God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[MindOverMatter2]

Dare to think

Dare to “think”?

If you want to have a meaningful discussion with me, you should at the very least be honest enough to admit that you have a “self” that “thinks”, otherwise this discussion is meaningless and absurd. I my self have no problem accepting the obvious. What you are entertaining is not a rational form of scepticism; its an irrational scepticism. I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Self evident is what people said when they proclaimed the earth flat and the earth the center of the cosmos.
.

This is another straw-man.

A mistaken opinion presupposes and necessitates a thinking subject who observes. The thinking subjects that you speak of, in this case, have made an inductive inference based on their experience of the “particular” objects which make up their observational data. Their inference was certainly incorrect, and this gives them good reason to be sceptical of similar inferences regarding particular aspects of our experience. But they cannot possibly doubt that they were experiencing something (even if they don’t know what that something is). We cannot even begin to speak rationally about thinking without first admitting that there is such a thing as thinking and experiencing, since thinking is what we are doing when we discuss the things which we experience. Its necessary to rational discourse among personal beings who think. Perhaps you don’t think . I admit I can only speak for myself as a thinking person. Personal experience and thinking about that experience provides the basis of any rational understanding of the world full stop, including science. To observe, experience, and claim true knowledge about the real world, you first have to be a concious observer. People shouldn’t have to explain this to you.

 

[nguirado]

So, is this something to worry about? Did Hawking show how matter came into existence by itself?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Did Hawking show how matter came into existence by itself?

No. He basically explains how the universe could possibly evolved from point zero once the laws of physics were in place (which I agree with). He begins with something, that has a particular nature, which is governed by existing laws. One can speak of physical laws in the absence of physical reality; without believing in some form of supernaturalism or transcendence of the physical.

 

[WmJackP]

Dare to “think”?

If you want to have a meaningful discussion with me, you should at the very least be honest enough to admit that you have a “self” that “thinks”, otherwise this discussion is meaningless and absurd. I my self have no problem accepting the obvious. What you are entertaining is not a rational form of scepticism; its an irrational scepticism. I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.

Do the following lend themselves to open and honest.dialog?

“…you should at least be honest enough…”

“What you are entertaining is not a rational form of skepticism…”

“I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.”

.

 

[WmJackP]

I am not naive if i find out that there really is a God, a moral value, and a purpose to my life; and if in the end i cease to exist then what does it matter that you thought that i was naive? What have you gained by being correct? It doesn’t make you better than me. There is no glory to be had. It is all objectively meaningless what we thing and do in this life when faced with non-existence and moral nihilism. That we perceive some kind of rational glory in being skeptical is just a fantasy, a chemical delusion. You cannot expect people to not seek that which will fulfill them since fulfillment is what makes life worth living in the first place. You subjective opinion and skepticism is meaningless when it comes to living.

If somebody in a burning building hopes for salvation, i would not call them naive; i would describe that person as seeking an opportunity to live. God is an opportunity to live. For some people God gives substance to our lives which is quite simply missing without God. Pleasure seeking and laboring for the affection of other imperfect people, or fitting in, is not enough. Humanity doesn’t fulfill my existence. For some people the concept of God makes rational sense of the world around them, and it gives them a reason to take life as something worth living because the they understand that the nihilistic alternative robs them of the meaning, dignity, and the value they find in God. Thus they refuse to resign to disbelief unless they are forced to disbelieve given certain knowledge to the contrary; and this is quite simply because they value their humanity and God provides them the “dignity” and the spiritual fulfillment they require to go on living with sanity. Why should they settle for less just because you think that they are naive?

If God makes your life worth living, then i would say that you are a fool to not have hope just because a disbeliever sees it fit to ridicule you and call you naive in an attempt break your hope just so that they can feel comfortable with their own meaningless existence.

Of course, if it is self gratifying to hold these beliefs, that is one way to approach life. I simply can’t see it that way. You are also quite correct that my perception and view of reality doesn’t have any affect on you, nor would I presume to force my views on anyone else.

I have only presented my own views that science offers humanity its best and only chance at survival on a planet that is fraught with over population,excess consumption, dysfunction, disease, wars and a regrettable love affair with superstition and mystical thinking. To fail to recognize the peril we face is, in my judgment, naive.

The promises of science, however, are at least reassuring. In this century I would hope that we would learn to biologically and socially enhance ourselves through genetics and a rational and reality based paridigm for ethical conduct. This will require, in my opinion, the abandonment of magical thinking and mystical beliefs. Achievable goals in this century include understanding the quantum, beginning an exploration of space and arriving at a systematic basis for the study of consciousness.

I am again mindful that it is my own judgment and it isn’t as though I am on a crusade to compel others to my manner of thinking.

