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