最近, 我介绍了粒子和相互作用，以我女儿的同学谁是打算前往德国电子同步加速器研究所的演讲, 德国，想拥有这是什么一回事的想法. 由于我的这种先说说, 我有点紧张，因为我不知道什么级别, 和背景, 我应该挂在谈话. 我不想弄得太基本, 我本以为这是浪费时间. 我也不想让它太技术, 这也将使得它以不同的方式无用.
Animals have different sensory capabilities compared to us humans. Cats, 例如, can hear up to 60kHz, while the highest note we have ever heard was about 20kHz. 似乎, we could hear that high a note only in our childhood. 所以, if we are trying to pull a fast one on a cat with the best hifi multi-channel, Dolby-whatever recording of a mouse, we will fail pathetically. It won’t be fooled because it lives in a different sensory world, while sharing the same physical world as ours. There is a humongous difference between the sensory and physical worlds.
自由意志是一个问题. 如果我们都是物理机, 遵守物理定律, 那么我们所有的动作和心理状态是由早先发生的事件造成的. 什么是造成由事业完全确定. 因此，无论我们现在和下一分钟做的是所有预先规定由先前的事件和原因, 我们有没有对其进行控制. 我们怎样才能再有自由意志? 事实上，我写的自由意志本说明 — 它是完全，彻底从远古时代的事件决定? 这听起来并不正确.
It is a sensible question: What does it feel like to be a bat? Although we can never really know the answer (because we can never be bats), we know that there is an answer. It feels like something to be a bat. 好, at least we think it does. We think bats have 意识 and conscious feelings. 另一方面, it is not a sensible question to ask what it feels like to be brick or a table. It doesn’t feel like anything to be an inanimate object.
阴谋论仍然是一个理论和饲料的疯子，直到它被吹大开. 在这一点上, 在疯子成为获奖记者和谁被视为民族英雄的领导人成为反社会罪犯. 这就是民意的变化无常, 并因此这将是与 9/11 当它成为广为人知的阴谋 (如果它确实) 这是一个阴谋.
The atheist-theist debate boils down to a simple question — Did humans discover God? 或, did we invent Him? The difference between discovering and inventing is the similar to the one between believing and knowing. Theist believe that there was a God to be discovered. Atheists “知道” that we humans invented the concept of God. Belief and knowledge differ only slightly — knowledge is merely a very very strong belief. A belief is considered knowledge when it fits in nicely with a larger worldview, which is very much like how a hypothesis in physics becomes a theory. While a theory (such as Quantum Mechanics, 例如) is considered to be knowledge (or the way the physical world really is), it is best not to forget the its lowly origin as a mere hypothesis. My focus in this post is the possible origin of the God hypothesis.
亲自, one of the main reasons I started taking the conspiracy theories about 9/11 seriously is the ardor and certainty of the so-called debunkers. They are so sure of their views and so ready with their explanations that they seem rehearsed, coached or even incentivized. Looking at the fire-induced, symmetric, and free-fall collapse of WTC7, how can anyone with any level of scientific background be so certain? The best a debunker could say would be something like, “是的, the free-fall and the symmetry aspects of the collapse do look quite strange. But the official explanation seems plausible. 至少, it is more plausible than a wild conspiracy by the government to kill 3000 of our own citizens.” But that is not at all the way they put it. They laugh at the conspiracy theories, make emotional statements about the technical claims, and ignore the questions that they cannot explain away. They toe the official line even when it is clearly unscientific. They try to attack the credibility of the conspiracy camp despite the obvious fact that it has the support of many seasoned professionals, like architects, physics teachers, structural engineers and university professors.
The only recourse an atheist can have against this argument based on personal experience is that the believer is either is misrepresenting his experience or is mistaken about it. I am not willing to pursue that line of argument. I know that I am undermining my own stance here, but I would like to give the theist camp some more ammunition for this particular argument, and make it more formal.
In the first post in this series, we saw that 7 World Trade Center building was the smoking gun of a possible conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack. The manner in which it collapsed and the way the collapse was investigated are strong indications of a conspiracy and a cover up. 然而, when I first heard of the conspiracy theory in any serious form, the first question I asked myself was why – what possible motive could any person or organization have to commit mass murder at this scale? I honestly couldn’t see any, and as long as you don’t see one, you cannot take these conspiracy theories seriously. 当然, if you buy the official story that the conspiracy actually originated in Afghanistan among terrorist monsters, you don’t need to look for any rational motives.
I have a reason for delaying this post on the fifth and last argument for God by Dr. William Lane Craig. It holds more potency than immediately obvious. While it is easy to write it off because it is a subjective, experiential argument, the lack of credence we attribute to subjectivity is in itself a result of our similarly subjective acceptance of what we consider objective reason and rationality. I hope that this point will become clearer as you read this post and the next one.