Wednesday, September 11, 2013

DOES GOD EXISTS OR NOT EXIST?: THE GREAT DEBATE (Part 2)

I publish for blog readers the second part of the video (subtitled) of the debate “Does God exist or not exist?” which I held against Luis Arbaiza, representative of the Peruvian Association of Atheists, at the Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences of the Major National University of San Marcos (Lima - Peru) on May 10, 2013.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QDZ-cniwaY (This second part corresponds to reply, closing speech and questions of the audience).


In what follows, the referential quotations that I used in my interventions:

Reply

“The natural laws formulated mathematically in quantum theory no longer deal with the elementary particles themselves but with our knowledge of them”. (Werner Heisenberg, “The Idea of Nature in Contemporary Physics”, en: Franklin Le Van Baumer ed., Main Currents of Western Thought, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1978, pp. 706-707)

“"If the individual atom is anarchic, why would be this regularity in large numbers? (...) I do not think there is any alchemy by which it can produce regularity in large numbers on the base a mere whim in each individual case”. (Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science, Oxford University Press, New York, 1980, pp. 160-161)

On Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, see: Alvin Borde, Alan Guth y Alexander Vilenkin, “Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions”, Physical Review Letters, nº 90, 2003, pp. 151-301


“A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is imposible”. (Alexander Vilenkin, Many worlds in one: The search for other universes, Hill & Wang Press, New York, 2006, p. 175)

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”. (Alexander Vilenkin, Many worlds in one: The search for other universes, Hill & Wang Press, New York, 2006, p. 176)

“At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo”. (John Barrow y Frank Tipler, The Antropic Cosmological Principle, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986, p. 442)


Closing speech

“Belief in the explanation for everything in the future is an act of faith. By definition unscientific”. (Luis Arbaiza, “Are the laws of nature finite or infinite?”, luisarbaizaescalante.blogspot.com, June 13, 2008)

“The universe doesn’t have just a single history, but every possible history. (… ) Ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing”. (Stephen Hawking y Leonard Mlodinow, The Great Design, Bantam Books Press, 2010, pp. 7, 10)

The universe appeared spontaneously from nothing. (…) Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”. (Stephen Hawking y Leonard Mlodinow, The Great Design, Bantam Books Press, 2010, pp. 136, 180)


Tuesday, September 10, 2013

DOES GOD EXISTS OR NOT EXIST?: THE GREAT DEBATE (Part 1)

I publish for blog readers the video (subtitled) of the debate “Does God exist or not exist?” which I held against Luis Arbaiza, representative of the Peruvian Association of Atheists, at the Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences of the Major National University of San Marcos (Lima - Peru) on May 10, 2013.

Here is the link: http://youtu.be/6Ou5h_MkpBk (This first part corresponds to the presentation, the opening speeches and rebuttals).


In what follows, the referential quotations that I used in my interventions:

Opening speech:

“If the universe has a finite stock of order, and is changing irreversibly towards disorder - ultimately to thermodynamic equilibrium - two very deep inferences follow immediately. The first is that the universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were, in its own entropy. This is known among physicists as the “heat death” of the universe. The second is that the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist. The universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist”. (Paul Davies, Dios y la Nueva Física, Salvat Press, Barcelona, 1994, p. 16)

On the Spacetime Singularity Theorem, see: Stephen Hawking y Roger Penrose, “The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. CCCXIV, nº 1519, 1970, pp 529–548.

“The human body is constantly undergoing repair and renewal to such an extent that we undergo a complete turnover in (molecular) parts every seven years (on average)”. (Michael Murray, “God and Neuro-Science”, www.reasonablefaith.org, question nº 42)


Rebuttal

“The Creator’s aim must have been [precise] to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the Power of 10 to the ower of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10 to the Power of 123 successive “0”s! Even if we were to write a “0” on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed”. (Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989, p. 344)

“According to this pattern of evolution, the brain is an object made of cells, electrical circuits, and reaction mechanisms (...). This could happen perfectly without an inner self, it would suffice the existence the inert consciousness but not so. That is, the brain should be a machine chemical to react very efficiently to the world, but should not be a self, lived awareness spare, is a gratuity. A blemish on the perfect material explanation of the world”. (Luis Arbaiza, “The biochemistry can’t explain consciousness”, luisarbaizaescalante.blogspot.com, July 4, 2007)

“The unification of Kaluza-Klein was merely a mathematical trick to put the Maxwell and Einstein’s equations in one five-dimensional mathematical matrix, but did not integrate these equations in a real and physically meaningful manner”. (Hans Ohanian, Einstein’s Mistakes, W.W. Norton Press, 2008, p. 304)


To be continued…