God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

May you find on your deathbed the grace to see in God something more than a “redundant” hypothesis, as you so eloquently put it.

This is a Catholic website, so when you start your personal attacks on Catholics because they pray for a poor soul who has suffered a total loss of spirituality, you might have the common courtesy to step back and let it pass.

 

[ERose]

I think physicists have to be careful when they start talking theology. They usually start sounding like idiots. Just like if a theologian starts talking about physics he will start sounding like an idiot.

Physics can never ever see before the big bang. They can only see where physics exists.

The man is a genious on the level of Einstein I give him that, but his focus has always been physics. He is definitely not an Aquinas or Augustine.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In both cases, the essential ground is “natural explanations”. A philosophical naturalist who supposes the universe came to be through quantum fluctuations of a “parent universe” has left “methodological naturalism” behind – there’s no empirical basis of that, and no epistemic grounding, either. But it’s naturalism, even so – natural explanations as the stuff worthy beliefs are made of.

A parent universe is no more worthy of belief than a moon made of green cheese.

You guys are supposed to be scientific … then you pull this poppycock rabbit out of your hat. Anything to account for nature … anything but God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well, ‘cause’ itself presumes the natural. It’s a stolen concept when applied supernaturally, as there is perfectly nothing that grounds the semantics of “cause” supernaturally. It’s borrowing meaningful terms from nature to give the appearance of substance to supernatural language.

This is false. Firstly, empirical data is interpreted according to non-empirical rational principles. I am glad that you identified empirical science as a sub set of philosophy. Empirical science, by itself, cannot determine what is a logical interpretation and what isn’t. It cannot determine between truth and falsehood by itself. The empirical method merely measures a physical event; and then the scientist interprets that event, and thus there must be certain presupposed rules of thought before scientists go about interpreting that data. True science presumes the objectivity of logical truth when it interprets empirical data. Otherwise one would have no reason to develop rational concepts such as Occam’s razor. Probability itself becomes meaningless if it is not grounded in logical discourse. Otherwise one interpretation would be just as equally plausible and probable as any other, and since theories are not necessary proofs but highly probably interpretations, if it were devoid of rational principles there would be no good reason to favour one theory over the other or even over a mere hypothesis. The employment of inductive inferences in scientific discourse goes out the window. Of course, we naturally presuppose logic and metaphysical truths when we interpret empirical data, that’s how we are able to rationally define the difference between a mere hypothesis and an empirically verified theory. For instance, we know that God cannot be included in physical inferences because “rationally speaking”, God is not an empirical object. We think rationally about it, thus the need for meta-science. The scientific enterprise presupposes objective logic.

Secondly, if you don’t believe in logic, then we have nothing more to talk about, since I have no interest speaking to irrational people.

Thirdly, you are confusing impossibility with an idea that is either counter intuitive or incomprehensible. This idea of stealing concepts is an assumption of your world view. Just because you cannot understand “cause” outside of the concept of “physical change”, does not mean that other kinds of causes cannot exist without a physical change. But its legitimate to ask how we can know the difference between that which is incomprehensible and that which is illogical.

Well, its quite simple. There are certain facts that have to be true not just so that rational thought can take place, but so that there can be any kind of reality at all. Logical truths, in-order to be true, has to be eternally/timelessly true. The phrase, “All bachelors are not married” is either true or it isn’t; because as soon as they get married they cease to be bachelors, and that is an eternal fact of reality. Thus it is impossible that logic can be an expression of something contingently or potentially real. There is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, because absolutely nothing is the absence of all objective truth or facts. Nothing is the antithesis of truth and being. Nothing is not a thing or something objectively real. Out nothing comes nothing. Thus truth potentiality and possibility is an intrinsic expression of necessary being. It is not an expression of nothing. True Logic demands that being must exist before any potential possibility can exist, since out of nothing comes nothing. Physical causes certainly cannot cause things without change. But God is not physical and thus cannot be defined in terms of physical limitations and physical laws. Change cannot exist logically without a cause, so there must be a timeless cause that is non-physical, and thus not limited by physical descriptions or definitions of cause and effect. Potential beings have to be grounded in a being that is not potentially real; since out of nothing comes nothing, and thus potentiality cannot bring itself into reality.

You cannot escape this argument without destroying the fundamental relationship between logic and the expression of being. And once you attempt to do so, you cease to be a rational person. Of course you can choose to twist words like cause, logic, rationality and truth to suit your agenda, but that doesn’t justify or make you ideas reasonable.

