Friday, February 23, 2007

God to Call Press Conference

Another book has appeared accusing God of the appalling crime of not existing. I can exclusively reveal that He is not happy about this and is considering calling another press conference. There is only one precedent for such a move - the conference He called after 9/11, in which He angrily clarified the Don't Kill Rule. 'Don't kill each other anymore - ever!' He said, 'I'm fucking serious!' God tells me, angry as He is about the repeated charges of non-existence, He will have to wait until after Jeffrey Archer's book launch in Rome on March 19th.

12 comments:

  1. Here's a paper written by Victor J Stenger called 'Where did the laws of physics come from?'

    arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0207/0207047v2.pdf

    It's a really bizarre paper because Stenger's basic argument is that the laws of physics cannot be otherwise than they are, without either violating coordinate-independence, or failing to account for the experimental data. He then spends the bulk of the paper providing an elementary exposition of the basic laws.

    Well, firstly, his basic assertion is false. It's well-understood in the philosophy of science that theory is under-determined by empirical data. Adding the criterion of coordinate-indpendence doesn't change this. If it did, we wouldn't have rival, competing theories of fundamental physics such as string theory, M-theory, supersymmetry, canonical quantum gravity, supergravity etc etc, all of which are coordinate-independent.

    Secondly, when people ask, 'Could the laws of physics have been otherwise than they are?' they're considering different sets of empirical data, governed by different sets of physical laws. To argue that the laws of physics must be the way they are because that's the only way to explain the empirical data, is to totally mis-understand the problem!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gordon:

    Is that the same as the fined-tuned universe theory (to which a non-religious answer is the multiverse theory)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's not the same, Brit, but it's related. The fine-tuning pertains to the so-called 'parameters of physics', but these parameters do pop-up as co-efficients in the laws of physics. For example, the mass of the electron is a co-efficient in the Dirac equation for an electron. But the laws of physics could be otherwise than they are in a more general sense than simply having different values for their co-efficients; they could be different expressions entirely.

    Dawkins et al are quite right that the God hypothesis doesn't explain fine-tuning at all, and simply regresses the explanation to something else which requires explanation, (if God is a well-defined notion at all). The multiverse hypothesis is a better answer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bryan, thanks for the link to that brilliant 9/11 angry God article from the Onion, which I hadn't seen before.

    Re Richard Dawkins' God delusion: I've drawn a short cartoon strip on this theme and would like to add it here as a comment. Am I allowed to do that? Or I can send it by email, if you wish. Anyway it's on my blog (Blaugustine):
    www.nataliedarbeloff.com/blaugustine.html
    I did email you recently but don't know if you received it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do add as comment if you like. I may have mislaid your earlier communcation as I have suffered a horrible tech breakdown this week.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder if Randy Newman could be prevailed apon to update his classic hymn to atheism "That's why I love mankind"?

    "Man means nothing he means less to me
    Than the lowliest cactus flower
    Or the humblest Yucca tree
    He chases round this desert
    'Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
    That's why I love mankind

    The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
    The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
    They picked their four greatest priests
    And they began to speak
    They said, "Lord, a plague is on the world
    Lord, no man is free
    The temples that we built to you
    Have tumbled into the sea
    Lord, if you won't take care of us
    Won't you please, please let us be?"
    And the Lord said
    And the Lord said

    I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
    I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
    You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
    That's why I love mankind
    You really need me
    That's why I love mankind"

    ReplyDelete
  7. I couldn't manage to insert the JPG file of the cartoon strip here so I'll re-send you my previous email and hope it gets to you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I had forgotten about The Onion. My brother had recommended it to me ages ago. It is laugh-out-loud funny. As for those two books, the launch of one them in Rome is enough in itself to scupper the hypothesis discussed in the other.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Christ, so many f******* idiots. To tedious to argue why the universe is incapable of creating itself, and why we're in the midst of an immense mystery that defies the stumbling half-wit of reason, though perhaps it's only a stumbling half-wit when in the hands of the f******* idiots mentioned earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just in case, the f***** idiots aimed at the Dawkins of this world, not at posters prior to mine in the thread.
    Slightly drink influenced play on Shakespeare:
    "More things(oh no, forsooth tis that quote again) in heaven and f****** earth than dreamt of in your f******* philosophy, you bunch of f******** idiots."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Blessed are those who use foul language in the cause of righteousness and simple logic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Er...He also called a press conference just over a year ago, here:
    God Condemns ‘So-Called Intelligent Design’.

    ReplyDelete