03SciRel

Science and Religion

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

. Mathematical Physics is

entirely

irrational

; none of it survives

he word

irrational

differs markedly from

supernatural

Irrational

explanations require a

much

higher

degree of difficulty

to overcome. An irrational

explanation is one yo

cannot

en imagine. Irrational

differs from supernatural in that

the

proponent

cannot

even

make a

movie of

his proposal.

The

re are

two

reason

for this

The

rosecutor

either

attempts to

move

concept

introduces

an irrational

object

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

fewer than

ten pages to

do this. Th

roughout his

dissertation h

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

mak

ing

a film strip of two of his

lines: a dot moving

across the screen

(an

itinerary

)

and

series of dots

absolutely

would not have

been able to make a film strip of

n abstract

location moving

across the screen or of a series of

locations

with nothing in them

! It i

s 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

, how it differs from

supernatural

explanation,

and why

the

athematical

hysic

rely on

them to

provide

physical

interpretations to

their

equations.

•

The

0-D

point particle

collides

•

Cannot imagine

Space-time

, but let's treat it as a physical object anyways

•

The handy duality: a

wave-packet

•

The irrational

black hole

•

The motion of a static concept:

the center of mass

•

he motion of velocity:

energy transfer

. Conclusions

od making the Universe is an example of a

supernatural

explanation. Energy transfer

and

the

conversion of a star into a

black hole are examples

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 'scientist

' of today

instead opted to

equate

science with a

description

Thi

mode of doing things enables the mathematician

give you a mathematical

description

of what occurred and

extrapolate a

personal

physical

interpretation

which he sells to you

as truth

Corollary: T

hat's why it is

absolutely

stunning

for me

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."

[

]

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?'

hy do

objects fall

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."

[

]

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."

Relativists don't understand the difference between

eligion

has no rational explanation for phenomena

here do we draw the line between fantasy and

Science

? Is there such a line?

Religion differs from

cience in that it offers either

supernatural

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"

[

]

If we are going to invoke magic or an unfathomable agent or process, then we can explain absolutely

anything

and

understand

absolutely

thing.

II. Traditional religion is supernatural

upernatural

refer

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

nothing

. The rabbit

already existed

The magician

merely

hid it from

your

eyes.

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 be

ause there

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

[

]

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

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,

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

articipant in the story

, we

cannot

rationalize the process.

Specifically, t

he proponent

cannot

explain

how

God

performed

this 'trick'

without mo

tion

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

cience

and attempts to prove

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

lunacy

something like

that

. When two or more

believe in such

nonsense,

call

religion.

In other

words,

religion is an entire funny farm full of

people

who provide supernatural explanations to natural

phenomena.

Another

form a

supernatura

theory may take is that it doesn't follow from the explicit or implicit

premises.

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

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."

Matthew 14:24-33

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, t

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

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

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.

ust fill

your

bathtub

with

water

and

touch its

still

surface lightly with

the sole of

your

right

foot

s soon

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 e xhibit, 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.