Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Two questions Perakh, Mark Jan 17, 2009
Dear Ben C:

I think your approach is principally different from that of Schroeder. If I understand you correctly, your approach is based on the notion of a God who is beyond nature, not restrained by the laws of nature, so is able to maintain something that can be referred to as "absolute time," thus providing a reason for Schroeder's idea. In fact Schroeder's approach is different: he attempts to reconcile the biblical story with the facts of science by asserting that the biblical story can be explained based on facts of science, not by assuming that the explanation requires going beyond the laws of nature.

Let us briefly discuss both approaches. Start with Schroeder's. His argument is fallacious because it contradicts the same general theory of relativity which he suggests as the basis for his argument. In GTR there is no absolute time, which is required for Schroeder's schema to work. Moreover, his concept is intrinsically false because, according to GTR, energy generates gravity as well as the mass does (more about it below).

Now turn to your argument. GAIN, This is not Schroeder’s idea at all – he wants to justify the biblical story by "showing" that it can be explained without breaking the laws of physics, but based on the laws of physics.

Now look at your suggestion per se, regardless of how it relates to Schroeder's idea. You may imagine anything you want, including a god capable of maintaining absolute time. In the famous example, we can imagine that there is a tea pot orbiting Mars. Nobody can forbid you to believe that such a tea pot exists, and there is no way to disprove your belief. But it has nothing to do with science. The hypothesis of god is based not on empirical evidence but, at best, on philosophical arguments. Can I assert that there is no god? No, I can't. Likewise I can't prove that there is no tea pot orbiting Mars, but, as per Occam's razor, there is no reason to assume such a tea pot. Many people assert that God reveals himself to them. I can't argue against their faith, and likewise I can't argue against a patient of an asylum who asserts that he is the incarnation of Napoleon. He is confident that he is Napoleon, and that this is a fact beyond doubt, but I can't share his conviction because I have not experienced that "revelation" he speaks about.

From whatever standpoint we view Schroeder's idea, it is a sheer fallacy, not to mention that he also displays a depressing incompetence in elementary concepts of physics (like, for example, asserting that masers emit atoms, etc.) which makes any serious debate with him meaningless.

Finally, about energy generating gravity. To learn about this point, just pick any serious course of the general theory of relativity (rather than some popular explanation of it) and upon having studied it more or less seriously, you'll find there this matter discussed. Popular explanations often omit this point.

Best wishes,

Mark Perakh

Related Articles: Not a Very Big Bang about Genesis