Friday, September 23, 2011

An Interesting Comment


[did he get it wrong?]

After hearing of the results of a recent experiment which seems to indicate that particles can travel faster than light, Alvaro de Rujula a theorist at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research commented "If it is true, then we truly haven't understood anything about anything."

An interesting comment, considering that atheists will insist that anyone denying evolution is ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked since most scientists endorse it. This is in spite of the obvious fallacies of evolution. 

What if most scientists don't understand anything about anything?   

52 comments:

ksil said...

thats the beauty of the scientific method, willing to change minds and look at alternatives when presented with contrary evidence

if only religious people were as honest

jewish philosopher said...

"if only religious people were as honest"

Sure we are. I realized that atheism and Christianity were false, Judaism is true and I converted. People revise their beliefs all the time.

Jeff said...

Humility is important.
However it doesn't detract from modern science's track record for understanding the physical world.

This, in distinction to theists, who have consistently gotten it all wrong about the physical world, and even with all of their spiritual "insight" can't even agree on what god is and what he wants.

Thus, it is the theists who don't understand anything about anything.

jewish philosopher said...

Actually as I recall scientists for ideological reasons insisted for decades that the universe is eternal

http://books.google.com/books?id=ffNLyv3YV4UC&pg=PA186&dq=creator+big+bang+hoyle+atheist&hl=en&ei=qtRuTaelBZS5tgeJm9CCDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=creator%20big%20bang%20hoyle%20atheist&f=false

While the Torah of course taught creation from nothing.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

The Torah was right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Religious_interpretations

Anonymous said...

Creation from nothing is impossible...unless God did it.

ksil said...

anon, who created god?

jewish philosopher said...

Why does a transcendent being need a creator?

natschuster said...

Ksil:

I used to teach High School Science and Biology. I found different definitions of the Scientific Method in different textbooks. So when people talk about the Scientific Method, I ask, "which scientific Method?" Karl Popper also wrote that there is no Scientific Method.

Baal Habos said...

Thank you for posting this. It highlights the beauty of science which is willing to re-examine, if necessary, its most fundamental tenet.

jewish philosopher said...

When they have no choice.

Scientists for ideological reasons insisted for decades that the universe is eternal

http://books.google.com/books?id=ffNLyv3YV4UC&pg=PA186&dq=creator+big+bang+hoyle+atheist&hl=en&ei=qtRuTaelBZS5tgeJm9CCDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=creator%20big%20bang%20hoyle%20atheist&f=false

While the Torah of course taught creation from nothing.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

The Torah was right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Religious_interpretations

Jeff said...

"Why does a transcendent being need a creator?"

Let's put it like this. Everything we know of, originated from something. You are now positing a new category of things called "transcendental beings" that don't need to originate from anything.

If you could please give me other examples of such beings that we know of, to justify such an assertion, perhaps you could be more convincing. For example, are souls such beings? According to your theory, they were created, right?

You logically have to explain why god doesn't have an origin, other than by saying "he doesn't need one".

jewish philosopher said...

The physical universe must have been created at some point since for it to be infinitely old would violate the laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

God does not have this problem since He is not physical. And in Judaism God is unique; there are no other examples.

Jeff said...

"God does not have this problem since He is not physical."

Demons, angels, souls and spirits are also not physical, yet they had to originate from something. right? Are they infinitely old?

So why does god get a pass?

jewish philosopher said...

Why not? Steady State Theory gave the entire universe a pass.

Paley said...

"Why does a transcendent being need a creator?"

Amazing. You push the watchmaker thing as a proof that the universe could not exist without a creator, since it is infinitely more complex than a watch. However, G-d, who is even so complex that his complexity cannot be described, with intelligence of his own besides, can be transcendent, without a watchmaker. This poses no logical difficulty for you?

jewish philosopher said...

"since it is infinitely more complex than a watch"

And because it cannot be inifinitely old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

natschuster said...

Paley:

We know from experience that things like watches, and universes can't make themselves.

Mr. Cohen said...

You are wasting your time by arguing against the atheists. They will never listen to you.

ksil said...

we know frmo experience that

the sea cant split
that water cant turn to blood
that the sun cant stop in the sky
that donkeys cant talk
that prayer has no eficacy
that mystical rabbis have as much power as the corner palm reader
that the one thing you claim CAN make itself cannot write a book
that
that
that

just read your old testament....its all man made

natschuster said...

Ksil:

I guess I wasn't clear. We know from experience that the universe runs according to laws that don't allow things to make themselves by themselves. But G-d is not bound by the laws, so he can do miracles. Anyway, the stuff that scientists would have us believe is more miraculous than anything we find in the Bible. I guess yuo don't believe in the Torah because it isn't miraculous enough. Again, it all comes down to faith.

And my experience with praer indicates that it does have efficacy.

Paley said...

"But G-d is not bound by the laws, so he can do miracles."

