Science                and               Religion
Adapted for the Internet from:         Why God Doesn't Exist

    III.   Mathematical Physics is entirely irrational; none of it survives

    The word irrational differs markedly from supernatural. Irrational explanations require a much higher
    degree of difficulty to overcome. An irrational explanation is one you cannot even imagine. Irrational
    differs from supernatural in that the proponent cannot even make a movie of his proposal. There are
    two reasons for this. The prosecutor either attempts to move a concept or introduces an irrational
    object. An irrational object is one you cannot visualize, imagine, or draw (e.g., 0-D point, 1-D line,             
    4-D space-time, 0-D black hole, wave-packet of light, etc.)

    But let's begin at the beginning. The problem with Mathematical Physics is communication.  The
    mathematician believes that he has defined his key terms rigorously and that he has expressed his
    theory eloquently. It is now simply a matter for the jury to decide whether it has merits.

    Actually, nothing of the sort has occurred. There is only one way to ensure that the jurors have all
    visualized the same theory and that is if they all watched the same movie. We may later arrive at different
    opinions about it. You may conclude that the hit-and-run driver is a murderer and deserves the death
    penalty. I may think that it was just an unfortunate accident and call it a misdemeanor. Another person
    may take an intermediate position, call it negligent manslaughter, and recommend a five-year sentence.
    But as a minimum, to discuss a theory intelligently, we must all be on the same wavelength. We must all
    have watched the same movie! This is the only way a prosecutor can guarantee that all the jurors
    visualized the same thing when he spoke.

    The problem with Mathematical Physics is that each juror watches a different movie. Always! When the
    members of the jury later sit down to deliberate the theory, they end up discussing ad nauseam
    because everyone visualized something different during trial. And the reason for this is clear.  Not a
    single mathematician qualifies to be a director in Hollywood. Not a single mathematician in the world
    can make a movie of any contemporary theory of Mathematical Physics. Without anything to visualize,
    the juror has to be creative and fill in the blanks with his own images.

    Take for instance the case of Herman Weyl, one of the founding fathers of relativity theory. The
    establishment regards this misguided individual as a great mathematician, certainly on the par with
    Hilbert, Russell, and Riemann. In his book 'Space Time Matter' Weyl shows just how weak the
    mathematicians are on logic. Weyl begins his seminal book by explaining what a line is. He takes up no
    fewer than ten pages to do this. Throughout his dissertation he alludes to at least four different notions
    of what a line is supposed to be. In his deluded mind, Weyl probably thought that he communicated his
    theory adequately.

    Of course, if Weyl had made a movie of his explanation, he would have seen his errors without any need
    for a rebuttal. For example, he would not have encountered a difficulty making a film strip of two of his
    lines: a dot moving across the screen (an itinerary) and a series of dots. He absolutely would not have
    been able to make a film strip of an abstract location moving across the screen or of a series of
    locations with nothing in them! It is only when all the jurors can see the same things on the screen that
    the prosecutor can boast that he has communicated his theory well.

    The following also exemplify what an irrational explanation is, how it differs from a supernatural
    explanation, and why the mathematical physicists rely on them to provide physical interpretations to
    their equations.



    IV.   Conclusions

    God making the Universe is an example of a supernatural explanation. Energy transfer and the
    conversion of a star into a black hole are examples of irrational explanations. Traditional religion is
    usually supernatural. Mathematical Physics is for the most part irrational.

    The main problem with Mathematical Physics is communication. The mathematicians don't define the
    strategic terms they use to communicate their theories rigorously, and then they use these words
    inconsistently throughout their dissertations anyways. In addition, the mathematical physicists invoke
    irrational objects and are in the business of moving what is already in motion. They have been doing
    'science' like this at least for the past 400 years. This explains why the establishment cannot explain a
    single phenomenon of nature today. The 'scientists' of today instead opted to equate science with a
    description. This mode of doing things enables the mathematician to give you a mathematical
    description of what occurred and to extrapolate a personal physical interpretation which he sells to you
    as truth.

    Corollary: That's why it is absolutely stunning for me to read statements that at all costs defend
    'science' without knowing what it is:

    " during the last few centuries, scientists have developed explanations that are much more
       logical, more consistent, and better supported by evidence." [6]

    Contrast this lie of humanists and atheists against the official version of the scientific establishment:

    " Why? Students often ask questions with the word why in them. 'Why is the sky blue?'
       'Why do objects fall to earth?' 'Why are there no bodies with negative mass?' 'Why
       is the universe lawful?' What sort of answers does one desire to such a question?
       What sort of answers can science give? If you want some mystical, ultimate or absolute
       answer, you won't get it from science. Philosophers of science point out that science
       doesn't answer why questions, it only answers how questions. Science doesn't explain;
       science describes." [7]

    Perhaps in the religion of Mathematical Physics a description suffices. In Science, it is not even close!
    In spite of this, a mathematician defends his theories beyond any logic as if he and he alone is owner of
    the truth. To paraphrase Landau:

    " Mathematical physicists are often in error, but never in doubt."

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 08/27/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
Relativists don't understand the difference between

    I.   Religion has no rational explanation for phenomena

    Where do we draw the line between fantasy and Science? Is there such a line?

    Religion differs from Science in that it offers either supernatural or irrational explanations for natural
    phenomena. And the problem here is that supernatural and irrational explanations are no explanation at
    all:

    " Science avoids the supernatural because it is inappropriate as an explanation" [1]

    If we are going to invoke magic or an unfathomable agent or process, then we can explain absolutely
    anything and understand absolutely nothing.


