Three Powerful Books

[_Philo Sofee]

I would argue that for these three books I’ve mentioned to have any value to folks such as yourself there would, by necessity, have to be an underlying belief/acceptance of the possibility of a creator God. Otherwise, by necessity you are OBLIGATED to explain any premise by which they are written to be flawed at the outset. And books such as these have to be defeated at ALL costs.

Once you cross the line and take up residence in the realm of secular belief...without God...it is very difficult to return to the realm of belief. At least that’s what I’ve heard/read. You have NO CHOICE but to cast these three books to the wayside. They would, by inference, disrupt your confirmed world view that there is no creator God.

And folks like Polkinghorne just get in the way.

That’s the way I see it anyway.

Regards,
MG

Yes and the way I see it is, your imagination of there being a God gets in the way of you accepting reality as it has been on display for millenia......you bring in something not evidenced in order to explain away the truth of reality. It's why your three books are unconvincing to me. They already have the answer before investigating the evidence. God because of the complexity, complexity because of God. That literally explains nothing, but hey, it makes ya feel good, so you go with it.

[_Holy Ghost]

dup

[_honorentheos]

...your friend here is inserting a meaningless term to try and win a point...I'm dubious of this person...

I’m surprised that you are not familiar with “this person”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONekB7jlAfo

Could there be a general bias that confirmed secularists have towards academic types that are also people of faith?

Regards,
MG

MG, I prefer to avoid games of war, arguing over whose source Trump's the other. In the case of my comment, my issues were with what you shared and why they would be wrong. If those match his arguments, he is making bad arguments.

Regarding the narrow comment about spiritual power being an unnecessary insertion, I questioned what was excluded outside of the realms he had already cited? If you aren't playing games of war but actually discussing issues in a quest for better understanding, then perhaps you can illuminate for me what you feel falls in that category that isn't already captured in the other three.

[_honorentheos]

Honor, I assume that you think that consciousness arose out of matter. But if consciousness is ultimately an arrangement/organization of information, where did that information originate?

What do you think you are saying here? What exactly do you think are the characteristics of information?

[_Physics Guy]

Polkinghorne is, or at least once was, a respectable physicist. He was never such a great scientist as to make all atheists do a head-snapping double take. Anyone is allowed to be unimpressed by his arguments. I don’t buy all of them myself, even though I think I share his most important conclusions.

[_mentalgymnast]

.

You also assume that consciousness is an arrangement/organization of information. Really?

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-b ... nformation

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

.

You also assume that consciousness is an arrangement/organization of information. Really?

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-b ... nformation

Regards,
MG

For an alternative view see here:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... f-reality/

Take the time to read the comment section. Interesting stuff. Be careful though. The information theory as the basis for everything also allows room for God. At least if I’m understanding it correctly. If that’s the case you may find yourself rejecting it out of hand.

I’m sure that there are others here that are well read enough to answer any other ‘hard’ questions you may have.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Honor, I assume that you think that consciousness arose out of matter. But if consciousness is ultimately an arrangement/organization of information, where did that information originate?

What do you think you are saying here? What exactly do you think are the characteristics of information?

The eminent John Archibald Wheeler in his later years was a strong proponent of information theory. Another unsung paragon of science, Wheeler was a veteran of the Manhattan Project, coined the terms “black hole” and “wormhole,” helped work out the “S-matrix” with Neils Bohr, and collaborated with Einstein on a unified theory of physics.

Wheeler said the universe had three parts: First, “Everything is Particles,” second, “Everything is Fields,” and third, “Everything is information.” In the 1980s, he began exploring possible connections between information theory and quantum mechanics. It was during this period he coined the phrase “It from bit.” The idea is that the universe emanates from the information inherent within it. Each it or particle is a bit. It from bit.

In 1989, Wheeler produced a paper to the Santa Fe institute, where he announced "every it--every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself--derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely--even if in some contexts indirectly--from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits."
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-b ... nformation

Again, where did this information originate?

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Again, where did this information originate?

Regards,
MG

I'll look at it in more detail when I have some time but I have to say if your source introduces the subject with this,

Although this line of thinking emanates from the mid-20th century, it seems to be enjoying a bit of a Renaissance among a sliver of prominent scientists today.

...you may be overstating the necessity to account for this theory in ones worldview.

I also still doubt you have a comprehensive and coherent system of belief that you've built on these ideas you've shared. You seem be intuiting that an idea aligns with your belief in God and accepting it in concept but not really engaging with it beyond a feel good level. If you answer the question "what does information mean to you in this context?" with a link and a challenge, I think I'm on solid ground in assuming you couldn't actually answer the question yourself.

[_mentalgymnast]

Again, where did this information originate?

Regards,
MG

I'll look at it in more detail when I have some time but I have to say if your source introduces the subject with this,

Although this line of thinking emanates from the mid-20th century, it seems to be enjoying a bit of a Renaissance among a sliver of prominent scientists today.

...you may be overstating the necessity to account for this theory in ones worldview.

I also still doubt you have a comprehensive and coherent system of belief that you've built on these ideas you've shared. You seem be intuiting that an idea aligns with your belief in God and accepting it in concept but not really engaging with it beyond a feel good level. If you answer the question "what does information mean to you in this context?" with a link and a challenge, I think I'm on solid ground in assuming you couldn't actually answer the question yourself.

I think about LDS thought proclaiming that the glory of God is intelligence or another words light and truth. That does seem to fit in with a theory of everything connected/associated with the idea of information being the basis of all things. The ground of all being having to do with light, truth, and information at its most elementary level is an interesting and appealing concept/possibility to mull over.

At least for those that are open to the notion of a creator God.

Regards,
MG