Universal naturalism is irrational. End of story.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

One must remember that atheism is the de facto (quasi) religion of the western world. Anything tending to support its position will be highlighted and put centre stage.

I would not attack Hawking in any way. He is postulating an idea. The fact that suggesting that gravity or any other physical law acting on nothing whatever created the universe is at least as absurd as any metaphysical claim I have ever heard - why would laws exist to govern nothing? - won’t stop it being sold as reasoned and scientific truth. That is where our culture is.

 

[WmJackP]

He really has lost his mind. He has gone from a physicist to believing in magic lol

That virgins give birth or dead men rise from the dead or the molecular composition of bread really transforms by some arcane incantation? That isn’t magic?

 

[Touchstone]

And the implementation and creation of gravity without any matter (as in Hawkings’ scenario) doesn’t require (a) God?

Again, I haven’t read the book, but both other writings of Hawking and other scientists advance the idea that our universe is part of a “cosmic landscape”, to use Leonard Susskind’s term, and our universe draws resources from that, Well, where did all that come from, you might ask? No idea. But from our parochial perspective in this universe, it looks like we popped out of nothing, since we can’t “see beyond”. We shouldn’t expect to “see beyond”, though. It’s just human nature, narrative-centric beings that we are, to find that an irresistable temptation.

In any case, I can’t think of what any of these scenarios would require a God. A God doesn’t help this a bit. Say God made the universe, or the metaverse. You’re no better off – you now have to explain where God came from! If you suppose you’re not obligated to do that, then you’re better off not even bothering with this God meme, and just supposing that the universe or the metaverse is uncaused, uncreated, eternal, a brute fact in its own right, rather than God.

You gotta stop the regress somewhere, and God doesn’t help, and only makes things needlessly more complicated in terms of explanation. At least we can observe physics in action, and project that idea “outward” from our universe. Not so with God. God’s just there to fill a gap in our explanations.

And his theory seems to assume time was always running. How did time start?

Time is an integral part of the fabric of the universe – deeply related to dynamics (relativity). Where space/time/energy/matter exist, time exists as the “forward arrow” of events and interactions. It only runs as a function of activity in terms of spatial or energy changes. And that’s expressed only in the context of this universe. If a metaverse or “cosmic landscape” obtains beyond this universe, it may have it’s own time dynamics. For our universe, our local time began at t=0 and has been “running” since the Big Bang. But that’s just our frame of reference. For other universes, if such obtain, ostensibly, the fabric of those universes has its own local time running.

How is the Universe, the Galaxy, the Solar System, the Planet perfectly designed to support life, both single-cellular and multi-cellular?

Manifestly it isn’t. We are utterly without any evidence of such a designer, and the more we observe and learn, the more we understand that your phrasing has things backward, in much the same way ancient Bible writers had things mixed up about the fixity of the earth, and the sun rising, setting and “returning to its place”. Rather than the universe being designed for us, which if you think about it for a minute really is a conceit humans indulge in, to frame it that way, intuitively, we are “designed for the universe”. That is, we exist as adaptations and optimized resolutions to physics as they are. The vast majority of the universe does not appear to support biological life, but where it does, there it grows. Physics in action.

How about the creation of Living Matter on Earth? And how and why did single-celled bacteria evolve into multi-cellular beings? There is certainly some intelligent designer, which we can presume to be God.

You can presume what you like, but it’s just not needed – it’s extraneous, as best we can tell. Does God need to get involved to have oxygen bond with hydrogen to make water? Maybe so, in your view. But that presumption is similarly superfluous – it’s not parsimonious and invokes resources and entities that aren’t needed. That’s your prerogative, but if we esteem parsimony as a knowledge building heuristic, it’s just not economical as an explanation.

I can recommend studying the conversion of Antony Flew for good info on the evidence for a creator God.

I’m well aware of Mr. Flew. This question is a kind of referendum on the human intuition; do we follow the evidence and the models, or do we follow our “gut”, and cleave to the part of our evolved psychology that has served us so well in other areas, the hyper-intentionality we deploy, seeing schemes, plans and (anthropic) designs all around us, whether they are there or not? I think at the end, Mr. Flew’s rigor simply faltered, and his intuitions prevailed in spite of the evidence. Just as you say “certainly” – a bald appeal to naked intuition if there ever was one – I think Mr. Flew adopted a late deism because it just “had to be”. The evidence Mr. Flew would rely on for some positive identification of a designer or God is as lacking as ever. What appears to have changed is his credulity.

