Discovery Channel's "Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?"

[warpspeedpetey]

The “outside of time” stuff comes from the traditional definition of God as an omnipotent, omniscient entity,

It comes from G-ds definition which comes from a number of Thomistic arguments, which comes from Avicenna, Sadr, etc, which comes from…and so on. It’s not simply a definition drawn from thin air. Read the *Summa * if you want to know more. Sadr is particularly instructive as well.

…which leads to a number of other logical conundrums, such as why does God make people whom He knows He will subsequently send to hell.

He doesn’t. G-d is Actus Purus, the act of existing. Hence G-d is equally present at every point that can be said to exist. The point of your creation, the point of your decision, and all the points in between are simultaneous for G-d. For you it is a past and a future, for an omnipresent being it is all an instantaneous now.

Elimination of the double-o properties, plus adopting the notion that the human “soul” was not created by God, solves these and many other theological conflicts.

I seemed to have solved the conundrum without denying the Omni’s and without making G-d something less than G-d.

 

[jsaldar]

The show was inconclusive.

Hawkings basically just said what we all know already; the big bang was the beginning of the universe. He couldn’t disprove God’s existence he just made it look like the universe came into existence out of some random process.

He basically said he is alive today and came into the world by luck and is very grateful to, I guess himself. He’s full of himself. I don’t believe he comes close to Einstein’s intelligence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Are you The Shadow now, knowing what lurks in the minds of men?

Cool, a pop culture reference from the 30’s. No, I just apply reason. A person who does not believe and does not care, doesn’t bother to call himself an theist, he just ignores religion. A man calling himself an atheist and endeavoring in the field is someone who cares very much about G-d. It consumes him enough that he spends countless hours debating something that he does not believe exists. Yet no one who disbelieves in Fairies or the Little Folk spends a lifetime talking about it.

(By the way, hearts don’t have secret depths, or thoughts, and do not cry out. The heart is a pump…

How would you know?

According to Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. God therefore cannot have created it.

G-d, Actus Purus, is logically precedent to anything that can be said to exist. Thermodynamics is way late in the buildup of creation. Further, what kind of G-d would be subject to the laws of his own creation?

Kindly spare us the argument that God created energy such that it cannot be created or destroyed.

The universe is a collection of contingent beings. Energy is contingent, hence it was necessarily created. To say otherwise is claim that energy and by extension matter and the rest of the universe are logically necessary. That they cannot fail to exist. Yet we can easily apply frame semantics and imagine any number of possible worlds without energy or matter, plain vacuum for instance. Thus we can clearly see that matter and energy are subject to creation and destruction, regardless of the inducted inference that it cannot be created or destroyed. We simply haven’t seen that black swan yet.

Advancing such nonsense would mark you as incompetent at dealing with the most simple and obvious logic, and I do not want a good friend like you to look like a dogma-ridden nit here on CAF.

Thank ya. Thank ya very much. (In my best Elvis impression,)

Don’t use an argument involving “time” either. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics are each time-independent. (See how determined I am to help you out, that you do not write something that would make you look ignorant? )

C’mon, I am not a kid even at half your age. You’re telegraphing the arguments that give you the most trouble.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…generated spontaneously along with the time and space to which they apply. …

Generated from what?

 

[Benjamin_Joseph]

Good discussion y’all, but getting back to the original question I thought this was a bit of a bait and switch by Hawking or whoever produced the show. Comparing the current debate about the creation of the universe to the Vikings’ pantheism and lack of scientific sophistication is not only arrogant but completely wrong.

Hawking and the aforementioned Krauss love to spout that something can come from nothing…but that is a disingenuous re-branding of “nothing”. I’m too dumb to explain here, but for more on that topic look up Dr. William Lane Craig’s debate with Krauss where he reveals that the “nothing” they talk about is more like a cosmic field full of all the right ingredients for a universe…definitely not what normal people would call nothing.

