Sunday, May 13, 2007

Marjor contradictions at the heart of Atheism

On the one hand you tell me that laws of phsyics are just descriptive and they don't determine anything. On the other hand you say that there is natural world that extends beyond our space/time, presumably to anything physical? So you see the dichotomy of nature/spirit as phsyical, tangleable, visable vs "in" and "un" and "non" versions of these, intangeable, invisable, non phsyical.

But how can it be that "nature" extends all over existence beyond the realm of all we know to all other realms anywhere and yet there are no prescriptive physical laws? It seems to be that to be able say that you would have to have a set of laws that delimit what can happen. Otherwise how can you possably know there is not a universe in which all existence is immaterial?



Here are some quotes about Big bang cosmology. They are from major phyicists and some obscure phyicists and the major upshot of them is we have no physics to explian the big bang.


No Physics to explian something from nothing.


John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]

That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explian it. That is a total paradigm shift.

*Multiverse is unscientific metaphysics.

Sten Odenwald, Gaddard, Nasa: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11215.html

"yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitly old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."

John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explian it. That is a total paradigm shift. "yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitly old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."
Some physicists, such as Oldenwald, are aware of this, but that doesn't stop the the materalists from continuing the assumption. So if it is religious metaphysics its bad, but if its metaphysics the materialist can use it's "ok."



We have no phsyics to explain the bb and yet you want to argue that know what it is and how works and that is material. dilemma

(1) if physical laws are not prescritive then you must expalin how everything can be the same all over all existence

(2) if phsycial laws are not prescritive

.....(a) beilevein miracles there no barrier to them

.....(b) it could be that some worlds are supernatrual. It's only if you have a delimiting set of laws that you can cleary define natural from supernatural (if you go by the degraded concept most of you try to defend)

Second dilemma

(1) if there is a phsyics to expalin bb then it's seems physical laws are prescritive

(2) if there is no physics to exapin it then it doesn't opporate by natural law we can well think of the bb as supernatural. Or even magic.

2 comments:

Hayduke said...

Hi JL:

You're conflating seevral concets here and disorting them to create a conundrum that does not exist.

First you assume that the "Big Bang" created something from nothing. We don't understand the Big Bang as yet becasue so little information escapes through the singularity to describe what happened before the Big Bang. So we don't know that there was nothing before there was something. It could very well have been every bit as much something as there is now.

The problem arises from the attempt to hammer Quantum physics into the words and experiences of Cartesian physics in everyday perception. Unfortunately, the physics of the Big Bang is not the same physics as an apple falling from a tree. Time, space, matter and energy are different in quantum terms, and the Big Bnag must be explained using the mathematics of quantum physics.

Different is not the same.

So, claiming that physics cannot explain the origin of the all that is, therefore it must have been created by a supernatural being, is lazy cosmology. One may as well claim there is a unicorn in the center of the sun, since both cannot be disproven.

In science, we deal with observation and verififcation. That which cannot be observed and verified cannot be studied by scientific methods, and therefore is not a part of our reality.

The BIg Bang, however, has been observed and verified, so we know it occurred, even though we may not yet understand the mechanism of its occurance.

As to other Universes, who can say. String theory suggests there are an infinite set of universes, each of which has its own set of physical laws, most of which are antithetical to life as we know it on Earth. String theory has yet to be reconsiled with observation, yet it has provided answers to some niggly problems leading to a unified theory of matter and energy. Time, if you'll pardon the expression, will tell.

J.L. Hinman said...

You're conflating seevral concets here and disorting them to create a conundrum that does not exist.

First you assume that the "Big Bang" created something from nothing. We don't understand the Big Bang as yet becasue so little information escapes through the singularity to describe what happened before the Big Bang. So we don't know that there was nothing before there was something. It could very well have been every bit as much something as there is now.



>>>While it is true we don't know what cause the BB, it is also true scientits do not theorize that the energy in the BB was eteranlly sitting around wating to pop out, or that it was made from a previous universe. Thsoe are both theories have been discoreded. I am not a an expert, but I've read a lot of experts. Sten Odenwalk, NASA astronomer says that the energy in the BB was Created in the BB. The concensus in science is yes,it did create soemthing from nothing, or someting similar to that process.



The problem arises from the attempt to hammer Quantum physics into the words and experiences of Cartesian physics in everyday perception.

>>>> no the problem comes from atheist poropaganda, because they know something form nothing is an untenabel position.





Unfortunately, the physics of the Big Bang is not the same physics as an apple falling from a tree. Time, space, matter and energy are different in quantum terms, and the Big Bnag must be explained using the mathematics of quantum physics.


>>>all the more reason to assume the energy was created in the BB. Because conservation of energy doesnt' apply in QM sitaution.






Different is not the same.

So, claiming that physics cannot explain the origin of the all that is, therefore it must have been created by a supernatural being, is lazy cosmology.


>>>Lazy is when you don't listen and don't read what the person is saying and just assume its the same old stuff because you are too lazy to think new thoughts. You need the old athist progagnada form the sec web to tell you how to respond.

this as very little to do with my post.I wasnt' even making the cosmologial argument;a nd my cos arguemnt does not turn on "wee need God to expalin it." that just comes from assuming I'm stupid because because I'm a Christian

christians stupid so I must be stupid.


I've decided to answer the rest of this in the main portion of the blog as a new peice. You are welcome to debate. I'll post your replys and I will be fair.