We’re predisposed to think in terms of anthropic designs – that’s how we’ve survived and flourished to the present day. But evolution doesn’t really punish us much for our fanciful delusions. A deer is skittish because it’s better to have a “false positive”, and suppose that rustling in the grass it just heard was a lurking predator than to risk missing the presence of a predator and being eaten.

The deer has a natural, and so far as it goes, “rational” bias towards paranoia. It’s frequently mistaken, but better to error on the side of caution. For humans, something similar seems to obtain. We profit immensely from thinking in terms of narratives, schemes and designs. It produces lots of errors, but mostly ones that are good tradeoffs, errors we can survive and thrive with.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

Maybe one day everyone will realize that none of us know anything

You are contradicting yourself…

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

That virgins give birth or dead men rise from the dead or the molecular composition of bread really transforms by some arcane incantation? That isn’t magic?

And of course you yourself don’t believe in that, do you, WmJackP???

 

[tonyrey]

Well, where did all that come from, you might ask? No idea. But from our parochial perspective in this universe, it looks like we popped out of nothing, since we can’t “see beyond”. We shouldn’t expect to “see beyond”, though. It’s just human nature, narrative-centric beings that we are, to find that an irresistible temptation.

The principle of causality is arbitrarily discarded when convenient…

In any case, I can’t think of what any of these scenarios would require a God. A God doesn’t help this a bit.

A rational, purposeful Being explains far more convincingly why you are capable of thinking about the universe rather than the metaphysical conjuring trick of producing everything from nothing…

Say God made the universe, or the metaverse. You’re no better off – you now have to explain where God came from!

Intangible aspects of reality like truth, freedom, goodness and love do not come from anywhere: they are not located in time or space.

If you suppose you’re not obligated to do that, then you’re better off not even bothering with this God meme, and just supposing that the universe or the metaverse is uncaused, uncreated, eternal, a brute fact in its own right, rather than God.

It’s brute all right, given that it doesn’t know anything!

You gotta stop the regress somewhere, and God doesn’t help, and only makes things needlessly more complicated in terms of explanation.

One Being is the simplest adequate explanation there can possibly be.

At least we can observe physics in action, and project that idea “outward” from our universe.

Your “we” is concealed in all statements about the universe. Knowledge of physical reality presupposes mind.

Not so with God. God’s just there to fill a gap in our explanations.

If you are a disciple of Hawkins your explanation is an infinite gap!

Time is an integral part of the fabric of the universe – deeply related to dynamics (relativity). Where space/time/energy/matter exist, time exists as the “forward arrow” of events and interactions.

Your mental horizon is restricted to spatiotemporal events.

We are utterly without any evidence of such a designer, and the more we observe and learn, the more we understand that your phrasing has things backward, in much the same way ancient Bible writers had things mixed up about the fixity of the earth, and the sun rising, setting and “returning to its place”.

Designers are substantial evidence of the Designer - in addition to the fact that the universe is a rational system which sustains rational beings.

Rather than the universe being designed for us, which if you think about it for a minute really is a conceit humans indulge in, to frame it that way, intuitively, we are “designed for the universe”.

We are designed to be aware of the universe and our role within the universe. We think and act intuitively like rational, autonomous, purposeful beings

That is, we exist as adaptations and optimized resolutions to physics as they are. The vast majority of the universe does not appear to support biological life, but where it does, there it grows.

Human notions of economy are irrelevant to the nature of reality.

Does God need to get involved to have oxygen bond with hydrogen to make water? Maybe so, in your view. But that presumption is similarly superfluous – it’s not parsimonious and invokes resources and entities that aren’t needed. That’s your prerogative, but if we esteem parsimony as a knowledge building heuristic, it’s just not economical as an explanation.

The order, regularity and beauty of the universe are not adequately explained as the result of blind physical necessity.

We’re predisposed to think in terms of anthropic designs – that’s how we’ve survived and flourished to the present day.

Which is a very strong indication that our predisposition has a rational basis. By their fruits you shall know them…

But evolution doesn’t really punish us much for our fanciful delusions. A deer is skittish because it’s better to have a “false positive”, and suppose that rustling in the grass it just heard was a lurking predator than to risk missing the presence of a predator and being eaten.

A false positive presupposes that there is a true positive, not just an unintelligible gap!

The deer has a natural, and so far as it goes, “rational” bias towards paranoia. It’s frequently mistaken, but better to error on the side of caution.

