God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Pieman333272]

Just ordered the book, I’ll post some stuff about it when I get it . Anyone already read it?

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Yeah, but, you started it! Your diatribe was disrespectful to the church, the Pope and all us. It is a good thing that I am not a mod! Every single attack, made by you, was an ad hominem. But yet you talk about Catholics being mean spirited.

Well, I guess I can’t blame you. Your people only number 2 - 4 hundred million, including children. We have 10 times more. Seems we could easily swamp your guys!

God bless,
jd

 

[WmJackP]

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.

Interesting points, except such a personal being is not by any means simple, notwiithstanding Thomas’ (or was it Augistine’s?) attempts to characterize it as such. The first cause, as you describe it, therefore, is immensely complex—indeed infinitely complex–because you make it the ultimate organizing principle for all the physical and even moral laws in the extant universe.

If you accept that this is not “simple”, then recall my earlier point regarding the emergent properties of matter: if matter possesses emergent properties then under such circumstances complexity can arise from the simple. Hence, a “designed” ant colony arises from the multidude of individualized instinctive moves of the members. It also works with Sim City too, if you’ve ever played the video game. You and I can play Sim city and without designing anything, and, without intentional planning at all, complexity and structure arises over the course of the play-----Complexity from the simple. It requires a vast number, interaction and other relationships which I don’t fully understand because I am not as sophisticated in chaos theory as I should be to discuss the topic. However, it does not require a “designer”. Yes, it just happens! Amazing too!

And certainly, it is amazing and surly full of wonder. I am the first to marvel at its beauty. However, it is not a god to whom worship and obedience is owed. It is the power and force of nature which we can hardly hope to fully understand within the context of all of our 21st century science. Its “laws” must certainly be obeyed-----one cannot defy gravity, for instance; but, whether you steal a pear from your neighbor’s orchid or believe or not believe, go through ritualistic ceremonies to placate it, or, go off in the woods to give tribute to wicca—none of these things affect this system of rationality which we find in the universe. The universe is indifferent to these ceremonies and the ambitions and beliefs of mortals. It has “seen” species come and go, solar systems and galaxies emerge, collide, and destruct and will continue to do so into the eons that lie ahead. Our hope–our true realistic hope is to ourselves learn the secrets of the universe, to conduct ourselves and behave rationally (it is nature’s way after all) and, in the process, to build a morality based on the authentic and rational, to divest ourselves of our superstition and magic.

Religion had its place, I don’t deny that it did. Particularly the RC church. It inspired the great expeditions of the 15th and 16th centuries; it preserved western culture (at least the Irish monks did) when Europe was plunged into the dark ages. It even allowed science to florish (except when it ran afoul church teaching). And for all of this I can be proud even while I overlook the price paid by some for these achievements. I also am aware of the place the RC church played in withstanding the onslaught of decadent culture, particularly in the modern commercialized society that we find ourselves today with its consummer driven, fast food drive up window lifestyle. I was brought up RC and am glad I was. I had a better education, I had more discipline, more structure—all of this I am grateful for. But the time is very close to having arrived when the beliefs that go along with these traditional benefits no longer serve any useful purpose. Superstition as a device to bind society together is no longer possible. There is too much information and competing influences out there. We must find a way to build rational men and women, a way to shed ourselves of our dysfunction rather than to claim it is the by-product of an apple eaten in response to a demon’s temptations; we need to realize that 6 billion people on this planet is too many; that we are in peril as a result of our own excesses and that the rigid doctrines of one “people of the book” against another “people of the book” are simply destructive and not in furtherance of a divine plan to bring about the end of days.

I hope I am understood.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Here’s what doesn’t make sense: that all of that order, all of those rules, all the way down to the countless, smallest particles, all just showed up out of the blue, I mean, the “black.” In fact, they all just showed up where there was nothing before. Your mathematics, cleared the space, created the place, and took some of that nothingness, to work from, and created some trillions of things where there was nothing before. And, just how is the postulation that God created more absurd than that?

God bless,
jd

 

[WmJackP]

Here’s what doesn’t make sense: that all of that order, all of those rules, all the way down to the countless, smallest particles, all just showed up out of the blue, I mean, the “black.” In fact, they all just showed up where there was nothing before. Your mathematics, cleared the space, created the place, and took some of that nothingness, to work from, and created some trillions of things where there was nothing before. And, just how is the postulation that God created more absurd than that?

