Re: "Distant Starlight Proves the Universe is Billions Upon Billions of Years Old"

 from the 52:58 mark --

=====

But what about light? What did this [Special Relativity] mean for light's experience of space and time? Travelling at the fastest speed possible in the universe, the effects of relativity become extreme.  Very Extreme.  All distances shrink to zero.  As does the time taken to cover these zero distances.  And so, for photons, no matter how far they travel across the universe, not a single instant of time will tick by.  Even though this light may have existed in time and space for many years [i.e. in time] or light years [i.e. in space], even though it would have been clearly formed by one electron in one location and vanished when absorbed by another electron in another location, the space-time distance between these two events would be exactly zero.  To the photon, it is born and dies at precisely the same moment. To the photon, it is as it it had never existed at all. [I'm not convinced that this last statement stands up.]

=====

Another way to say the above is that from a photon's "point of view" or "frame of reference" it exists *simultaneously* at all times and at all points in space on the particular path which it takes from its creation to its destruction.

I had grasped this point about light with respect to Special Relativity, all on my own, years ago.  This is why I have never been impressed with, nor intimidated by, the "Distant Starlight Proves the Universe is Billions Upon Billions of Years Old" assertion.

EDIT: What I mean is that it seems to me that the "Distant Starlight Proves the Universe is Billions Upon Billions of Years Old" assertion is based upon disregarding physics following Einstein and instead treating the now-considered-erroneous Newtonian physics as the measure by which to understand the universe.

https://youtu.be/bAedYtUredI?t=3179

Refusing to see what's right in from of your face

William Vallicella: Does Evil Prove the Nonexistence of God? --

I'll grant you that it does if you grant me that truth, existence, order, conscience and twenty of so other phenomena prove the existence of God. And let's not leave out the moral heroism of Maximilian Kolbe.

You can reasonably ask how there could be a God given the fact of natural and moral evil. You can also reasonably ask how there could not be a God given the transcendent moral heroism and selflessness of Kolbe and others like him.

I'll grant you that evil argues the nonexistence of God if you grant me that evil also argues the existence of God. (Click on the first hyperlink and locate the argument from evil for the existence of God.)

My point is that there are no rationally compelling arguments for or against the existence of God.

Whatever it may be, it is not his *point* that "there are no rationally compelling arguments for or against the existence of God."

Consider -- "I'll grant you that evil argues the nonexistence of God if you grant me that evil also argues the existence of God."

What Vallicella is referring to here is that 'evil' is utterly meaningless if atheism is the truth about the nature of reality.

IF there is no Creator (*) -- if the world just randomly happened -- THEN there can be no "way things ought to be"; that is, there is no such thing as 'good'. AND, if there is no "way things ought to be", then there can be no violation of the "way things ought to be"; that is, there is no such thing as 'evil'.

Contrary to all the confused (when not merely dishonest) bleating of 'atheists', far from being evidence against the reality of God, the reality is evil is evidence *for* the reality of God.

Now, Vallicella does actually know this, but he will not see it and he will not acknowledge it, because he has a prior commitment to the falsehood that "there are no rationally compelling arguments for or against the existence of God."

In other words, the man is a fool.


(*) Not only must it be the case that there is some entity which may be called 'God', but this entity must be the cause of the world -- this 'God' cannot be an item in the world, but is rather "outside the world" -- this 'God' must be transcendent and immaterial and eternal. At the same time, it is not enough that 'God' be the cause of the world, 'God' must be the deliberate cause of the world -- this 'God' must be personal.

In other words, even before he can appeal to 'evil' as his rationale for denying the reality of God, the so-called atheist must make the logically prior appeal to a transcendent, eternal, immaterial and personal Creator-God.

I especially liked the last one

The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse Some Fights You'll Never Win

The Question Will Be Raised

Todd Wood, quoting from (and commenting upon) "intelligent interventionist" Leonard Brand's book:

Last but not least, I got my copy of Leonard Brand's revised Faith, Reason, & Earth History today. Like the original edition, Leonard continues to use "intelligent interventionist" rather than "creationist," at least in part because he thinks "creationist" is too narrow to describe his position. Here's a passage that I really liked:

In the long run, the beneficial approach is for interventionists to conduct themselves as genuine scientists and get actively involved in research. It is better to develop an alternative paradigm than to merely poke holes in someone else's theory. If interventionist efforts only center around disproving the prevailing evolutionary paradigm, this question will be raised: What do you have that is better?

Amen to that.

Oh, indeed; the question will be raised. But the question is invalid; it is not a rational question, it is not a logical question. It is, putting it in the best light, an emotional tantrum; putting it in a more realistic light, it is intellectual dishonesty.

And, smuggled into the question is this assumption/assertion: "Unless you replace my false beliefs with other beliefs (and they must be beliefs that I will accept), then you have no right to punch holes in my false beliefs."

The "prevailing evolutionary paradigm" is wrong. It is, in fact, false. Period.

That truth must confronted and admitted. Letting the 'scientistes' (*) off the hook for their anti-reason and intellectual dishonesty does no one, including them, any good.

So, yes: "conduct [yourselves] as genuine scientists and get actively involved in research." But not because of an intellectually dishonest pseudo-question.


(*) 'Scientiste' is a word I coinded a few years ago to denote scientific poseurs; the word is coined on the model of 'artiste' (as in, Miss Piggy, 'The Artiste'). 'Scientiste' refers to any proponent of scientism (**) -- scientismist was too much a mouthful. And not nearly mocking enough.

(**) Or, 'Science!' as Matteo calls it.