God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Betterave]

It seems to me that it must be terribly suffocating and stiffling to impose so much certainty on the univese and cosmos as those who believe so passionately in doctrines and creeds.Doesn’t it limit one’s immagination; preclude creative thought and leave one’s intellect at the mercy of dictatorial beliefs—many of which are so arcane that they are simply called "mysteries of faith since they resist reason or comprehension?. Why do you do such things to yourselves, is my question. Perhaps a better question, particularly since, believers generally proclaim themselves to be humanitatians, is why do you also feel it necessary to do so to others?

My perception is that, in their most virulent form, religious creeds have caused men and women to be imprisoned and tortured. Even in the more beneign form practiced in Western society in the 21st century, such beliefs have become the motivation for scorn and ridicule. For example, those of us who do not find it necessary to embrace what they see as ridciculous notions, must remain somewhat guarded when expressing opinions for fear of the rage that some of the more devout are capable of.

It also seems to me that many believers cannot even see their own contradictory stances. While, they cast themselves as the target of ridicule, it is they who have a church nearly on every corner in ordinary American cities.

Certainly, some are capable of extraordinary charity and good works, but, it comes with a price. They go to whatever impoverished nation it is to perform good works but always with the ambition of converting the ignorant and easily led populace to bizaire beliefs. In their charity, their minds are always closed off. It is the natives who are superstitious not these missionaries with their stories of virgin births and wine becoming blood.

For all of the homilies spent on the virtue of humility and the poor inheriting the kingdom, it seems to me, that the adorned pontiff and all the embellished and commodious cathedrals belie a horrible pretense. For the good that many many times I have witnessed among believers (at least among Christians) I stand in admiration, but, for the intolerance, the constricted worldview, the arrogance and the pretense–for those characteristics, I can hardly hold them or their dogma in esteem.

What a profoundly ignorant, arrogant, irrelevant, self-righteous post. Is there any particular part of it that you would like me to analyze for you?

 

[WmJackP]

What a profoundly ignorant, arrogant, irrelevant, self-righteous post. Is there any particular part of it that you would like me to analyze for you?

Certainly, feel free to analze this part:

For example, those of us who do not find it necessary to embrace what they see as ridciculous notions, must remain somewhat guarded when expressing opinions for fear of the rage that some of the more devout are capable of.

particularly in view of the excoriation you felt necessary to deliver. It is always reassuring to have someone help make your point.

 

[Betterave]

Certainly, feel free to analze this part:

For example, those of us who do not find it necessary to embrace what they see as ridciculous notions, must remain somewhat guarded when expressing opinions for fear of the rage that some of the more devout are capable of.

particularly in view of the excoriation you felt necessary to deliver. It is always reassuring to have someone help make your point.

Certainly:

“For example, those of us who do not find it necessary to embrace what they see as ridciculous notions,…”

Here you do not specify what you are talking about beyond the very abstract “ridiculous notions”; and as far as “ridiculous notions” go, NOBODY finds it necessary to embrace what they see as “ridiculous notions,” so your expression “those of us who…” is either otiose, in which case the whole phrase is otiose, or it is absurd nonsense, i.e., a ridiculous notion, the ridiculousness of which you have failed to notice.

“…must remain somewhat guarded when expressing opinions for fear of the rage that some of the more devout are capable of.”

Here, we should always remain somewhat guarded when expressing opinions, but *not *out of fear of the “rage” rolleyes that some reasonable person like myself might be capable of, but out of fear that we should say something ridiculous, hypocritical, ignorant, etc., like you just did.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

well regardless of what hawking says, i know God created the universe because it says so in the Holy Bible. thus that invalidates what hawking says.

Are you serious? Is that the only reason you believe!!? Glory to the father in heaven!!!

 

[JDaniel]

Are you serious? Is that the only reason you believe!!? Glory to the father in heaven!!!

MoM:

Meets Occam’s razor criteria. Not bad.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

Hawking is making the elementary mistake of equating the physical universe with reality - and persons with physical organisms. In other words he is guilty of scientism in basing the metaphysical theory of physicalism on a scientific hypothesis…
It seems to me that it must be terribly suffocating and stifling to impose so much certainty on the universe and cosmos as those who believe so passionately in doctrines and creeds…

You have failed to show why Hawking is not making the elementary mistake of equating the physical universe with reality… probably because you are making exactly the same mistake without being aware of the fact!

 

[WmJackP]

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.