God bless,
jd

1. Well there is “is”. That much is in front of us, above us, all around us. So there is something.
2. That which “is” seems to have order and there are things which objectively make sense. Two plus 2 equal 4, for example, the calculus, laws of physics. The more we dig the more sense is made of the that which “is” Quantum mechanics, for example, was unheard of a century ago. Now people are discovering it and making sense of it. So, there is order and apparent rationality to that which “is”.
3. Personality, however, is an organizational concept. When it is applied to rational beings—the application is to sentient creatures who exhibit characteristics of rationality. Hence, to be a person is to possess a quality which is rational. A person is not in and of itself the concept of rationality, it is rather a characteristic of the rational.
4. To argue that a Supreme Personality exists who is infinitely rational is to say that the organizational concept of personhood precedes the characteristic that we witness in the laws of nature.

I simple depart at this point by asking the question why does there have to be a “Person” who possesses the characteristic that we find exhibited in the nature of things? Isn’t it much more direct to say that the universe is rational. It always seemed to me that the doctrines of the RC church were so unnecessarily burdened with anthomorphicism. I can certainly accept that there is an ultimate principle which governs everything in the cosmos; I can even accept that it is ultimately simple, unitary and one with existence. But it doesn’t have motives and objectives, will, desire. It doesn’t have the need to be worshipped, nor, demand vindication for sins. It is not a “person”. By placing a “person” out in front, we made the issue so much more complex and we have done so without any evidence at all.

I also don’t believe that it (the rational precept) operates outside of the emergent principles which may be discovered by rational minds-----to be specific, dead men do not rise, men don’t walk on water. Nor does it allow for the combination of contradictory elements such as virgins giving birth or bread becoming something other than bread by reason of a ritualistic practice.

Again, I hope I am not being misunderstood.

 

[reggieM]

WmJack -

This is a key point:

I can certainly accept that there is an ultimate principle which governs everything in the cosmos; I can even accept that it is ultimately simple, unitary and one with existence. But it doesn’t have motives and objectives, will, desire. It doesn’t have the need to be worshipped, nor, demand vindication for sins. It is not a “person”. By placing a “person” out in front, we made the issue so much more complex and we have done so without any evidence at all.

I think your reasonable acceptance of an ultimate principle conflicts with your following comment, though:

I also don’t believe that it (the rational precept) operates outside of the emergent principles which may be discovered by rational minds

This has to be resolved before moving on to the question of a Person.
If everything is reducible to matter and properties of material substances, then intelligence, order, mathematics, rationality, consciousness are properties of matter of some kind. In other words, there are no immaterial substances or powers of any kind – intelligence itself is the product of physical substances (chemical reactions create intelligence, etc).

This causes a lot of problems with the ideas of causality, contingency and material things existing for an infinite amount of time.

If, we can accept that rationality, intelligence, mathematical laws, logic – are immaterial and not produced by matter, then the Ultimate, Governing Principle starts to get some more specific definition.

The fact that you correctly recognize the need that this Principle is ultimately simple and unitary and one with being are important also. This eliminates “physical compounds” of some kind.

 

[WmJackP]

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.

Does there have to be an intellect for their to be rationality? I think not. 2 plus 2 makes 4 regardless of whether there are minds to comprehend it.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Interesting points, except such a personal being is not by any means simple, notwiithstanding Thomas’ (or was it Augistine’s?) attempts to characterize it as such. The first cause, as you describe it, therefore, is immensely complex—indeed infinitely complex–because you make it the ultimate organizing principle for all the physical and even moral laws in the extant universe.

If you accept that this is not “simple”, then recall my earlier point regarding the emergent properties of matter: if matter possesses emergent properties then under such circumstances complexity can arise from the simple. Hence, a “designed” ant colony arises from the multidude of individualized instinctive moves of the members. It also works with Sim City too, if you’ve ever played the video game. You and I can play Sim city and without designing anything, and, without intentional planning at all, complexity and structure arises over the course of the play-----Complexity from the simple. It requires a vast number, interaction and other relationships which I don’t fully understand because I am not as sophisticated in chaos theory as I should be to discuss the topic. However, it does not require a “designer”. Yes, it just happens! Amazing too!

And certainly, it is amazing and surly full of wonder. I am the first to marvel at its beauty. However, it is not a god to whom worship and obedience is owed. It is the power and force of nature which we can hardly hope to fully understand within the context of all of our 21st century science. Its “laws” must certainly be obeyed-----one cannot defy gravity, for instance; but, whether you steal a pear from your neighbor’s orchid or believe or not believe, go through ritualistic ceremonies to placate it, or, go off in the woods to give tribute to wicca—none of these things affect this system of rationality which we find in the universe. The universe is indifferent to these ceremonies and the ambitions and beliefs of mortals. It has “seen” species come and go, solar systems and galaxies emerge, collide, and destruct and will continue to do so into the eons that lie ahead. Our hope–our true realistic hope is to ourselves learn the secrets of the universe, to conduct ourselves and behave rationally (it is nature’s way after all) and, in the process, to build a morality based on the authentic and rational, to divest ourselves of our superstition and magic.