    II.   Traditional religion is supernatural

    Supernatural refers to that which can best be described as true magic. Perhaps the most famous
    example is God Creating the Universe. This explanation differs qualitatively from the famous trick  
    where a magician produces a rabbit out of a top hat. The magician did not really create the rabbit out    
    of nothing. The rabbit already existed. The magician merely hid it from your eyes. He craftily moved an
    existing chunk of matter from one place to another without you noticing. A sleight of hand, they call it!
    The hand is quicker than the eye! In the case of God creating the Universe we are not talking about  
    tricks, deceptions, or illusions. We are talking about the real thing. We are talking black magic. God does
    not just move an existing object from here to there without you noticing. God creates the Universe from
    scratch:

    " Unless we are prepared to believe that the universe simply popped into existence
       uncaused out of nothing, then the answer must be: something exists because there
       is an eternal, uncaused being for which no further explanation is possible… the
       universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it"  [2]

    Craig is saying that God takes His magic wand and converts nothing (empty space) into something          
    (e.g., a rabbit). He takes an absolute void and produces a material body. Now this is what I call black
    magic or supernatural!

    Craig's explanation is supernatural as opposed to irrational because you can visualize every object that
    forms part of his physical interpretation, yet his explanation is inconceivable. To see why, let's look at
    the movie of God creating the Universe (Fig. 1). We see God in frame 543 with a wand in his hand. Then,
    in frame 544 God suddenly and without justification appears with His wand and a Universe. There was
    absolutely nothing in a tiny region of space and in ZERO TIME (the next frame) we suddenly have an
    object having length, width, and height. This is supernatural because, although we can visualize each
    participant in the story, we cannot rationalize the process. Specifically, the proponent cannot explain
    how God performed this 'trick' without motion. This is not an issue of belief, and it cannot be brushed
    aside by arguing that God works in mysterious ways. The proponent simply cannot conceptualize
    something coming into existence in zero time for us. Not even God can make something in zero time or
    without moving a limb because this is a violation of the 'verb' create. The proponent is not using the
    crucial terms he invokes to explain his theory consistently. His 'theory' can never have a chance of
    being rationalized and it will remain a part of religion. It is when the theist crosses the line into Science
    and attempts to prove or rationalize God like Craig attempts to do that he runs up against this semantic
    brick wall. Note that it doesn't matter whether the religionist alleges that God created the Universe
    piecemeal. What the religionist will not be able to explain is how God created the first bit of matter in  
    zero time.

    When one person becomes convinced of such a supernatural explanation we call it superstition or
    lunacy or something like that. When two or more believe in such nonsense, we call it religion. In other
    words, religion is an entire funny farm full of people who provide supernatural explanations to natural
    phenomena.

    Another form a supernatural theory may take is that it doesn't follow from the explicit or implicit
    premises. I will exemplify this version with the famous scene where Jesus walks over the sea:

    " in the fourth watch of the night, Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea... And
       when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
       But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried,
       saying, Lord, save me."

    The proponent can illustrate and make a movie of Jesus taking steps over the waters of Galilee. The
    viewers can see Jesus, the ripples in the water, the trees and brushes in the background (Fig. 2).
    However, the assumptions include gravity. In fact, the selective action of gravity is the sole purpose for
    the passage. The author is attempting to impress upon his readers that Jesus was 'above the natural
    law' (i.e., supernatural).

    The trouble is that the proponent cannot explain logically how it is that gravity pulls selectively on every
    object in the vicinity yet not on Jesus. Certainly, unless the magician is fooling us with another sleight
    of hand, we cannot reproduce this feat in a controlled lab experiment.

    But if Jesus walking on water is supernatural, Peter's bizarre experience is absolutely surrealistic.
    According to this passage, Peter sinks gradually in inverse proportion to his faith. Our experience with
    these matters is that a subject would sink in a picosecond, certainly before he can finish saying 'Lord,
    save me.' You don't have to take my argument at face value. You can test my assertions independently.  
    Just fill your bathtub with water and touch its still surface lightly with the sole of your right foot. As soon
    as you are ready to go, quickly repeat the magic words 'Lord, save me.' Thus, you can objectively test
    the strength of your faith and whether it was possible for Peter to sink gradually.

Fig. 2   "Lord, save me!"

The Lord Greg
walking on water

Fig. 1   A supernatural explanation

God Creating the Universe in zero time:   The Movie
A supernatural explanation is one which the
proponent can illustrate, but which does not
follow from the premises or which cannot even
be imagined. For instance, the prosecutor can
make a movie of God creating the Universe. The
juror has no trouble imagining God in Frame 543.
In fact, the juror doesn't even have trouble
visualizing God AND a Universe in Frame 544.
The rational juror runs into trouble at the
interface. By what process or mechanism did God
create something from nothing without moving a
limb or an atom in His brain (i.e., in zero time, in a
single snapshot)? This is not an issue of belief or
of not knowing God's mysterious ways. It is
impossible for the theorist to explain logically to a
juror how God could have created a Universe
without moving a limb or transferring a photon in
His brain! The presenter has a valid exhibit, but
an invalid theory.

A supernatural explanation is one in which the
relevant objects and participants are amenable to
illustration and visualization, yet the process
described or narrated is not logically or physically
possible.
Frame 542
Frame 543
Frame 544
Frame 545