Funny too that the show went to great lengths to discredit the Catholic church (I had never heard the story of Pope John XXI and I’ve been keeping up with the “religion vs. science” debate for over 5 years). Yet they didn’t mention a thing about the great Catholic scientists of history. Even Msgr. Georges Lemaitre, the man who first proposed what became the Big Bang Theory and would have fit perfectly into the narrative of the show. He was a contemporary of Einstein (unlike Hawking) and had to correct his belief that the universe was eternal.
-Ben

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Good discussion y’all, but getting back to the original question I thought this was a bit of a bait and switch by Hawking or whoever produced the show. Comparing the current debate about the creation of the universe to the Vikings’ pantheism and lack of scientific sophistication is not only arrogant but completely wrong.

Hawking and the aforementioned Krauss love to spout that something can come from nothing…but that is a disingenuous re-branding of “nothing”. I’m too dumb to explain here, but for more on that topic look up Dr. William Lane Craig’s debate with Krauss where he reveals that the “nothing” they talk about is more like a cosmic field full of all the right ingredients for a universe…definitely not what normal people would call nothing.

Funny too that the show went to great lengths to discredit the Catholic church (I had never heard the story of Pope John XXI and I’ve been keeping up with the “religion vs. science” debate for over 5 years). Yet they didn’t mention a thing about the great Catholic scientists of history. Even Msgr. Georges Lemaitre, the man who first proposed what became the Big Bang Theory and would have fit perfectly into the narrative of the show. He was a contemporary of Einstein (unlike Hawking) and had to correct his belief that the universe was eternal.
-Ben

Hawking, et al asserts that something came from nothing, an obvious logical contradiction. The empty set is still a set. Further, the second they left empirical observation behind they ceased to practice science and started practicing metaphysics, a discipline for which they are completely unequipped. Of course that doesn’t stop them from getting on TV and spouting obviously contradictory gibberish to a gullible audience.

 

[James1215]

Generated from what?

You tell me! Maybe we all came out of nothing. God is that which is prior to being you say… well I can agree to that, it’s just that I thought God was meant to have being

It’s quite something else to go from that God to Jesus, should we be content to think the former exists/existed.

 

[James1215]

look up Dr. William Lane Craig’s debate with Krauss where he reveals that the “nothing” they talk about is more like a cosmic field full of all the right ingredients for a universe…definitely not what normal people would call nothing.

That is almost precisely how Krauss talks about it too, there’s no revelation. Krauss jokes that “Nothing isn’t nothing any more!”. So anyway, if we see things generating out of quantum fluctuations, can theorise the spontaneous generation of forces, space and time, it is not necessarily a great jump to suppose that the universe might have come from nothing, the kind of nothing you’re thinking of, too. This has to be at least on a par with virgin birth in terms of plausibility…? Incidentally (@Warpspeedpetey), I could say that “mothers are not virgins” just like “nothing cannot generate something” - both tautologies - and think that I have just solved the problem of Christianity and the origins of the universe in one go, which I have not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You tell me! Maybe we all came out of nothing.

That would be a logical contradiction.

God is that which is prior to being you say.

Where?

It’s quite something else to go from that God to Jesus, should we be content to think the former exists/existed.

Not at all. The Judeo/Christian G-d proved who He was mathematically. That was the point of Messianic Prophecy.

 

[Benjamin_Joseph]

…it is not necessarily a great jump to suppose that the universe might have come from nothing, the kind of nothing you’re thinking of, too.

Would you call that a leap of faith??

I would, and it is a tremendous leap actually. No space, no time, no physical laws. No black holes, no atoms or molecules. THAT is nothingness and it is the true initial condition you have to consider from a materialist (atheist) standpoint unless you still think that matter is eternal.

As warpspeedpetey pointed out, the scientists have given up on science because it can no longer produce the answer they want.

What is really amazing to me is that the theology of creation and the attributes of our Creator that have been developed within Christianity are not only unscathed by science, they are completely validated. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet still believe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…So anyway, if we see things generating out of quantum fluctuations,

That observation has never been made.