And there cannot be a watch without a maker. And kal v'chomer, there cannot be a G-d without a maker.

Please prove the statement quoted before proceeding. It is nothing more than an assertion.

natschuster said...

Why can't there be a G-d without a maker? If we saw that watches coudl mkae themselves then we would watches could make themselves. But we know from experience that things like watches can't make themselves. Y'know, first and second thermodynamics.

Paley said...

Nat

"Why can't there be a G-d without a maker?"

Are we going too fast for you?
Q: Why can't there be a universe without a maker?

Proposed answer: Because just as a watch must have a maker, an infinitely more complex but finite universe must have a maker. I know this is the nature of the universe based on observation.

Q: Then who was the creator of the universe

A: A being that is even greater and infinitely more complex than the universe. He must have intelligence (whereas we assume that the universe has none of its own, ergo the creator is more complex). We call him G-d.

Q: If A<B<C, and if watch A must have a creator. And by extension of logic, universe B must have a creator C, because A<B. Then, by the same logic (your OWN proposition, not mine), C must have a creator because B<C and B must have a creator.

A: We decided to define C as transcendent.

Q: By what proof do you define C as transcendent, more so than B?

A: crickets chirping in the night.

Got it Nat and JP? Please provide that final answer as crickets annoy the hell out of me.

jewish philosopher said...

The answer to your question is really quite simple.

The universe cannot be eternal since this would violate the laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

God can be because He is not physical.

Therefore, the universe must have been created by God.

Paley said...

"God can be because He is not physical."

Mere assertion cannot be used as the leg of a syllogism.

Paley said...

JP this is not an answer but a restatement of the question. You answer that we decided to define C as transcendent. The request was to provide the final missing answer, no the one that was already anticipated.

jewish philosopher said...

Asserting that a non-physical, eternal, transcendent being cannot and does not exist is simply wishful thinking, a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking#As_a_logical_fallacy

This is commonly a "proof" of atheism.

natschuster said...

Paley:

We don't say that the universe needs a creator because it is bigger than a watch. We say the universe needs a creator because we know the laws of nature form emmpirical observation. Bu that doesn't apply to G-d.

Paley said...

"Asserting that a non-physical, eternal, transcendent being cannot and does not exist is simply wishful thinking, a logical fallacy."

It is not wishful thinking. It is a different fallacy, proof of negation from lack of compelling evidence. The correct way to state the atheist position would be that there is no compelling evidence. Very few would assert as your strawman does, that he definitely provably doesn't exist.

"that doesn't apply to G-d"

Again an assertion, not a proof. And again, the observation that there are no deviations from natural laws based on empirical observation is merely what I said in the paragraph above, a fallacy, proof of negation from lack of compelling evidence

jewish philosopher said...

" The correct way to state the atheist position would be that there is no compelling evidence."

Which is not true, as I demonstrate, using basically the Watchmaker Principle and the Kuzari Principle.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

natschuster said...

Paley:

If there really aren't any laws of nature, then there you shouldnt have any problem with the miracles of the Bible. But I'm assuming that you think miracles are impossible becuase they violate the laws of nature. So I'm assuning that you are really okay with there being laws of nature. I mean, how esle do we know anything expect by observation?

Paley said...

JP

Did you not read the first thing I commented? If the watchmaker analogy means that the universe has a creator, then by extension G-d must also have one, by the very same logic. Assertions that G-d has different rules than the universe are mere semantics.

Nat

Do pay attention. The argument is not against natural laws. But you can't have it both ways. Why do you insist that the universe is bound to laws and G-d is not bound. If you argue that G-d can make rare miracles, why do you insist that the universe cannot (being aware that negation from lack of compelling evidence is a fallacy)?

Moreover, if you claim that babies and sunsets are miracles, that deepens the question.

natschuster said...

Paley:

We know from observation that the physical universe follows laws. It doesn't follow that non-physical beings follow those laws. I'm not having it both ways. Different things follow different laws. G-d can work miracles becuase he is not physical. The universe, being physical cannot. Two ways are okay here, since we are talking abotu two different things.

And it sounds like you are agreeing that the physical uninverse does folow laws. Then it's existance has to follow laws, too. You can't have it both ways.

jewish philosopher said...

Asserting that a non-physical, eternal, transcendent being cannot and does not exist is simply wishful thinking, a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking#As_a_logical_fallacy

This is commonly a "proof" of atheism.

Paley said...

Nat

No one is arguing what G-d could theoretically do or that two things do not operate by different laws. I am simply arguing that you have nothing to support your concept of a physical universe and a non-physical G-d. It is simply your assertion. It is not an impossible assertion. It just has no more rational support than anything else anyone could imagine as the origin of the universe, including or excluding G-d, flying monkeys and witches, turtles stacked on top of each other or just obsolete operations of nature.

