Big Bang disproved? The Hartle-Hawking hypothesis

[MindOverMatter]

Hartle and Hawking seem to have found a way, Mathematically, around the initial sigularity of the BigBang. In fact they have completly removed the sigularity through some trick of quantum physics. Personally, as a defender of the cosmological arguement, i don’t have a problem if their theory does disprove the Bigbang. The cosmological arguement, though it is a good sign of Gods presence, is just “one” arguement; among others.

Their hypothesis hasn’t been proven truth yet, and it would be an astonishing discovery. However, Hartle and Hawking are not leaving the discovery at the door of science; instead they seem to think that by removing the sigularity, they have some how removed any reason to think that God created the Universe. Now; i have my own arguements against this veiw which i think are reasonable. But i’d like to see what other preople have to say about this.

Has Atheism found a loophole?

Godbless.

 

[Neithan]

Could you provide a link or something that shows how/why Hawking thinks he has removed the reason for God’s existence?

Even if the Universe had no beginning, the Cosmological Argument as originally formulated by Aquinas (efficient causality) is still valid. Aquinas thought the Universe was eternal.

 

[Nullasalus]

Atheists could (and have) been arguing that their beliefs are compatible with even an ex nihilo Big Bang, so I doubt this changes much. The philosophical conclusions are vague, poetic hot air.

Conveniently enough, this year’s Templeton Prize winner was Michel Heller, a catholic priest from Poland who is also a physicist (and he himself is trying to ‘get around’ the singularity question in the origin of the universe.) He believes that God is the cause of everything, but oddly enough doesn’t seem to think the cause is going to be found the way people expect. Vague, I know, but a lot of what he says (you can find excerpts on www.templeton.org - he was the 2008 winner) is delicate to grasp.

Incidentally, what Hawking is advocating is a bit more complicated, and at least the atheists I’ve seen it suggested to weren’t all that thrilled. More info here: planetpreterist.com/news-2896.html

My own reply would be ‘Big bang, steady state, matrix, or ex nihilo creation - the same arguments will be raging on, because faith is needed in either direction.’

 

[MindOverMatter]

Could you provide a link or something that shows how/why Hawking thinks he has removed the reason for God’s existence?.

Sorry; I read it in a book called “The Mind Of God” by Paul Davies.

Even if the Universe had no beginning, the Cosmological Argument as originally formulated by Aquinas (efficient causality) is still valid.

And why’s that?

Aquinas thought the Universe was eternal.

I did not know that; i thought he only ***assumed ***an eternal universe so that he could find out away of proving Gods existence, without assuming a definite beginning.

 

[MindOverMatter]

because faith is needed in either direction.’

Thanks for the links.

Why does the Atheist need faith? I can imagine an Atheist saying something like;

“*I see things arise through the ***law of physical objects ****and random variation; there is no reason to think that there is anything more to existence then that. Why then should i believe in God.”

Is that an arguement based on faith?

 

[Nullasalus]

Thanks for the links.

Why does the Atheist need faith? I can imagine an Atheist saying something like;

“*I see things arise through the ***law of physical objects ****and random variation; there is no reason to think that there is anything more to existence then that. Why then should i believe in God.”

Is that an arguement based on faith?

It’s not even an argument - it’s a statement of faith. ‘Law of physical objects’ - Where did the law(s) come from? Just popped into existence? Just existed for all eternity, and happened to be conducive to allowing us to come into being? Random variation - how do we verify whether something is truly random or unplanned? What about simulated universes (another thread in this forum questioned that)? And those aren’t even all - or the best - questions to ask, right off the bat.

There’s always a faith element, a certain point where scientific observation falls flat (earlier than most people think, in my opinion) and philosophy, speculation, reason, and faith begins. There’s nothing wrong with faith either - faith is typically informed through reason and evidence, on all sides of these arguments. But faith it remains.

Edit: Actually, I see you’ve read Paul Davies. He had an article late last year, talking about the role of faith in science, which kicked up a small storm among the more evangelical atheists. I think Davies, while very free-thinking and interesting, tends to come down harder on theistic views of nature than is really warranted. On the other hand, Davies has a habit of ticking off most people on subjects like that.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Edit: Actually, I see you’ve read Paul Davies. He had an article late last year, talking about the role of faith in science, which kicked up a small storm among the more evangelical atheists. I think Davies, while very free-thinking and interesting, tends to come down harder on theistic views of nature than is really warranted. On the other hand, Davies has a habit of ticking off most people on subjects like that.

