H.H. vai professori?

Keskustelin toisella palstalla H.H:n uusimman inkarnaation, edesan, kanssa. Hän kertoi siellä, että

"Olisi suotavaa, että tuolta pohjalta kerrottaisiin myös se miten naturalistinen maailmankuva kertoo itsessään, ettei maailma voi olla ikuinen tai syntyä tyhjästä, jos kerran pidetään kiinni tieteen hyvin tuntemista lainalaisuuksista."

ja

"Sellaisesta esimerkki on mm. itsesyntynyt universumi. Toinen esimerkki on ikuisesti muodossa taikka toisessa ollut universumi, koska se rikkoo mm. termodynamiikan toista pääsääntöä vastaan."

Koska vetosin vastauksessani Victor Stengerin kirjasta lukemaani asiaan, päätin kokeilla kysäistä mitä professori Stenger itse sanoo asiasta. Vastoin odotuksiani Stenger vastasi lähettämääni s-postiin, jonka vastauksen laitan tähän (tähdillä merkityt kohdat ovat Stengerin kommentteja minun viestistäni otettuihin lainauksiin):


*Thanks for your message. Your response is correct. There are no violations of any laws of physics involved.

On 5/2/12 4:39 AM, XXX XXX" wrote:

Hi.

I recently quoted your book, "God - the failed hypothesis" in a discussion on a net forum. The person I was discussing with said that, and I quote (by the way, sorry if I can't write it properly in English, the discussion in question was originally in Finnish, and my English is far from perfect.)

"In the name of science, some world views are presented as if we have a reason to see certain absurdities as facts.[...] It would be good if it was told that the naturalistic world view tells in itself, that the universe can't be infinitely old or arise spontaneously, if we hold on to well-known scientific laws."


*What facts?



When asked to elaborate, he continued: "A good example [of the mentioned absurdities] is the spontaneously arised universe, another one is that an universe, that has always existed in one way or another, violates (among other things) the second law of thermodynamics."


*It does not.



At that point, I mentioned that in Chapter 4 of your book, "Cosmic Evidence",


*I have no book with that name.

[HUOM: huonosti muotoiltu lauseeni tarkoitti lukua 4. aiemmin mainitusta kirjasta, luvun nimi on "Cosmic Evidence"]

you told that in the earliest definable moment, the Planck Time, the universe was in total chaos and had the maximum possible entropy that such universe could have, and after that entropy has increased but is no longer maximal, because when the universe expands, room for order increases. I also inserted this picture from your book: http://s16.postimage.org/paw7i91et/Entropy.jpg
which I probably shouldn't have done, because it lacked the explanation that entropy is a function of the radius of the universe, not time. He suggested that the abscissa was time, and then moved onto long explanations how the figure was not informative. Which is a kind of valid point, it was not without the lacking explanation from the book. However, I later corrected that it was indeed the radius of the universe.


*The graph is fine. It R is the abscissa. But it can be redrawn using t. Nothing I write in by books disagrees with well-established physics and cosmology.



Anyway, how would you advise to respond to his critique about what he calls "absurdities"? Basically he is saying, that there's scientific evidence that the world must have a supernatural beginning.


*If there is, I haven heard of it.

----------------------------------
Victor J. Stenger, PhD
Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado at Boulder

Jaahas. Kumpaako tässä pitäisi nyt pitää parempana tuntijana, fysiikan professoria vai H.H:ta, tuota tieteen monitaitajaa, joka löytää tieteellisiä todisteita siitä, että maailmankaikkeudella on pakko olla yliluonnollinen alkuperä?