JP

Aren't Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V wonderful? You do not have to ever think. You just come up with 5 of your favorite things to say and life is good.

jewish philosopher said...

You keep saying over and over "If the universe must follow certain rules, then so would God." and I keep repeating "No, He wouldn't".

The universe is no more like God than a thought is like a human thinker. They are on entirely different planes and are not comparable.

Paley said...

"The universe is no more like God than a thought is like a human thinker. They are on entirely different planes and are not comparable."

Proof?

jewish philosopher said...

You keep saying over and over "If the universe must follow certain rules, then so would God." The burden of proof is on you. How do you know that? Perhaps God's nature is entirely different than anything else.

Here is my point of view on God.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/12/higher-power-as-i-understand-him.html

Paley said...

"You keep saying over and over "If the universe must follow certain rules, then so would God." The burden of proof is on you. "

My proof is the same as yours. If a watch requires a maker, G-d, who is infinitely more complex (since you assert that he is even intelligent), also requires a maker.

You or Nat then assert that the universe is natural but G-d transcends nature. Now I am asking for proof of that assertion. You respond with more assertion.

jewish philosopher said...

"Now I am asking for proof of that assertion."

Why is proof required? I'll tell you that I was born in New York but my wife was not. Is proof of that assertion required? Who says she has to be born in New York?

By the same token, I am saying we are physical beings and God is not a physical being. Who says that all things are physical?

I'm saying that, as we know, physical things which demonstrate complexity and purposefulness cannot come into existence spontaneously (a tornado hitting a junk yard will not produce a 747 airliner) and they cannot be infinitely old, since if the universe were infinitely old it would have reached entropy an infinitely long time ago. However, God, who is not physical, can be infinitely old.

Paley said...

"Why is proof required? Who says that all things are physical?"

That is what you began by asserting, that there was proof that G-d created the universe. Now you are punting on that proof. Simply because all things might not be physical does not prove anything. If you are asserting that a G-d is a plausible possibility because there is no absolute proof to the contrary, I conceded that long ago.

Why do you need proof? Because you asserted that there was proof. That's why.

jewish philosopher said...

Of course there is proof. Every organelle in every cell of every living thing is proof. There is no other way it could have gotten there, other than God creating it.

Paley said...

This is where we got on the merry go round.

You say "everything in the world proves G-d"
I say "How so?"
You say "Every watch needs a watchmaker"
I say "The same logic applies to G-d Himself."
You say "No, G-d is not natural, but a watch is."
I say "Prove G-d is not natural."
You say "I assert G-d is not natural."
I say "Prove it. Don't assert it."
You say "G-d is a plausible possibility because you can't prove he doesn't exist. The burden is on you"
I say "I never tried to even prove that. Prove that G-d is beyond nature."
You say "Every organelle proves that G-d exists. See the watchmaker story."
I say "That still does not prove that G-d is beyond nature."

See the problem?

(You no doubt say: The problem is yours, not mine.)

Well dodged.

jewish philosopher said...

The problem basically is: if there does not exist an intelligent, non-physical, eternal creator, where did life come from?

Consider this.

The body of John Doe is discovered in your house. There is a knife protruding from his chest. The knife is yours. There are fingerprints on the knife. The fingerprints are all yours. There are surveillance camera videos. The only person, other than John Doe, who entered the house, is you. You are arrested and a detective proceeds to question you. He presents to you the damning evidence. You respond "Officer, I have no explanation for the evidence. But it wasn't me. Someone else, I have no idea who, must have done it."

Would a jury acquit you? I sure wouldn't.

Asserting "I don't know where life came from, however I'm sure God didn't do it." is unconvincing. Of course God did. Prior to Darwin, all scientists believed God did it. And I have refuted Darwin.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

Paley said...

"I have refuted Darwin."

Were you the one? Where did you put the Nobel Prize medal?

jewish philosopher said...

The same place where all the Nobel prizes are for research validating evolution.

Anonymous said...

"Asserting that a non-physical, eternal, transcendent being cannot and does not exist is simply wishful thinking, a logical fallacy."

Agreed. We have no reason to doubt the existence of invisible, undetectable, intelligent beings who create universes, order and govern their physical law, mete out laws, and stand in judgment of the actions and thoughts of every sentient creature ever born.

Anonymous said...

"Every organelle in every cell of every living thing is proof."

Proof that evolution has occurred.

jewish philosopher said...

"Proof that evolution has occurred."

Except I've proven it didn't.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

"We have no reason to doubt the existence of invisible, undetectable, intelligent beings who create universes, order and govern their physical law, mete out laws, and stand in judgment of the actions and thoughts of every sentient creature ever born."

Some of those things we know not from nature but from the revelation at Sinai.

Anonymous said...

Will this post be revised to reflect the new data on this experiment?

jewish philosopher said...

Sure.

Alex said...

http://profmattstrassler.com/
"Why ICARUS Doesn’t Refute OPERA"