Religion had its place, I don’t deny that it did. Particularly the RC church. It inspired the great expeditions of the 15th and 16th centuries; it preserved western culture (at least the Irish monks did) when Europe was plunged into the dark ages. It even allowed science to florish (except when it ran afoul church teaching). And for all of this I can be proud even while I overlook the price paid by some for these achievements. I also am aware of the place the RC church played in withstanding the onslaught of decadent culture, particularly in the modern commercialized society that we find ourselves today with its consummer driven, fast food drive up window lifestyle. I was brought up RC and am glad I was. I had a better education, I had more discipline, more structure—all of this I am grateful for. But the time is very close to having arrived when the beliefs that go along with these traditional benefits no longer serve any useful purpose. Superstition as a device to bind society together is no longer possible. There is too much information and competing influences out there. We must find a way to build rational men and women, a way to shed ourselves of our dysfunction rather than to claim it is the by-product of an apple eaten in response to a demon’s temptations; we need to realize that 6 billion people on this planet is too many; that we are in peril as a result of our own excesses and that the rigid doctrines of one “people of the book” against another “people of the book” are simply destructive and not in furtherance of a divine plan to bring about the end of days.

I hope I am understood.

It is quite bizarre this unthinking acceptance the “we must find a way to build rational men and women”. This doomed exercise has been undertaken by Marxist inspired atheists before…tens of millions died at the altar of reason.

Surely rational men would cull the stupid, the weak the insane and the criminal. If not why not? What superstition would prevent it?
Surely the myth that man are equal would be consigned to the Christian past? If not how so since it is an untelligible nonsense outside of Christianity.
Surely reason woud mandate eugenicism? If not what siuperstition would prevent it?

Quite how the fantasy that untrammelled reason will found progress has survived the 20th century is remarkable. It shows the power of faith.

 

[WmJackP]

It is quite bizarre this unthinking acceptance the “we must find a way to build rational men and women”. This doomed exercise has been undertaken by Marxist inspired atheists before…tens of millions died at the altar of reason.

Surely rational men would cull the stupid, the weak the insane and the criminal. If not why not? What superstition would prevent it?
Surely the myth that man are equal would be consigned to the Christian past? If not how so since it is an untelligible nonsense outside of Christianity.
Surely reason woud mandate eugenicism? If not what siuperstition would prevent it?

Quite how the fantasy that untrammelled reason will found progress has survived the 20th century is remarkable. It shows the power of faith.

A perfect society was early conceptualized by Plato, but, true enough it was never successfully implemented. You are also correct that thousands of folks died in all kinds of horrible ways for ridiculous notions and causes, some for for religion, some for for unorthodox beliefs, some burned at the stake, some were hanged, gassed and some shot. Some were athiests and some were Christians some practiced Islam and some practiced witchcraft. Some used religion as their rallying point, others denounced religion or said it was the wrong religion or simply didn’t care about religion.

It is a valid point you make---- that we need to change. But the change we need is to do what we can to enhance humanity instead of attempting to convert it to more of the same systems of beliefs that caused all the suffering you described.

 

[JDaniel]

1. Well there is “is”. That much is in front of us, above us, all around us. So there is something.

Please. You can’t just postulate a container of nothing.

1. That which “is” seems to have order and there are things which objectively make sense. Two plus 2 equal 4, for example, the calculus, laws of physics. The more we dig the more sense is made of the that which “is” Quantum mechanics, for example, was unheard of a century ago. Now people are discovering it and making sense of it. So, there is order and apparent rationality to that which “is”.

Good. And it could have been placed there by God.

1. Personality, however, is an organizational concept. When it is applied to rational beings—the application is to sentient creatures who exhibit characteristics of rationality. Hence, to be a person is to possess a quality which is rational. A person is not in and of itself the concept of rationality, it is rather a characteristic of the rational.

Was that supposed to be a defeater?

1. To argue that a Supreme Personality exists who is infinitely rational is to say that the organizational concept of personhood precedes the characteristic that we witness in the laws of nature.

By your “personal” definition. Otherwise, so it precedes what we witness of the laws of nature?