Your paranoia seems an irrational bias against the Supreme Being…

For humans, something similar seems to obtain. We profit immensely from thinking in terms of narratives, schemes and designs. It produces lots of errors, but mostly ones that are good tradeoffs, errors we can survive and thrive with.

Aren’t you thinking in terms of a narrative and scheme of an undesigned universe - which has popped up spontaneously for no reason or purpose whatsoever?

 

[Anselm33]

I think the best comment for this thread is from today’s reading (First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians):
*

Brothers and sisters:
Let no one deceive himself.
If anyone among you considers himself wise in this age,
let him become a fool, so as to become wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God,
for it is written:

God catches the wise in their own ruses.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I think the best comment for this thread is from today’s reading (First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians):
**

:clapping:

 

[humble_catholic]

That virgins give birth or dead men rise from the dead or the molecular composition of bread really transforms by some arcane incantation? That isn’t magic?

Actually it isnt magic. It is a fraction of the power and wisdom of God. Your confusing what we believe in with what atheists believe in . That nothing can create something. That is what I call magic, but then again an atheist like you would never believe in that right
This is what they call reason?

I really enjoyed WSP explaining causality, and the fact that atheists argue irrationally against it. Poof there it is:thumbsup:

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That virgins give birth or dead men rise from the dead or the molecular composition of bread really transforms by some arcane incantation? That isn’t magic?

All sufficiently advaned science seems like magic to those who don’t understand it.

Whie I myself cannot explain how that ocurred it does not follow that “magic” is the cause. God is the cause, and just because science currently does not understnd God doesn’t mean it never will.

 

[buffalo]

And if Catholic Christian teachings say something its automatically true?

Maybe one day everyone will realize that none of us know anything

That is why Revelation is sooooooooo important.

 

[buffalo]

Right. But this is sufficient to be problematic for many religions, Catholicism among them. God as ‘prime mover’ is identified as real (or maybe ‘actual’ is a better word) because he is seen as necessary as a way to plug a gaping hole in our knowledge – why does anything exist at all. It’s not that God has been detected, shown, demonstrated, but rather that he simply must exist.

There will always be at least one gap or we would be God, but which one of us?

 

[Touchstone]

Actually it isnt magic. It is a fraction of the power and wisdom of God. Your confusing what we believe in with what atheists believe in . That nothing can create something. That is what I call magic, but then again an atheist like you would never believe in that right
This is what they call reason?

I really enjoyed WSP explaining causality, and the fact that atheists argue irrationally against it. Poof there it is:thumbsup:

Well, who caused God, then? By your own standards (which I think are unsupportable, but you endorse them), it’s irrational to eschew a cause, so how do you rationally support belief in an uncaused God? Or is this something you just accept from yourself as irrational (your use of the term)?

-TS

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

All sufficiently advaned science seems like magic to those who don’t understand it.

Whie I myself cannot explain how that ocurred it does not follow that “magic” is the cause. God is the cause, and just because science currently does not understnd God doesn’t mean it never will.

Arthur C. Clarke had a quote similar to your first sentence there, Marc Anthony.

I think it was (roughly speaking): “All advanced science is indistinguishable from magic,” or something like that.

We are just instruments in the hands of the Allmighty.

 

[buffalo]

1. Thirdly, if you believe that the universe came out of nothing by itself, then you believe in the worst kind of magic; because at least in traditional magic tricks there is a magician involved. This view of reality is not acceptable, not simply because it is an opposition to God, but because it undermines the very foundation of rational thought fullstop.

A great point here: The multiverse odds are so absurd that it is indeed “magic”. Every time a theory is advanced the odds get worse.

It is more rational to be a believer.

 

[psify]

Right. But this is sufficient to be problematic for many religions, Catholicism among them. God as ‘prime mover’ is identified as real (or maybe ‘actual’ is a better word) because he is seen as necessary as a way to plug a gaping hole in our knowledge – why does anything exist at all. It’s not that God has been detected, shown, demonstrated, but rather that he simply must exist.

That’s why suggesting that God is not a necessary postulate after all, leaves God in a highly dubious position, not being either identifiable empircally, nor required by inference or default. It’s not to say God doesn’t exist, or didn’t create the universe; that can’t be know.** But rather, that God is superfluous, unnecessary, redundant as a matter of explaining and understanding the reality around us. **

-TS

If God exists, God is part of “the reality” whether it be “around us” or not. Surely you are not suggesting that whether God exists or not is not a significant or profound question. Whether it can be answered, whether it’s answer would affect the natural sciences is a separate matter.