest. Only natural interpretation of the experimental results should be published.

Regarding the black hole orbiting a supermassive black hole, it was the first paper I have seen on it. I saw it and thought it would be interesting to discuss as Roger seems to hold on to the understanding that there is a size limit to quantum mechanics. I don’t know much about it other than the paper I posted.

I want to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy new year.

(sy_garte) #10

Stacey, I dont think anyone is cleverer than you. Merry Christmas, the Lord be with you.

(Patrick ) #11

Hi Brad,
Merry Christmas to you and all those dear to you. I hope Santa brings you nice Millennial toys for good boys and girls. :christmas_tree: :rocket: :airplane:

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #12


No Patrick, Not a size limit, but the fact QP governs only sub atomic particles. Black holes are composed only of sub atomic particles, not atoms or molecules.

I would agree that invoking God when doing scientific research is inappropriate. This does not however preclude the discussion of philosophy and theology when discussing the implications of scientific research. Science cannot say what preceded the Big Bang, but the theological and philosophical implication of the universe having a beginning are immense.

A blessed Christmas and a wonderful 2016 to all.

(Marvin Adams) #13

if you see God being the ultimate causality of the natural world as not natural you are limited in your science. Do you confuse natural with physical?

(Patrick ) #14

No, I don’t see God being the ultimate causality of the natural world, and no I am not limited in what science can provide. For the past 2000 years, Christianity has promised you a second life, while in just the last 100 years, science has doubled your life expectancy. Christianity makes empty promises, science delivers.

(Patrick ) #15

Only sub atomic particles? How about atoms? Waves/fields? Molecular bonds? synapses? DNA? Photosynthesis? transistors? LEDs? lasers? Flat panel displays? Solar panels? the sun?

(Marvin Adams) #16

Considering that science is based on the theological philosophy of ultimate causality and that with that ultimate cause reality was bound by laws that makes it comprehensible it better should deliver. but when it comes to delivering you the peace required to pass into your eternal life science makes empty promises, Christianity delivers. Science may have raised the average life expectancy of some at the cost of others. In a world were a British couple has their pet dog cloned for the price that could save the lives of several thousand people you do wonder what science delivers

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #17

Science might deliver in terms of quantity of life. However Christianity delivers in terms of quality of life. Life without purpose and meaning is without value. If the surrender of hope is the price one must pay for the living some extra years, no thank you.

However this is a false dichotomy, invented by those who refuse to accept that there is more to life than the physical. Life includes the rational and the spiritual, as well as the physical, so there is more than enough room for both science and Christianity in our understanding of life. There is no need to make a false, dead end choice that Harris demands.

(Patrick ) #18

How does Christianity deliver quality of life? Are you saying that only Christians can live a life of purpose and meaning? I find that incredibly narrow-minded, narcissistic, and divisive. Every person can live their life with any purpose and meaning that they chose.

(Patrick ) #19

Science discoveries has been accomplished by human intellect, reasoning, and imagination

are you referring to death? If so, medical science has delivered to humanity many ways to prolong life and make it more worthwhile to be alive. Christianity’s promise of a second life is what is empty and diminishes the value of this life.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #22


How can one have something that does not exist?

Only the physical exists. Purpose and meaning are not physical. Therefore purpose and meaning do not exist.

According to your thinking, purpose and meaning are just as real as the million dollars that I have in the bank. They are a figment of my imagination which is also not real. Indeed it is hard to see what is real if only the physical is real.

You say that the rational and spiritual are not real, do not exist, because only the physical exists. I say that the physical, rational, and spiritual are real and do exist. Why are you saying that I am divisive? I am granting you your reality, but you are not granting me mine.

No, I am not saying that only Christianity as a religion can deliver good quality of life. Life is good because God created it. However non-believers in their effort to deny God have also denied the goodness of life. Therefore they have denied that life is rational and life is spiritual. Without these aspects life is just a hollow physical shell which is without worth.

Instead you are saying that your view of reality is wrong because you find that your life does have meaning and purpose, even though your world view claims that it does not.
You really can’t have your cake and eat it too. Love, Faith, and Hope are real and come from God, or they are not real, because they are not physical.

Every person cannot live their life with any purpose and meaning that they choose, because there are laws against terrorism. There are laws against fraud. There are laws against abuse.

Do world views make a difference in how one lives one’s life? You (or is it just Sam?) say they do because you say that Christians confuse God with Nature, (even though I have tried to explain that that is not true.) We do not believe that God and the universe are one. Nor do we believe that God cares just about us. God cares about everyone and God’s Creation too.

So humans live in a monistic world or they do not. Is this verifiable or not? Yes, it is verifiable, because a monistic world is a uniform monotonous world, unlike that diverse, rich and harmonious life we share, when we do share.