I simple depart at this point by asking the question why does there have to be a “Person” who possesses the characteristic that we find exhibited in the nature of things? Isn’t it much more direct to say that the universe is rational.

Well, I’m not too concerned with “directness.” But, since you mention it, the answer could well be, “Yes”. However, that which is “rational” and/or “logical” more than likely has personhood as the instigator/maintainer.

It always seemed to me that the doctrines of the RC church were so unnecessarily burdened with anthomorphicism.

Yes. I know it is problematic. But, if you think about it, what other choices are there? After all God did send Christ to earth. There’s no question that in order to construct all of this, and keep it running, God has to be the ultimate mathematician, too.

I can certainly accept that there is an ultimate principle which governs everything in the cosmos; I can even accept that it is ultimately simple, unitary and one with existence. But it doesn’t have motives and objectives, will, desire. It doesn’t have the need to be worshipped, nor, demand vindication for sins. It is not a “person”. By placing a “person” out in front, we made the issue so much more complex and we have done so without any evidence at all.

And that would all be perfect, if . . . He had not sent Christ to earth to atone for our Original and subsequent sins. You may well be an exemplary man, I have no doubt. But, you know as well as I do, that there are those that need lots of help. Now, the concept of predestination means that there are those that WILL go to Hell. God does not want them to go to Hell. And, He could change all of that by eliminating Free Will. Is that what we want? No Will? No ability to choose? No ability to create with what we have here on earth? Automatons? No Love? Just walk around like the things in, “The Day the Large Bean Pods Landed?”

I also don’t believe that it (the rational precept) operates outside of the emergent principles which may be discovered by rational minds

“Emergent” was a great word “invented” to describe things that were largely misunderstood, wasn’t it?

-----to be specific, dead men do not rise, men don’t walk on water.

Quite so. Only the Son of God can do those things.

Nor does it allow for the combination of contradictory elements such as virgins giving birth or bread becoming something other than bread by reason of a ritualistic practice.

As I said just a moment ago. . .

Again, I hope I am not being misunderstood.

I thank you for your charitability. You are not being misunderstood.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Does there have to be an intellect for their to be rationality? I think not. 2 plus 2 makes 4 regardless of whether there are minds to comprehend it.

So, Jack, if a tree falls in a forest, are you absolutely sure a sound is made?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

A perfect society was early conceptualized by Plato, but, true enough it was never successfully implemented. You are also correct that thousands of folks died in all kinds of horrible ways for ridiculous notions and causes, some for for religion, some for for unorthodox beliefs, some burned at the stake, some were hanged, gassed and some shot. Some were athiests and some were Christians some practiced Islam and some practiced witchcraft. Some used religion as their rallying point, others denounced religion or said it was the wrong religion or simply didn’t care about religion.

It is a valid point you make---- that we need to change. But the change we need is to do what we can to enhance humanity instead of attempting to convert it to more of the same systems of beliefs that caused all the suffering you described.

Jack:

That’s not so. Followers of Christ, and/or God, number about 6 billion, compared to about two hundred million athiests, yet there is a tremendous dis-proportion between the numbers of people killed by atheistic dictators and despots. I’d rather be over here, please, if you don’t mind.

God bless,
jd

 

[humble_catholic]

Dinesh Dsouza point it out to Christopher Hitchens in their debate that Atheism killed more people in the last 100 years then all the combined deaths from all religious wars.
Im glad those atheist dictators no longer are in power

 

[Windfish]

Dinesh Dsouza point it out to Christopher Hitchens in their debate that Atheism killed more people in the last 100 years then all the combined deaths from all religious wars.
Im glad those atheist dictators no longer are in power

Atheists squirm out of that one by saying that Oh, well, they weren’t really killing because of their atheism. If this is the case, why can’t we say that the Crusades and so forth weren’t really because of their Christianity, as they certainly weren’t? I’ll have to do more research into history and see how closely atheism is tied to these historical massacres.

Regarding the topic, here are two good videos on it:

Fr. Barron comments on Stephen Hawking & more tired atheism

The Curious Metaphysics of Dr. Stephen Hawking

I am hoping some of you science-minded posters can help me make sense, possibly answer, this common response by atheists:

Hawking’s point is that we don’t think of events on the sub-atomic scale as being “caused” the way we do at the scale of everyday objects. That’s why we developed quantum mechanics, to make predictions based on statistical probability. And the Big Bang began at a sub-atomic level. No creator needed.

 

[Touchstone]

Atheists squirm out of that one by saying that Oh, well, they weren’t really killing because of their atheism. If this is the case, why can’t we say that the Crusades and so forth weren’t really because of their Christianity, as they certainly weren’t? I’ll have to do more research into history and see how closely atheism is tied to these historical massacres.