Yes; his book did anger me a bit, but not because he was challenging God. For example, he leaves things out; he claimed that Theism have not yet formulated an answer to the problem of “Act”, as in, going from a timeless state to linear time. Did he not know that God is pure perfect actuality? By which i mean that God is a creator by nature of being; eternally appling causation rather then taking his “time” to decide. By my understanding, God is perfect; and therefore he does not need to take any time to decide or think about anything, like us humans; Gods perfect will just acts perfectly.

Do you agree?

 

[Nullasalus]

Yes; his book did anger me a bit, but not because he was challenging God. For example, he leaves things out; he claimed that Theism have not yet formulated an answer to the problem of “Act”, as in, going from a timeless state to linear time. Did he not know that God is pure perfect actuality? By which i mean that God is a creator by nature of being; eternally appling causation rather then taking his “time” to decide. By my understanding, God is perfect; and therefore he does not need to take any time to decide or think about anything, like us humans; Gods perfect will just acts perfectly.

Do you agree?

I think Davies clearly has a bias against theism (Christianity in particular), but it’s mitigated in that he seems to have a bias against everything. It’s hard to complain in the end, for me - he has a clear track record of getting EVERYone a bit ticked off, which is good enough for me.

Your formulation sounds similar to Michel Heller’s, really - probably Aquinas’ too. I’d agree, or at least say it comes across as a very reasonable answer to the Act question. I’m not well-read enough on this level of God & philosophy, but I’ve read some persuasive argument along those lines.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There’s always a faith element, a certain point where scientific observation falls flat (earlier than most people think, in my opinion) and philosophy, speculation, reason, and faith begins. There’s nothing wrong with faith either - faith is typically informed through reason and evidence, on all sides of these arguments. But faith it remains.

I see. I think you’re correct. People have never seen the history of Evolution and the behavior of Dinosuars, but we still take it on faith based on the evidence. Is that right? Comes to think of it, ordinary day to day people have never worked out any of the mathematical equations or seen the evidence for themselves, yet we take the scientists word for it on faith! But why would they lie?

 

[MindOverMatter]

*A measurement made in the present is deciding what happened 13.7 billion years ago; by looking out at the universe, we assign ourselves a particular, concrete history. *

This guy Can’t be serious? It does sound interesting though. Its like somekind of multiverse. I cool with that; but i don’t know about
the whole “reverse-determination senario”. Doesn’t quantum physics render determinism invalid?

 

[Nullasalus]

I see. I think you’re correct. People have never seen the history of Evolution and the behavior of Dinosuars, but we still take it on faith based on the evidence. Is that right? Comes to think of it, ordinary day to day people have never worked out any of the mathematical equations or seen the evidence for themselves, yet we take the scientists word for it on faith! But why would they lie?

Sure, there’s a lot of faith at work in day to day life. I think the degree of faith differs between, say, faith in theism/atheism/general philosophy, faith in friends, faith in a particular scientific claim, etc. But certainly things are rarely clear cut.

 

[Nullasalus]

*A measurement made in the present is deciding what happened 13.7 billion years ago; by looking out at the universe, we assign ourselves a particular, concrete history. *

This guy Can’t be serious? It does sound interesting though. Its like somekind of multiverse. I cool with that; but i don’t know about
the whole “reverse-determination senario”. Doesn’t quantum physics render determinism invalid?

Well, it’s theoretical physics and highly speculative. There’s a wide variety of competing theories. And whether quantum physics invalidates determinism is a whole other debate itself - though I think the consensus is that if determinism is ‘saved’, it’s going to be through a fundamental shift in how we view the world. Then again, QM required that to begin with anyway.

To be honest, when I first read up on Hawking-Hartle, I had the same reaction. I had to ask more knowledgeable friends “are these guys serious? This seems like a joke”. But, apparently it’s very serious. You can see why (through the ‘top-down’ method, and the inclusion of the observor/humans as essential parts of the concept) the idea isn’t touted as the great atheist answer to God’s involvement.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

I recently re-viewed Hawkings BBC special “Universe”. I remember his last words from the last episode (Strings, Super Strings and the Theory of Everything) ended up saying something like “To know this is to know the mind of God” (not a perfect quote, but close).

I think Hawking is absolutely brilliant and has a grasp of infinity, the very large and the very small. This allows him to think about such things in grand theorums, not just relying on prior evidence for a theory, but the absolutely breakthrough type material.

I find it absolutely fascinating that Hawking does tie God and everything together. Maybe Hawking hasn’t absolutely come out and said it but it seems to me that he is equating the concept of Super-strings and the Theory of Everything to God. I am happy he has done that. I am also happy that if in his mind he has a theory that at first glance doesn’t rely on a big bang, but instead on a seemingly endless universe. Because I would not want theology to get in his way to make a scientific discovery.

