Skip to main content

Andy McIntosh - Atheism vs. God - Part 4 (Software / Information)

This is part 4 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well.

For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNIwh6-KEe0

Software

At 47:10, McIntosh starts discussing information, and quickly transitions to "software".




He asks the following questions:

Is software real?  The answer has got to be: yes!
Is software material? Ahh.  Software is real, yet it is not material. 


I saw no presented evidence for any non-material software.  McIntosh throws in his answer of "software [...] is not material", but he doesn’t justify it.  Software is in DNA (from McIntosh's point of view), which is material.  Software is on hard drives, in memory in computers, on your memory cards, and in the neurons in my brain.  All of that is material.  Software is always just an arrangement of material things, and it always seems to be arranged by other material things.  Now, maybe there is something immaterial here.  But we haven't seen evidence of that.

McIntosh states, 
“The message is sitting on the code and the code is sitting on the matter.” 
No, the code is the matter.  The message is the matter.  No matter = no message, no code.

McIntosh is not assessing this from a naturalistic perspective.  He is inserting immaterialism, and once that happens, he's saying that materialism doesn't make sense.  This is true only if you first assume immaterialism.

Information

Given previous statements, that information is not matter or energy, McIntosh's use of information is actually immaterial information.

At 51:07, McIntosh states,
“We intuitively know [immaterial] information is present when it is not due to physics and chemistry..!”



Believe maybe.  But when fully considered, this is a tautology.  “[…] when it is not due to physics and chemistry” makes it an assumed conclusion, essentially saying: we know immaterial information is present when immaterial information is present.  What evidence was presented that supports this lava lamp "is not due to physics and chemistry"?  I saw none.  Complicated physics and chemistry, sure.  But to say it is immaterial information is to assume the conclusion again.  This immaterial information is to have come from the mind of the one who created the lamp, but again, that mind has not been shown to be immaterial.

Logical Issues

McIntosh is building a case here for immaterialism, and I think wants to show that since the immaterial exists, that shows materialism wrong.  But his argument, that software is real but not material, assumes his conclusion of immaterialism.  It begs the question: Is software material?  To his credit, he did actually show this question - but his answer seems to be a baseless assertion, which makes the argument unsound.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

39

Three decades I have walked the Earth.  Almost four.  I have known what it is to be loved by good parents, to be alienated and abused by classmates, to be a failure at scholastic pursuits, to be a success at scholastic pursuits, to find a family apart from heredity, to know love with the joys and pains that brings, to be a father of three wonderful children, and to be a master craftsman at my profession.  I have seen the glory of man, and the failure of man. When I was a young child, I gave my life to Christ.  I still remember the event, or at least I think I do.  Evergreen Baptist Church.  Vacation Bible School.  Altar call.  I was moved to move, to walk the path, to commit my life to Christ.  I have never had a burning passion for Christ, but I have held him in my heart.  In college I drifted away, as is the tendency.  When I became serious with my now wife, we agreed to walk the road of life together as a Christian family.  I have done this for the last 15 years. I believe
8 comments
Read more

Critique: The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3, Ken Ham and Roger Patterson

In reference to:  The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3 Several assertions are made that are false, and several questionable tactics are used. Abiogenesis and Evolution [Humanists] want a monopoly on the teaching of molecules-to-man evolution in the public school science classroom. ... evolutionism in the sense of the belief aspects of evolution [life arising by natural processes, etc.] ... Embedded in this assertion is that evolution includes the formation of life from non-life.  This is incorrect.   Evolution  is a biological theory that describes how species of life change into other species of life.   Abiogenesis  is the development from life from non-life.  It is fair to characterize abiogenesis in a pre-consensus state.  It is not fair to consider this a shortcoming of evolution as they are distinct. Advocating Evolution as Religious An effort is made to show that "belief" in evolution is religious, and as such, teaching evolution and not creationism repre
1 comment
Read more

Andy McIntosh - What About the Fossils - Part 11 (Ammonite and Wood)

This is part 11 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPUU9Wb8yzQ C-14 Should be Missing McIntosh presents an argument that C-14 should not be found at all in a sample that is millions of years old, but that we do find that - which is a claimed problem with an old earth. Why should it be missing? A single piece of Nitrogen, an atom, has 7 protons, and usually 7 neutrons.  There is this thing that happens to nitrogen where it turns into carbon for a "short" while, then turns back into nitrogen. It starts when N gets hit with a neutron [N+n].  This causes a proton to get knocked out of the atom.  How an atom acts chemically is kind of based on how many protons it has, so this atom now starts acting like carbon [
2 comments
Read more