.can theorise the spontaneous generation of forces, space and time, it is not necessarily a great jump to suppose that the universe might have come from nothing, the kind of nothing you’re thinking of, too.

First, something from nothing is always a logical contradiction. Second, quantum fluctuations require a universe to exist for them to exist. (not that they actually exist BTW). To say they pre-exist the universe is to say they pre exist themselves. Obviously a contradiction. So it is not only a great jump, it is an impossible jump.

This has to be at least on a par with virgin birth in terms of plausibility…?

As we can cause virgin births with our technology now, we now that it is plausible, even we can do it. The former is contradiction.

Incidentally (@Warpspeedpetey), I could say that “mothers are not virgins” just like “nothing cannot generate something” - both tautologies - and think that I have just solved the problem of Christianity and the origins of the universe in one go, which I have not.

“Mothers are not virgins” is just a false statement, not a tautology. The phrase “nothing cannot generate something” is true because an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. It is a literal impossibility.

 

[JJFB]

I saw the program. Hawking’s basic premise is that as there was no “time” inside the singularity that created the Big Bang, then there is no need to answer the question, “what came before?”, and hence, the singularity is the primal cause which is an easier explanation than a God who created the universe. This idea did not originate with Hawking, who only lent his prestige to the argument. Hawking is famous for the discovery of Hawking radiation, which is radiation omitting from a blackhole despite the fact that nothing can supposedly escape a blackhole. So, Hawking is really the king of blackholes, and there is little surprise that he based his premise on an analogy to blackholes where “time” does not exist. The major flaw in Hawking’s theory is that supposing a singularity can pop out of nowhere, then it could do so more than once and perhaps multiple times concurrently. Hawking also analogizes to quantum particles that pop in and out of existence, as the basis for his assumption that a singularity behaves similarly to a quantum particle. There is no mechanism described by Hawking that would prevent a singularity from popping into existence more than once or multiple times concurrently, and there is no good reason to believe this would not be the case, otherwise the universe would be deemed quite arbitrary in only allowing a single singularity. Consequently, as multiple singularities must be possible under Hawking’s theory, than there must be “time” outside our own singularity to house those other singularities. This higher dimension is called the multiverse - the realm of membrane and string theory. As Hawking’s own theory necessarily requires the existence of a higher dimension, his theory fails as it does not explain what caused the higher dimension. Hawking could simply say there is no evidence for this higher dimension and therefore he’ll ignore it, but his own theory necessarily requires a higher dimension for the existence of other singularities, so his logic is badly flawed.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… Hawking could simply say there is no evidence for this higher dimension and therefore he’ll ignore it, but his own theory necessarily requires a higher dimension for the existence of other singularities, so his logic is badly flawed.

 

[TimothyH]

I saw the program. Hawking’s basic premise is that as there was no “time” inside the singularity that created the Big Bang, then there is no need to answer the question, “what came before?”, and hence, the singularity is the primal cause which is an easier explanation than a God who created the universe. This idea did not originate with Hawking, who only lent his prestige to the argument. Hawking is famous for the discovery of Hawking radiation, which is radiation omitting from a blackhole despite the fact that nothing can supposedly escape a blackhole. So, Hawking is really the king of blackholes, and there is little surprise that he based his premise on an analogy to blackholes where “time” does not exist. The major flaw in Hawking’s theory is that supposing a singularity can pop out of nowhere, then it could do so more than once and perhaps multiple times concurrently. Hawking also analogizes to quantum particles that pop in and out of existence, as the basis for his assumption that a singularity behaves similarly to a quantum particle. There is no mechanism described by Hawking that would prevent a singularity from popping into existence more than once or multiple times concurrently, and there is no good reason to believe this would not be the case, otherwise the universe would be deemed quite arbitrary in only allowing a single singularity. Consequently, as multiple singularities must be possible under Hawking’s theory, than there must be “time” outside our own singularity to house those other singularities. This higher dimension is called the multiverse - the realm of membrane and string theory. As Hawking’s own theory necessarily requires the existence of a higher dimension, his theory fails as it does not explain what caused the higher dimension. Hawking could simply say there is no evidence for this higher dimension and therefore he’ll ignore it, but his own theory necessarily requires a higher dimension for the existence of other singularities, so his logic is badly flawed.