The last ant hill you observed, had no mayor nor was there any chief engineer. The “design” of an ant hill is an emergent property without an organizing intellect. The rationality, order and law you observe in the cosmos may indeed be emergent properties of being—why then would you want to require a personal intellect without evidence? It is much more rational—since you set up the proposition—to suppose only the simpliest explanation in the absence of evidence to support more. Make sense?

 

[WmJackP]

Certainly:

“For example, those of us who do not find it necessary to embrace what they see as ridciculous notions,…”

Here you do not specify what you are talking about beyond the very abstract “ridiculous notions”; and as far as “ridiculous notions” go, NOBODY finds it necessary to embrace what they see as “ridiculous notions,” so your expression “those of us who…” is either otiose, in which case the whole phrase is otiose, or it is absurd nonsense, i.e., a ridiculous notion, the ridiculousness of which you have failed to notice.

“…must remain somewhat guarded when expressing opinions for fear of the rage that some of the more devout are capable of.”

Here, we should always remain somewhat guarded when expressing opinions, but *not *out of fear of the “rage” rolleyes that some reasonable person like myself might be capable of, but out of fear that we should say something ridiculous, hypocritical, ignorant, etc., like you just did.

That is quite an exegesis, but, did I detect some vitriol, or, was that just my otiosity?

 

[reggieM]

The “design” of an ant hill is an emergent property …

If the design is a property of matter, then the word “emergent” is unnecessary.
If the design is not a property of matter, then …

 

[vz71]

The last ant hill you observed, had no mayor nor was there any chief engineer. The “design” of an ant hill is an emergent property without an organizing intellect. The rationality, order and law you observe in the cosmos may indeed be emergent properties of being—why then would you want to require a personal intellect without evidence? It is much more rational—since you set up the proposition—to suppose only the simpliest explanation in the absence of evidence to support more.

No chief engineer that you are aware of.


Consider, something brought into being.
Else there would be nothing for you to claim is simply ordered of its own.

 

[Betterave]

That is quite an exegesis, but, did I detect some vitriol, or, was that just my otiosity?

I have to assume it was your otiosity (i.e., the irrelevance of your thinking to the issue at hand, your disinclination to engage in intelligent dialogue) - unless you detected your own vitriol?

 

[mangy_dog]

(Reuters) - God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In “The Grand Design,” co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book “A Brief History of Time,” an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.

Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics – Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic particles.

His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.

Poor Stephen Hawking,

He has crossed the intellectual valleys, scaled the mountains of human ingenuity, navigated the oceans of extreme genius and fallen of the edge of the world.

God is the Father, the Almighty

Hawkings doesn’t exist.

 

[WmJackP]

If the design is a property of matter, then the word “emergent” is unnecessary.
If the design is not a property of matter, then …

I’m afraid I’m not convinced by your syllogism.

If “red” is a property of “the ball” then all balls are red according to your logic.

Consider also that mathematics is rational. It “performs” according to rules; it operates within limits and “obeys” according to principles. Could one then make the argument that because it behaves so rationally that it is, therefore, a person? Obviously not. We’d be silly to entertain the idea.

I simply posit that because there is rationality and order in the universe, this does not imply a personal “lawgiver”. Rationality may be itself entirely impersonal—just as mathematics. That indeed does not detract from the wonder and the awe of this most marvelous and overwheming characteristic of the cosmos; but, it also means we are foolish to worship it or to try to propitiate it through prayer and incantation. If we do so, aren’t we merely acting superstitiously?

Hope that makes sense to you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I simply posit that because there is rationality and order in the universe, this does not imply a personal “lawgiver”.

Hope that makes sense to you.

It implies that the universe obeys rules. Thus it is reasonable to ask why it obeys rules. A good explanation for this is that there is an intelligent personal law giver behind the finite unintelligent universe.

 

[reggieM]

I’m afraid I’m not convinced by your syllogism.

If “red” is a property of “the ball” then all balls are red according to your logic.

No, red is a physical property of the ball. The ball is red because of the material characteristics of that ball. Another ball is green because that is its physical property.

Now, we see the design of complex, functional information. What physical property of the cell, for example, explains that?

Consider also that mathematics is rational. It “performs” according to rules; it operates within limits and “obeys” according to principles.

You’re very much on the right track, as I see it. Why is mathematics rational and why does it obey? Where did it come from? What physical property of material things created the rules of mathematics?

I simply posit that because there is rationality and order in the universe, this does not imply a personal “lawgiver”.

