tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post7266907707049764719..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Argument from AuthorityGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-54790847246059705992013-01-03T18:53:10.428-08:002013-01-03T18:53:10.428-08:00Wemm says:
"The underlying problem is that th...Wemm says:<br /><i>"The underlying problem is that the common meaning of "nothing" is not consistent with the scientific version of "nothing".</i><br /><br />Science doesn't have to be a foreign language. The meaning of "nothing" is: no thing - the total absence of matter and consequentially of motion or energy. If that isn't what scientists mean, they shouldn't use the word.<br /><br /><i>... This is further complicated by the fact that many scientists will assert that there is actually no such thing as "nothing".</i><br /><br />The source of the confusion may have started with "anti-matter" as a label for forms of matter with complementary charge and spin. Both the electron and positron have mass and one matters as much as the other. You can probably blame the nomenclature on William Hicks' <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#History_of_the_concept" rel="nofollow">"negative matter"</a> of the 1880s. <br /><br />Most scientists have no problem coining words, but physicists seem immune. Perhaps they <i>like</i> to be as confusing as possible, to demonstrate their pre-eminent wisdom ... because they continue using invalid concepts.<br /><br />Richard Feynman has to explain that "annihilation" as a consequence of colliding an electron and positron doesn't really mean "annihiliation". Matter is simply converted from particles to another form of matter (Gamma Rays), <b>not</b> utterly destroyed.<br /> <br /><i>... An infinitely small singularity could probably be defined as "infinitely small space/time/energy/potential particle".</i><br /><br />There is no scientific evidence whatever for anything of the sort. It's simply an error in logic.<br /><br />Astronomers demonstrated that most visible stars are moving away from each other. Astrophysicists simply <i>assumed</i> that this was evidence of an "expansion of the universe" and then turned the calculated star motion formula upside down, resulting in an infinite regression to ... something weird. Since the mathematical formula <i>implied</i> that there was nothing else, the remainder was universally singular: a "singularity". The error was simple: you can't take a partial, end-state mathematical extrapolation and convert it to an interpolated law of ultimate origins. The problem is that the math error itself becomes suitable "evidence", rather than observation or experiment.<br /><br />The hazard is that physicists who are atheists think this irrational and grammatically false set of theories give them a good argument that God is "superfluous". If something can collide with "anti-something", or something and "anti-somethings" can come from nothing, or a temporal extrapolation can warrant an infinite regression ... then who needs a Creator God?<br /><br />Krauss and others are trying to convert Genesis into a purely scientific statement of fact. It won't work. Not because they use intentionally confusing terminology, but because it's totally irrational.<br /><br />As Glenn properly points out, this proposition is totally contrary to all scientific observations that confirm the conservation of matter and the motions of matter ... everywhere and always. There was no "origin" of the universe: it always existed.Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.com