Big Bang disproved? The Hartle-Hawking hypothesis

[RobNY]

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.

You are right that Aquinas did not believe the universe was eternal. His reasoning followed Moses Maimonides in saying that whether the universe was eternal or originated was not accessible to reason, and so we had to take it on faith. Thus he believed the universe was originated.

However, he clearly understood that he couldn’t argue to God’s existence from the origination of the universe via the kalaam cosmological argument. I believe he had a dispute with St. Bonaventure over this.

The reason why Aquinas’ argument isn’t destroyed by an eternal universe is because he made it with that in mind. I, like many other people, read the first cause argument and thought he meant a regress of causes in the sense of the kalaam argument. But he doesn’t. I’m not sure he thinks such an argument could even work, for he thinks that it’s possible that such a series of causes could potentially go to infinity (per se accidental causes, I think). But as to a per se subordinated set of causes, there must be a finite number. Thus the first cause argument, I think, actually reaches vertically (so to speak) up to God, not horizontally, backwards like the kalaam argument. I think this is accurate, but I’ve never studied Aquinas on this.

 

[Nan_S]

I’m going to profess ignorance of the in-depth analysis of Hawking’s speculations, but I have examined them in part.

I was reading a book by Hawking a year or so ago wherein he speculated that the universe and time moved on an alternating arch; it compressed to an almost-singularity, reversed itself into an expansion period (where we are now), and at some point will reverse itself again. It would therefore be the only true perpetual-motion “machine” that existed.

This theory has some flaws. The first is the absolute lack of any evidence whatsoever for a “bouncing ball” universe. The second is that the universe can not create itself out of nothing. Somewhere/somewhen/somehow, the universe had to have an origin and get put in motion. I also remember reading that Hawking’s theory required the application of imaginary negative numbers.

As to the String Theory projections, according to some analyses I’ve read, once again we are dealing with an absolute lack of evidence to back the theory. String Theory has the potential to tie up all the loose ends nicely and prettily. The problem, of course, is that no one can tie anything together unless the strings actually exist.

 

[Dameedna]

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.

This is why I have ‘faith’ in the scientific method.

Although scientists are often trying to search for “truth” they are quite literally some of the most brutal people to come across when it comes to truth.

A new theory comes out? More scientists will spend time trying to 'disprove" it than prove it. As brutal as it can be, I think the international scientific community, is one of the truly global communities we really have, because they just do not want to be wrong. That doesn’t mean they can’t ‘admit’ when they are wrong(though some do struggle with it). They want to KNOW they are right, and anything that could hint at any problem with a theory will be debated and discussed vigourously.

The issue I have with more modern day science, is not the science itself, but the media. A new 'theory" will be created, and in the past it would take EONS to reach the average person, and by then, the theory would either be taken seriously or not.

Now a tiny study on the effects of bay leaves on sickle cell anemia will become huge news, before scientists has even finished reading the reasearch.

The media really has a LOT to answer for don’t they? lol…but that’s a whole other discussion.

 

[jimmy]

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.

No, he didn’t. He didn’t think it could be proven by logic that it was not eternal but he did not believe it was eternal. He took it on faith that it was created by God and consequently not eternal. Bonaventure on the other hand thought that it was provable through logic that the universe had a beginning. I believe his arguement is the kalam arguement. Basically the world must have had a beginning because it is impossible to cover an infinite amount of time so consequently if the universe had no beginning then we would never have reached the present.

 

[jimmy]

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.

Hawking is openly an atheist. I have seen him on tv mention that he doesn’t think God is necessary. He doesn’t grasp infinity any more than anyone else.