Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /home/hypnoth7/public_html/philip/wp-content/themes/Divi/functions.php on line 5607

The arrow of time

Scientists often talk about ‘The arrow of time’. That time moves in one direction only. This is nonsense and shows how narrow the twenty-first century view on science has become. Time is a dimension, in the same way as length, height and width are dimensions. If you climb up a hill and look down you can see the land laid out before you. You can view the dimensions of width and length. Similarly, if you could go into the fifth dimension, you would be able to see the four space-time dimensions laid out before you. It would be like opening book and seeing any event and then moving to see it’s outcome. The idea of the arrow of time is because scientists have certain assumptions that they need to accept without question. One of them is the concept of cause and effect. An action produces consequences. Science is the process of relating a cause to the effects. If the there is no arrow of time, then causality in this sense becomes indeterminate. Science, then, is based on assumptions of how the world works. There’s nothing wrong with this so long as science works within these assumptions, but frequently it gives rise to circular arguments. Someone at a table knocks a glass over and it drops and breaks. The physicists tells us that it hit the floor with a certain force. The chemist tells us that the glass can withstand a certain impact before it breaks. But why did the person drop the glass? Was he clumsy or nervous? A car crashes on a road and kills the driver. Again,...

Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof

Atheists and skeptics frequently write articles from the standpoint that their view is ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and that religious or ‘New Age’ views are irrational and based on incorrect assumptions. This view is fallacious and in these writings I explain that atheism is simply another belief system with as many (if not more) irrational assumptions as many religions. Skeptics place great emphasis on arguing techniques. Ostensibly, their motive is to expose the false arguing techniques used by their opponents but the fact is, many of them place greatly more emphasis on arguing than they do on understanding. In my personal experience, I would say this applies to the vast majority of skeptics. One of the arguing techniques that seems to raise its head frequently is that Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof. The basic proposition here is that science has established some rules for how the universe works. These rules appear to work, they are useful in that we can build on them to, for example, produce computer chips or send rockets into space. If a claim comes along that appears to go against the established way of seeing the world then we can’t apply the same rules of proof to it as we would to a claim that goes along with our current way of seeing the world. For instance, an investigator trying to determine why an aeroplane crashed would look at the known possibilities for crashes: Pilot error, equipment failure, maintenance failures, these sort of things. If someone suggested that it was caused by an alien UFO, most investigators would be dismissive of the idea. This is, in...