 

[4Horsemen]

No. He basically explains how the universe could possibly evolved from point zero once the laws of physics were in place (which I agree with). He begins with something, that has a particular nature, which is governed by existing laws. One can speak of physical laws in the absence of physical reality; without believing in some form of supernaturalism or transcendence of the physical.

I’m kind of barging into the conversation here, but I really don’t understand your last sentence. How can “physical laws” exist without a “physical reality?” Wouldn’t the “physical laws” have been generated because of some “physical reality?” (Maybe I’m not defining the terms correctly). It just seems odd to me.

 

[nguirado]

Is the first -ause argument for God still intact?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m kind of barging into the conversation here, but I really don’t understand your last sentence. How can “physical laws” exist without a “physical reality?” Wouldn’t the “physical laws” have been generated because of some “physical reality?” (Maybe I’m not defining the terms correctly). It just seems odd to me.

I am really sorry. Its a miss spelling (for some reason i keep leaving words out, i am not sure if its me or my broken computer; probably me). I agree. What i meant to say is that it is an error for the naturalist to speak of physical laws with out physical beings, since this would amount to some form of non-physical transcendence…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Do the following lend themselves to open and honest.dialog?

“…you should at least be honest enough…”

“What you are entertaining is not a rational form of skepticism…”

“I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.”

.

Is this your way of ignoring the reality of my argument?

Your attempts to present religious people as irrational and naive doesn’t lend itself to kind conversation either, but I still was willing to engage with rational argument, which you have conveniently ignored.

I wonder whose really naive here?

Perhaps if you actually engaged in true rational thought rather then using psychology on people, you would actually learn something. But I doubt that you are really here to learn. You are here to antagonise.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Is the first -ause argument for God still intact?

Yes. Its never truly been under threat.

 

[4Horsemen]

I am really sorry. Its a miss spelling (for some reason i keep leaving words out, i am not sure if its me or my broken computer; probably me). I agree. What i meant to say is that it is an error for the naturalist to speak of physical laws with out physical beings, since this would amount to some form of non-physical transcendence…

Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it. I still trying to catch up with all the posts in the threads on Stephen Hawking and also read Fr. Spitzer’s book at the same time besides the mundane things of life. Having a Transcendent Being around sure makes life delectable though!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Fr. Barron comments on Stephen Hawking & more tired atheism

Genius! Contingency is a good word - and a more effective concept than causality, in many ways…

I saw something on (UK) breakfast news, wherein an astronomer was saying life on other planets was more likely than previously thought essentially because “Oh, come on, there’s loads of them!”, pretty much literally, as far as I can remember.

This, in essence, is a significant part of the argument Hawkings uses, but as far as I can tell, furthered only the finding of a planet of similar size to around a similar sun to ours as evidence, although whether it fulfils the many other criteria required to create life (assuming abiogenesis is even possible as it’s been theorized, which, it’s easy to forget, it hasn’t been) I doubt has been carefully considered, and is exceptionally unlikely to have been proven.

It always looks to me that Science painted Scientism into a corner over this when it was calculated exactly how unlikely life was to come into being in the universe, as we understand it… the finding of planetary bodies of similar size (etc.) does little to further a scientismic-atheistic argument, however, coming up with some explanation as to why that would occur without design, again, I don’t think anybody’s coming up with, including Hawkings. Mind you, I think he’s the source of the dodgy-as-witchcraft “nothing-exploded… retrospectively” argument which is the second most failed atheist theory to challenge the cosmological argument I’ve heard, so I’m not entirely sure why everybody loved him anyway… although I’m sure every Atheist I know will crow over this dodgy embarrassment to the credibility of modern science regardless - because it is unlikely to be recognized as such!

 

[buffalo]

Genius! Contingency is a good word - and a more effective concept than causality, in many ways…

I saw something on (UK) breakfast news, wherein an astronomer was saying life on other planets was more likely than previously thought essentially because “Oh, come on, there’s loads of them!”, pretty much literally, as far as I can remember.

This, in essence, is a significant part of the argument Hawkings uses, but as far as I can tell, furthered only the finding of a planet of similar size to around a similar sun to ours as evidence, although whether it fulfils the many other criteria required to create life (assuming abiogenesis is even possible as it’s been theorized, which, it’s easy to forget, it hasn’t been) I doubt has been carefully considered, and is exceptionally unlikely to have been proven.

