Berkeley s Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson

Touchstone Magazine ^ | June 2002 | Touchstone interview

[yendu bwam]

without first ruling out a possible unknown naturalistic explanation, which is the most probable option

Well, when you look at the big bang, as an example, which appears to be a one time event, then the naturalistic and intelligent force theories are equally probable, no?

[Woahhs]

I never claimed that admitting that some causes are outside of nature means that all are.

...The dirty secret is that once you admit supernaturalism, science becomes absolutely worthless and logically inconsistent.

Then what does that mean?

[colorado tanker]

Something major is missing in our understanding of evolution. I agree. That doesn't mean I fill all the holes in evolutionary theory with metaphysics; I am open to many explanations. Heck, I'm even willing to admit there are questions to which we just don't know the answers today.

I also agree with you that the Big Bang theory provides powerful evidence of a Creator.

[Woahhs]

In any case, #2 is what would apply to the above discovery.

Care to write that out?

[jlogajan]

Or, to put it another way, the only advantage these people have is that they can tell lies faster than they can be refuted.

I used to use the phrase "Liars for Christ" but having been threatened with expulsion here, I can't do that anymore. :-)

[yendu bwam]

It's hard for me to believe that Beethoven's music, or Christ's powerful words, or Shakespeare's plays, or deep and lasting love between a man and woman, as well as beautiful mathematical equations like e(it power)w = sinw + icosw, all arose spontaneously from chaos.

[yendu bwam]

Still waiting, Mr. Esoteric Lucidity, for your explanation of the existence of the universe!!!

[Woahhs]

But if you correct P2 it works.

[jlogajan]

Well, when you look at the big bang, as an example, which appears to be a one time event, then the naturalistic and intelligent force theories are equally probable, no?

That would be a false narrowing of choices. And it remains iterative. Who created the creator?

[jlogajan]

Still waiting, Mr. Esoteric Lucidity, for your explanation of the existence of the universe!!!

Still waiting, Mr. Yendu Bwam, for your explanation of the existence of the creator. If the creator needs to create the universe because it is so complex, the creator must be more complex -- so who created the creator?

[yendu bwam]

The most parsimonious explanation, even if you accept the Kalam/Big Bang argument, is that the universe was brought into existence by some non-sentient natural object that exists outside of time as we know it.

So super-temporal is OK, but super-natural is not? And what do you suppose created that non-sentient natural object? And what is your definition of natural? And by the way, reality is not always parsimonious...

[Woahhs]

The most parsimonious explanation, even if you accept the Kalam/Big Bang argument, is that the universe was brought into existence by some non-sentient natural object that exists outside of time as we know it.

Agreed...go on.

[yendu bwam]

I don't have an explanation for the existence of a creator any more than you do for the existence of the universe.

[colorado tanker]

Why don't you ask him when you see him?

[Woahhs]

If the creator needs to create the universe because it is so complex, the creator must be more complex -- so who created the creator?

Why is this required?

[yendu bwam]

But I do come back to note that the universe was created in an extremely 'ordered' condition - i.e. in a non-random, low entropy (or highly unlikely state). And it does make the natural creation idea less likely... (About 1 in 10 to the 133rd power times less likely)