Sounds like the quantum physicist’s version of subjective morality, where right and wrong, good and evil, can pop in and out of existence and where something can be wrong in one place and right in another place at the same time.

The part about ignoring a higher dimension is vageuly familiar as well.

-Tim-

 

[Contarini]

So, I don’t know how many of you watched the episode of Discovery’s “Curiosity” just now, but basically they said that God did not create the universe because there wasn’t time before the Big Bang for God to create the universe, so God didn’t create the universe; it was just a coincidence.

Thoughts on the program?

Huh?

If that’s really the argument, it’s unbelievably stupid. I find it hard to believe that you understood the program correctly, though I guess we are talking about TV here. . . .

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But on this point, how can anyone claim God is outside time?

This arises from the definition of God and the definition of time.

God is the eternally perfect act of Being on whom all other being depends. He is pure actuality with no potency. Therefore, He cannot be subject to time, because time is the measurement of change and involves a movement from potency to act.

This is drawing on Aquinas primarily, who is in turn synthesizing ideas from the previous Christian tradition (especially Augustine) and the Greek philosophical tradition (especially Aristotle).

Is there any evidence or is it a position one is forced to assume?

Depends on what you mean by evidence. It’s not a scientific but a philosophical claim, but it arises from the observation that changing, finite things exist, and the deduction that they depend on something that is unchanging and infinite and possesses all at once all the perfections found imperfectly and temporally in observable creatures.

God is forced to reside outside the universe as a non-material, non-energy ‘thing’.

No, quite the contrary. If God is “outside” (i.e., not limited by) time, then God can be wholly and intimately present to every temporal-spatial part of creation at once.

There are certainly difficulties in this view, well stated by William Hasker (an emeritus professor at my institution and an evangelical Christian who does not believe that God is outside of time).

In what way could Jesus have been of God,

Well, we do call that a mystery and a paradox–but I think the mystery and paradox are central to the Incarnation. Without a timeless God, it seems to me that the Incarnation actually makes a lot less sense and becomes something quite different.

and how can transubstantiation work?

I think that timelessness is actually very helpful in understanding transubstantiation and the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Because Jesus has ascended–has taken our humanity into the timeless reality of God–therefore He can be really present on many altars at once. Because His sacrifice is united to the divine timelessness, therefore the Mass can be a true propitiatory sacrifice without being “another” sacrifice.

Edwin

 

[JJFB]

The quantum world is a strange place where particles can pop in and out of existence. However, the particles are generated by the quantum field - a field of energy potential. It is important to realize that while particles may pop in and out of existence, the quantum field does not so the causal connection from the quantum field to the particle is preserved. However, Hawking is saying that the quantum field itself popped into existence from nothing at the moment of the Big Bang. However, he fails to address the “quantum field” of the higher dimension from which the Big Bang sprung. His analogy to quantum physics demands a “quantum field” of a higher dimension to create the Big Bang, but he refused to address that question in his program. The causal connection to the “quantum field” or membrane of the higher dimension to the Big Bang must be preserved, and therefore, the Big Bang itself cannot be the primal cause. For Hawking’s theory to work, he must say that the Big Bang was a singular isolated event which could not happen concurrently or ever again. This proposition seems arbitrary and exceedingly unlikely, as he posits no mechanism to prevent other Big Bangs nor does his analogy to quantum particles hold any support (as obviously lots of quantum particles pop in and out of existence all the time).

 

[James1215]

Would you call that a leap of faith??