It always looks to me that Science painted Scientism into a corner over this when it was calculated exactly how unlikely life was to come into being in the universe, as we understand it… the finding of planetary bodies of similar size (etc.) does little to further a scientismic-atheistic argument, however, coming up with some explanation as to why that would occur without design, again, I don’t think anybody’s coming up with, including Hawkings. Mind you, I think he’s the source of the dodgy-as-witchcraft “nothing-exploded… retrospectively” argument which is the second most failed atheist theory to challenge the cosmological argument I’ve heard, so I’m not entirely sure why everybody loved him anyway… although I’m sure every Atheist I know will crow over this dodgy embarrassment to the credibility of modern science regardless - because it is unlikely to be recognized as such!

Deadly Tides Mean Early Exit for Hot Jupiters

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Deadly Tides Mean Early Exit for Hot Jupiters

Watched the End of God episode of Horizon… bizarrely whooly, although it at least gave a half decent offense against the ID argument (or specifically “irreducible complexity” one - the wording behind the entire show was quite interesting), and, considering it quite clearly turned up based around the premise of Hawking’s new book, really kind of fluffed over the point by, as far as I can see, saying that the current understanding of the complexity of the issue undermines the ‘simple symmentry’ as a sign of design (seen by Newton and Einstein), rather than coming up with any response to the ‘absurd unlikelihood’ argument (did mention the mutliverse option, without much justification ,as far as I could tell) when you peeked past the scientismic positivisms, I really can’t find any strengthening of the arguments behind Scientismic atheism at all…

depressing, in some ways, if there’s not more justification than I can find, that so many zealously support this approach, or if Hawking’s new book is nothing more than a Scientismic potboiler…

 

[buffalo]

Watched the End of God episode of Horizon… bizarrely whooly, although it at least gave a half decent offense against the ID argument (or specifically “irreducible complexity” one - the wording behind the entire show was quite interesting), and, considering it quite clearly turned up based around the premise of Hawking’s new book, really kind of fluffed over the point by, as far as I can see, saying that the current understanding of the complexity of the issue undermines the ‘simple symmentry’ as a sign of design (seen by Newton and Einstein), rather than coming up with any response to the ‘absurd unlikelihood’ argument (did mention the mutliverse option, without much justification ,as far as I could tell) when you peeked past the scientismic positivisms, I really can’t find any strengthening of the arguments behind Scientismic atheism at all…

depressing, in some ways, if there’s not more justification than I can find, that so many zealously support this approach, or if Hawking’s new book is nothing more than a Scientismic potboiler…

The irrational atheists became even more irrational.

 

[Touchstone]

Watched the End of God episode of Horizon… bizarrely whooly, although it at least gave a half decent offense against the ID argument (or specifically “irreducible complexity” one - the wording behind the entire show was quite interesting), and, considering it quite clearly turned up based around the premise of Hawking’s new book, really kind of fluffed over the point by, as far as I can see, saying that the current understanding of the complexity of the issue undermines the ‘simple symmentry’ as a sign of design (seen by Newton and Einstein), rather than coming up with any response to the ‘absurd unlikelihood’ argument (did mention the mutliverse option, without much justification ,as far as I could tell) when you peeked past the scientismic positivisms, I really can’t find any strengthening of the arguments behind Scientismic atheism at all…

depressing, in some ways, if there’s not more justification than I can find, that so many zealously support this approach, or if Hawking’s new book is nothing more than a Scientismic potboiler…

It may help to remember that God’s non-existence cannot be shown, even if such a being does not exist. This sounds like you are grumbling because atheists – FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME – have again failed to prove a universal negative.

The strengthening of the atheist’s case from Hawking does not obtain in disproving God’s existence. That will never happen, can’t happen. Rather, Hawking is covering the latest theoretical work that extrapolates from “in-universe physics” to a multiverse, and the maths that obtain in his universe appear to work out such that our zero-energy universe may well be just what one of gazillions of universes that are produced by those physical principles – not as a willful creative act by any god – but just physics being physics.

It’s wholly theoretic, and so it’s not science per se, but “local science” projected outward. It produces results when modeled that suggests that “universes happen”, and happen in such great quantity that the idea that our universe’s “absurd unlikelihood” is laughably backwards, and universes like ours statistically inevitable, and available in quantity.

That doesn’t deny God’s existence. Like so much of science, it just pushes God off to the side, makes him superfluous, extraneous to our models. It used to be we just couldn’t imagine any way but for God to have intervened in creating all the different animal species that exist, and so we put God in that gap. Now we understand a way that can happen without such intervention. We traditionally just couldn’t imagine a universe happening except by divine fiat. Now we understand a way that can happen without such intervention.

That can’t be tested like evolutionary theory can, because all of it is beyond our event horizon, we can’t ever collect empirical (name removed by moderator)ut to use for testing on this. But for those who understand the success and performance of the scientific models that apply inside our universe, it’s significant to find that those models when extrapolated outward predict “godless impersonal universe creation”. It’s not whimsy, or theology, it’s what proceeds from the maths that are astonishingly precise and accurate for models of this universe.