Let me explain. If you discover something that relies on a beginning that requires a “Beginner” then along comes a theory that doesn’t require a beginning then the “Beginner” is thrown out. Well, I don’t necessarily agree. Just because you can’t see the end on the road doesn’t mean that someone didn’t build the road. Even if we have an eternity past as far as space and time go doesn’t mean the likelyhood of chance increases when dealing with the greater impossibly probability of our universe and life just happening. That my friends means that God just is showing us again that we can’t put a stopwatch or eyepiece on Him.

 

[rpp]

I would not be too generous when it comes to believing Steven Hawking has some sort of religious sensibilities.

Note this article from the USA Today.

And here is Catholic World News’ editorial response to it.

I am the same rpp who made the first response (bottom) on the CWN article.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I am constrained to wonder why every single issue involving science here comes down to an issue about atheism. I simply don’t care what atheists think of any new theory. And i don’t know why people are fixated on this. For goodness sake, Hawkings has lectured with the Pope in his audience. I have no idea whether Hawkings is an atheist or not. My understanding is that his theory has not won a lot of converts so far. So what? Everythng here devolves into science must be wrong since an atheist believes in it. I dare say atheists believe that the earth circles the sun. So what?

 

[rpp]

I am constrained to wonder why every single issue involving science here comes down to an issue about atheism. I simply don’t care what atheists think of any new theory. And i don’t know why people are fixated on this. For goodness sake, Hawkings has lectured with the Pope in his audience. I have no idea whether Hawkings is an atheist or not. My understanding is that his theory has not won a lot of converts so far. So what? Everythng here devolves into science must be wrong since an atheist believes in it. I dare say atheists believe that the earth circles the sun. So what?

I think the reason people do this is because it is fun. As a former astronomer, I tend to stay away from these threads because, well, most people on both sides of the issue who post here are so obviously poorly informed on deep scientific issues and and even the basic scientific method.

They forget, for example, that science is not about proving anything. It is about disproving everything it can. What remains may be correct, or maybe we just have not yet figured out how to disprove it.

 

[Nullasalus]

I think the reason people do this is because it is fun. As a former astronomer, I tend to stay away from these threads because, well, most people on both sides of the issue who post here are so obviously poorly informed on deep scientific issues and and even the basic scientific method.

Fun, and also somewhat abused. When someone says ‘cyclic universe proves God doesn’t exist’, I feel the need to jump in typically. As some people will actually take that to heart.

And ‘Big Bang proves God exists’ I jump into too, if only because I’d hate someone to believe as much, then find out it’s not true. Better to focus and defend the truth - Logos and all that.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think the reason people do this is because it is fun. As a former astronomer, I tend to stay away from these threads because, well, most people on both sides of the issue who post here are so obviously poorly informed on deep scientific issues and and even the basic scientific method.

They forget, for example, that science is not about proving anything. It is about disproving everything it can. What remains may be correct, or maybe we just have not yet figured out how to disprove it.

I agree. It just seems so odd that the touchstone of what we should believe in depends on what the atheist thinks. If they like something, it must be wrong, and vice versa. It’s rather nonsensical IMO.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I agree. It just seems so odd that the touchstone of what we should believe in depends on what the atheist thinks. If they like something, it must be wrong, and vice versa. It’s rather nonsensical IMO.

Your arguement would be true coarse, but only if i was trying to disprove Hartle-Hawkins Theory. The Theory itself is not the problem, and i certainly don’t live my faith according to the Bigbang Theory; at the most i would say that it is a good sign, but it is neither proof or disproof of God.

The point of the thread was that the Hartle-Hawkin Theory is used by people like Paul Davis to mean that “If there is no beginning, then what need is there for a creator”. I wanted to see what people thought of that statement. Of coarse; to you, that might not present a problem, but for some, their eye sight cannot see as far as yours.

Why are you trying to crash the thread man? Its just a discussion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Your arguement would be true coarse, but only if i was trying to disprove Hartle-Hawkins Theory. The Theory itself is not the problem, and i certainly don’t live my faith according to the Bigbang Theory; at the most i would say that it is a good sign, but it is neither proof or disproof of God.

The point of the thread was that the Hartle-Hawkin Theory is used by people like Paul Davis to mean that “If there is no beginning, then what need is there for a creator”. I wanted to see what people thought of that statement. Of coarse; to you, that might not present a problem, but for some, their eye sight cannot see as far as yours.

Why are you trying to crash the thread man? Its just a discussion.

Sorry, I’ve never been accused of that. I guess I would have left the point out about atheism and just stated it straightforwardly. I’ll depart the conversation.