Ok, you’re asserting that something exists, but not explaining its origin.
I simply questioned where this intelligence came from – what physical property of matter contains intelligence?

Rationality may be itself entirely impersonal—just as mathematics. That indeed does not detract from the wonder and the awe of this most marvelous and overwheming characteristic of the cosmos; but, it also means we are foolish to worship it or to try to propitiate it through prayer and incantation. If we do so, aren’t we merely acting superstitiously?

Hope that makes sense to you.

Yes, but I think your comment about how design was an emergent property of matter was indicating the origin of that design.

But that means that mathematics, intelligence and rationality are the physical properties of some material substance – just like red is the physical property of a ball.

So, if intelligence and complex functional order is a property of matter, we should be able to observe that and we really don’t.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Spontaneous creation is the oldest arguement in the atheist book. At one time, it was believed that life appeared spontaneously all the time…

Talk about superstition!

…then they discovered micro-organisms

 

[WmJackP]

It implies that the universe obeys rules. Thus it is reasonable to ask why it obeys rules. A good explanation for this is that there is an intelligent personal law giver behind the finite unintelligent universe.

It’s reasonable to ask why God is rational then too, isn’t it. Why regress that extra step? Why not simply acknowledge that the cosmos is rational. The final link in this cosmic chain need not be a person—that is my point. You seem to insist that whatever that last most ultimate link is, itmust necessarily be a person. I don’t believe that to be the case. In fact, it is unduly complicated to posit it as such. Making sense yet?

 

[reggieM]

It’s reasonable to ask why God is rational then too, isn’t it. Why regress that extra step? Why not simply acknowledge that the cosmos is rational. The final link in this cosmic chain need not be a person—that is my point. You seem to insist that whatever that last most ultimate link is, itmust necessarily be a person. I don’t believe that to be the case. In fact, it is unduly complicated to posit it as such. Making sense yet?

I think you’re making sense except if you’re unwilling to explore the next steps in the logical pathway.

If we can accept that there was a necessary first cause of the universe, then the action which caused the universe was either accidental/unconscious or it was designed/planned.

This is where it does become more necessary to see the ultimate link as a person.
The first cause cannot be moved by another cause – it cannot be determined by other factors. It has to be alone as the first, only, uncaused cause.

So, an accidental/unconscious origin of the universe is logically not possible.

The only other option is a conscious, planned/designed origin – and those kinds of decisions come from what we would usually call a personal being.

 

[The_Exodus]

It’s reasonable to ask why God is rational then too, isn’t it. Why regress that extra step? Why not simply acknowledge that the cosmos is rational. The final link in this cosmic chain need not be a person—that is my point. You seem to insist that whatever that last most ultimate link is, itmust necessarily be a person. I don’t believe that to be the case. In fact, it is unduly complicated to posit it as such. Making sense yet?

Can it be possible for an object which lacks an intellect to be rational? Is a rock rational? It may indeed act a certain way, or obey certain “laws,” but does this imply that it is rational itself? If it is true that material things which lack intellects can be rational, it would follow that the universe can itself be rational. Such a claim would require proof though, since it seems intuitively obvious to everyone that purely material things (sticks, cars, apples, etc), by their nature, lack intellects.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It’s reasonable to ask why God is rational then too, isn’t it. Why regress that extra step? Why not simply acknowledge that the cosmos is rational. The final link in this cosmic chain need not be a person—that is my point. You seem to insist that whatever that last most ultimate link is, itmust necessarily be a person. I don’t believe that to be the case. In fact, it is unduly complicated to posit it as such. Making sense yet?

You fail to recognise that only a rational mind is sufficient to explain why contingent things behave in a rational manner. If an unintelligent thing is not rational, then it does not make sense that it obeys rules, especially if those rules apply to things which are contingent and finite in their existence. That which is finite, or that which is only real in virtue of its potentiality, cannot create the rules that apply to it. The rules have to first exist before a thing can obey. Out of nothing comes nothing, thus the presence of a rational intelligible dynamic universe full of potentiality does need to be explained and it cannot be explained physically. Now, the question of why a rational mind exists at the root of our universe, as in, what is it that it should have a reality, is a good question, but it is a question that does nothing to change the fact that the existence of “rationality” is only intelligible in reference to a “rational mind”. To simply say that because we cannot understand why this rational mind exists that we should therefore ignore the question and think instead that the world is rational for no reason, is not itself a rational option. Its “anti-rational”, and you adopt this approach for the sake of your meta-naturalist world-view.