I would, and it is a tremendous leap actually. No space, no time, no physical laws. No black holes, no atoms or molecules. THAT is nothingness and it is the true initial condition you have to consider from a materialist (atheist) standpoint unless you still think that matter is eternal.

As warpspeedpetey pointed out, the scientists have given up on science because it can no longer produce the answer they want.

What is really amazing to me is that the theology of creation and the attributes of our Creator that have been developed within Christianity are not only unscathed by science, they are completely validated. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet still believe.

Do you agree that when science gets more speculative it becomes less authoritative? I agree the idea that we might have come from nothing is speculative, but speculation is all we can do, and calling it science, metaphysics, religion or faith changes nothing in my mind - it’s provisional. We also don’t know what conditions were ‘there’ at the moment of the Big Bang, so it makes no difference to arrange tautologies on what ‘nothing’ can or cannot do. Is there any tenet of Christianity which is validated by scientific findings?

Interesting stuff though!

 

[RobbyS]

I logged in tonight to post my own thread on exactly this subject. Thank you for beating me to it.

The Science Channel actually put up a pair of programs, all built around the big name (Stephen Hawking) talking point you mentioned. The second half-hour section is allegedly a “conversation,” but in fact is a thinly disguised infomercial for atheism, with a so-called interviewer and three shmoos sitting around a table politely taking their turns reading teleprompter scripts.

The second section is merely a nail-pounding exercise, making sure that the lid on the coffin they engineered in the first section is hammered down tightly. They even got a couple of religious guys to look especially irrelevant by reiterating their dogma.

I’ve complained for a couple of years on CAF about dogma, and mostly what I get back is more dogma. This “Science” channel program fulfills my predictions. Atheism is out for Christian blood, and they will get it, first by syringe, eventually by the force of larger law.

Three centuries ago Galileo tried to get the Church to modify its arbitrary beliefs to accommodate just a few simple but obvious truths of science, and was nearly killed for his efforts. The Church has not budged from its intransigent position since.

It has been content with sitting back and declaring that, yeah, science is fine. It’s all good. No conflicts. These are lies. There are serious conflicts between fundamental elements of physics, and the fundamental doctrines of the Church. Its passive position is being attacked by well organized and well-funded atheists.

The Church must adjust its doctrines in accordance with solid physics, or it will go the way of Zeus and his soap-opera offspring. Just my opinions.

I’ll see soon if it is possible to be a friend of what the Church represents, on the large scale of importance to humanity, while inviting it to retain its moral teachings and revise its theology.

Satyan Devadoss, a theretical mathematician at Williams has a neat video that in very populat terms addresses Hawkings’s contentions. Main point is that scientifically what Hawkings says is scientifically pretty thin gruel.Just what Hawkings and Dawkins say is uncontravertible science “not necessarily so.”

I am not sure what dogmas you seem to find so objectional. And certainly nothing that Hawkings says touches on the doctrine of creationism. According to the Christian doctrine, Creation is not something that happened “then” but “now.” We can only to a degree discern what “was.” More surely, what is “now.” We can only deal with what is, so to speak, right under our noses. And that is always as the king of Siam says in the play, “a puzzlement.” The Christian can say with assurance that there is order in all this, that it is not all “whirl” Only by accepting this supposition can the scientist speculate. Those atheists who deny this, such as Bertrand Russell, find themselves in the quandary created by Kant. All is subjective, even the patch of ground called civilization on which science itself rests. And the skeptics can go beyond this and deny the objectivity of mathematics, which is the very language of science.

Galileo was not accused of attacking any dogmas BTW, but of asserting his right to interpret Scripture dogmatically and, BTW, insulting a pope who had been his friend. Galileo’s ego would not let him let his work speak for itself. Thus he put himself in the hands of the Aristotelians.

 

[James1215]

G-d, Actus Purus, is logically precedent to anything that can be said to exist

As you asked, that was what you wrote which got me thinking. God is not both prior to being and a being, surely.