So the “incremental news” is that theoretical developments make “godless universe creation” a prediction, a product of models that are successful inside our universe. More substance for the “intellectually satisfied atheist”, as “Goddidit” becomes harder and harder to hold out as the only viable explanation.

-TS

 

[Mystic_Banana]

It may help to remember that God’s non-existence cannot be shown, even if such a being does not exist. This sounds like you are grumbling because atheists – FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME – have again failed to prove a universal negative.

The strengthening of the atheist’s case from Hawking does not obtain in disproving God’s existence. It’s wholly theoretic, and so it’s not science per se, but “local science” projected outward.

So the “incremental news” is that theoretical developments make “godless universe creation” a prediction, a product of models that are successful inside our universe. More substance for the “intellectually satisfied atheist”, as “Goddidit” becomes harder and harder to hold out as the only viable explanation.

-TS

you can produce a prediction, a product of models that are successful inside our universe, for figuring out how many angels can dance on a pin… if someone spends vast quantities of public money doing just this, would it prove that angels dance on pins? And how often they do it on Friday nights?

There are blatant contradictions here. If there is nowt in the way of evidence for multiversity, then there is less evidence for it than for God. God would therefore pass the scientific method more successfully than this, which just ends up representing atheistic/scientismic wishful thinking…the fact that this stuff is being popularly passed off as Scientific in nature, when it isn’t such according to the general understanding of the same (i.e. being entirely devoid of empirical support), makes it appallingly disingenuous in a way no atheist would accept theism getting away with representing itself as…

and that’s being kind! Rank hypocrisy from the scientismic faction … what a surprise!

 

[HCC]

Blessed be God!

So matter is eternal and just created itself? Logic police…

 

[Touchstone]

you can produce a prediction, a product of models that are successful inside our universe, for figuring out how many angels can dance on a pin… if someone spends vast quantities of public money doing just this, would it prove that angels dance on pins? And how often they do it on Friday nights?

I don’t think you can produce predictions for that (angels on heads of pins, Friday night or no), from physical models that perform in physics. Angels just don’t proceed from those models as predicted elements in any way, let alone as predictions about their dancing on pins. I realize you may be taking a self-deprecating tone here in point out in a humorous way regarding the stark difference between physics model and anything that would address “angels”, but if not, that’s crazy talk. There’s no amount of money that’s going to produce predictions from GR and QM that involve angels in any capacity.

But those models do synthesize and extrapolate to produce predictions that cannot be tested, but even so, predict conditions and dynamics that Hawkings discusses in his book: a universe doesn’t need any creator god to come to be, from that model, as an extrapolated model.

There are blatant contradictions here. If there is nowt in the way of evidence for multiversity, then there is less evidence for it than for God.

How so? There’s no evidence for any God beyond our universe any more than evidence for a multiverse, emprically, and can’t be. Theoretically, God is a non-object. In physics, the multiverse has at least a performing and coherent model for this universe that serves as the basis for it, which is more than we can say for God. Theoretical extrapolation isn’t empirical evidence or testing (we are bound to internals of our spacetime that way), but it isn’t the nothing we have on the theology side, models that predict nothing and don’t perform at all, and don’t even rise to the level of “performing or not”.

God would therefore pass the scientific method more successfully than this, which just ends up representing atheistic/scientismic wishful thinking…

What would be the theory that has “God passing the scientific method”. This again, sounds like either some light humor, or crazy talk. Have I missed some theory that incorporates God or angels, here?

the fact that this stuff is being popularly passed off as Scientific in nature, when it isn’t such according to the general understanding of the same (i.e. being entirely devoid of empirical support), makes it appallingly disingenuous in a way no atheist would accept theism getting away with representing itself as…

It’s different. Theology isn’t even a failure in terms of performative models – it’s not even capable of being right or wrong, performance wise (or at least, as far as it is, it becomes science – Zeus coming down from the mountain throwing thunderbolts as an existing god would be empirically available to us, then, a scientific question).

The thing that theorists use to extrapolate from is hands down performative and validated in a way theology is not, and cannot hope to be. That doesn’t mean that the extrapolation is thus proved, but the starting points are from something we can see that works and is grounded. That is more than theology can say. Both the scientific and theological conjectures are conjectures, but the scientific conjecture is grounded in science, rather than theology, and this is a substantive difference.

and that’s being kind! Rank hypocrisy from the scientismic faction … what a surprise!

I don’t see how that fails to be self-critical. It’s acknowledged as theoretical only, untestable, unavailable empirically. But it does proceed from what works, demonstrably, in this universe. It may be incorrect, but its grounded in what has proven itself here. And that’s more than theology can say.

-TS