 |
 |
 |
||
|
"Does God Exist?" Debate in NFB |
||||
|
||||
|
|
Rebuttal: Re: Can Science Prove God? Aparthib Zaman USA Re: http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/nov/06/g06112002.htm#A1 Quotes from above: --- Begin Quote --- "Mr Zaman should refrain from discussing things he doesn�t understand". "But please understand the nature of people like Mr. Zaman. They are imposters and very unscrupulous. They will try to fool you by using misunderstood physics and mathematics to persuade you to believe that there is no God. Shame on dishonest people like Mr. Zaman." --- End Quote --- I will leave it to the readers to do their own psycho-analysis as to what can cause one to pass such personal bitter remarks above when trying to refute an otherwise impersonal opinion on science and metaphysics. I hope they will also agree it may not be worth engaging in a dialog with someone resorting to such ad hominems. So I will instead present some further clarifications for the benefit of general readers in case I had been remiss in making my points precise earlier.Regarding the fine tuning argument, It was a strawman fallacy of misquoting me that I denied its existence. I NEVER SAID that ther IS NO finetuning in the universe. I made the point that such finetuning has plausible natural(scientific) explanation and thet it is a fallacy to insist that only a divine intervention can explain such a finetuning. Finetuning does not necessarily need a divine explanation. Many scientists have indeed shown that finetuning can have natural explananation. I gave a link to one such explanation by Physicist Victor Stenger. Here are some some more sources on this issue: Noble Laureate Physicist Steven Weinberg on Intelligent Design: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/weinberg_designer.html Physicist Victor Stenger: http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/god.html http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Cosmo/cosmyth.pdf http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf Vic Stenger has also written a book: Not By Design: The Origin of the Universe We are yet to see any Scientist making a claim BASED ON SCIENCE that finetuning can only be explained by invoking God. Even if there was no (although I re-emphasize that there IS) scientific explanation of finetuning, it will still be premature and unscientific to jump to a divine "explanation". That is exactly what is known as "Argumentum Ad Ignorantum" in logic. It is like explaining eclipses by invoking God when celestial mechanics (Newtonian mechanics) was unknown to humans, or thunders being explained as acts of God when electricty was unknown to humans. Secondly I maintain that there is no causality at the microspcopic level. It only exists at the macroscopic level. Causality requires directionality of time. Time is also an emergent concept. At the fundamental level, there is no special direction of time. There is no notion of past or future in any elementary particle process. All fundamental equations are symmetric in time. Virtual pair production is not a causal process in time. The energy needed to produce a virtual pair is a contraint imposed by Physics, not a cause. The energy (due to vacuum fluctuation from Uncertainty principle) ALLOWS (does not CAUSE) a pair production. Vacuum pair production is inherently a chance event. Finally, regarding the allegation that I tried to prove the non-existence of God, the unambiguous answer is that nobody can either prove or disprove the existence of God as much as no one can prove or disprove that unicorns exist somewhere in the universe. Proving or disproving the intangible and undefined is not within the realm of science. Science is about the empirical. Something like God, that is not empirical, i.e not subject to observations, either directly through ordinary sense perception or indirectly by sophisticated scientific tools of detection, can never be claimed to exists or NOT to exist by any logic. One can only have faith in the existence of such an imagined entity. Since science deals with empirical notions based on observational evidence through logical process, God can never be proven by scientific method. The existence of God can only be claimed by faith alone. Although science and rationality cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, science and logic can be used to decide if the arguments used to PROVE the existence of God is scientific and logical. It is not too subtle to comprehend that: "Refuting an argument claiming to prove the existence God" IS NOT = "Proving the non-existence of God". And it is the Left hand side of the above inequality that my earlier post was all about. I would urge the readers who still may be confused about finetuning and causality to consult a reputable professional particle physicist or cosmologist to settle these two issues, instead of settling it here in NFB by reading angry personal remarks of one calling another an "imposter", "unscrupulous", "dishonest", accusing him of "fooling" the readers (I can understand if any reader feels insulted at the hint that he/she can be fooled) others etc. Those are not credible (neither civilized) ways to settle philosophical or academic questions. The two moot questions are: 1. (a) Can finetuning be explained by any natural/physical explanation at all? (b) Does physics need to invoke only God to "explain" finetuning? 2. Does cause and effect have an unambiguous meaning at the fundamental quantum level of elementary particles like it has at the level of ordinary experience of macroscopic world? My answer is YES for 1(a), NO for 1(b), NO for 2. If the answers I provided are correct, then essentially the finetuning argument for God becomes a faith (or pseudoscience), not science. Let the readers find out on their own, although I have provided credible enmough references and soucess that corroborate my position.
====================================================== OUR C-O-L-O-R-F-U-L READ-OP-ZOO OF NFB.By-fatemolla Re: http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/nov/06/g06112002.htm#A1 T his is not about the Physics of Mr. Zaman�s and Mr A. Iqbal�s postings. It is about their inner self that shows up in the style of presentation. We are produces of teachers who taught subjects in the classroom and lessons of life beyond classrooms. For that they had to have a teacher-personality, not to punish but to correct.Days changed, so did value, as is reflected in the posting about God and science in yesterday�s NFB. What could be a decent discussion turned to a venomous snakebite. We got a "not-so-decent" posting from a teacher of a "decent University". For n�th time it is proven that people can be good or bad with or without God, but it takes god to lead a teacher to ill manners. God�s existence is probably the finest and most sophisticated challenge to human faculties. Apart from personal conviction, mankind�s last word about it is far off. Until then, let us discuss with civility and leave the realization of God�s existence to bloom from within. While somebody�s science may well prove God�s existence, many other scientific approaches prove His non-existence with equal, if not more, efficiency. Kobiguru�s (Tagore) vision about it is extremely valuable, but I refrain from quoting him, as that will make it longer. Some comments in yesterday�s( Nov 6, 2002 ) NFB: -
Audacious expression, absolutely unacceptable . We must not use such mean words even if someone is incorrect. Judgemental / absolutist- attitude is at the root of many nasty problems of life. I am sorry but after such expressions "assalamu alaykum" becomes a meaningless joke. The entrance door of the colorful NFB-Zoo is wide open for all of us, 5 days a week. The Editorial Board does not moderate the postings; they probably trust our integrity that we break so easily.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
||||