In the case of the Crusades, the connection to religion as the imperative to killing and violence was explicit. Pope Urban II’s famous exclamation in his speech launching a crusade: Deus Vult! “God wills it!”. That’s about as explicit as one can get in implicating religious belief in the bloodletting. Whether not it was justified in some sense or noble doesn’t change the dependence signaled in that proclamation.

I’m not aware of any analogous imperative toward a war by an atheist leader, or even how that would be announced – there is no God to issue such an imperative! It would just be human choices and impulses (atheism is defined by what it does not believe as opposed to what it does believe, that’s the “a-” in “atheism”). Which is not to say atheist leaders won’t killed or haven’t killed, at scale and with extreme cruelty. It just doesn’t proceed from atheism itself, which is a negation.

Regarding the topic, here are two good videos on it:

Fr. Barron comments on Stephen Hawking & more tired atheism

The Curious Metaphysics of Dr. Stephen Hawking

I am hoping some of you science-minded posters can help me make sense, possibly answer, this common response by atheists:

This is a forceful point to make. We have traditionally based our judgments on our perceptions of the world at our own scale – that is all we could perceive until just recently. But with the technology now available to observe, measure and manipulate at the quantum level, we have a whole different set of rules, and they are mind-bendingly, radically different than the rules and patterns that apply at the scale of humans. Things that “just are that way” at the scale of humans do not apply at quantum scales.

That means that the discovery of the evidence for the Big Bang and its origination as a quantum event places in a different context for physical law than the nature world we know by normal observation. It came from context that is “alien” to what we observe in everyday life, and so we understand that our “common sense” and macro-scale observations of “how things work” doesn’t apply as much any more to the origin question, if it applies at all.

-TS

 

[Windfish]

You’ll have to provide a citation for Urban II having said that. I have not found it anywhere, at least not yet. If all it takes though is a rallying cry such as “God wills it!” for the Crusades to be “explicitly” tied to religion (setting aside the real connections to politics and Muslim invasion), than I am sure I can come with many atheistic equivalents.

 

[Touchstone]

You’ll have to provide a citation for Urban II having said that. I have not found it anywhere, at least not yet. If all it takes though is a rallying cry such as “God wills it!” for the Crusades to be “explicitly” tied to religion (setting aside the real connections to politics and Muslim invasion), than I am sure I can come with many atheistic equivalents.

Hmm, just Googling quickly… here it is on the Wikipedia entry for Pope Urban II:

When Pope Urban had said these …] things in his urbane discourse, he so influenced to one purpose the desires of all who were present, that they cried out ‘It is the will of God! It is the will of God!’. When the venerable Roman pontiff heard that, [he] said: Most beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel, ‘Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.’ Unless the Lord God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not have uttered the same cry. For, although the cry issued from numerous mouths, yet the origin of the cry was one. Therefore I say to you that God, who implanted this in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let this then be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God![2]

From the Medieval Sourcebook at Fordham University:

"Most beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel, `Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’; for unless God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not have uttered the same cry; since, although the cry issued from numerous mouths, yet the origin of the cry as one. Therefore I say to you that God, who implanted is in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let that then be your war cry in combats, because it is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: ‘It is the will of God! It is the will of God!’ [Deus vult! Deus Vult!]

From the Book ‘Holy Warriors: A Modern History of the Crusades’ by Johathan Phillips (link to excerpt):

When Pope Urban had said these things…everyone shouted in unison: ‘Deus vult! Deus vult!,’ ‘God wills it! God wills it!’ "

From Dictionary.com:

De·us vult    [de-oos voolt] Show IPA
–noun Latin .
God wills (it): cry of the Crusaders.

Etc. Lots more references where those came from.

-TS

OnEdit: lots of interesting links in this search at Google Scholar, too.

 

[Windfish]

I read those sources, and read the same thing you did… it was a rallying cry. I was just wondering if Urban II actually said it, is all.

 

[Touchstone]

I read those sources, and read the same thing you did… it was a rallying cry. I was just wondering if Urban II actually said it, is all.

OK, gotcha – well, it depends on the value you assign the testimony of Robert the Monk, that.

-TS

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, I don’t know how to link the following. I received it in an e-mail.

Larry King to host Robert Spitzer and Stephen Hawking

Leading authority on metaphysics to respond to Hawking’s creation theory on CNN Friday night IRVINE, Calif., Sept. 9 – It’s on! The Larry King stage is set for what may shape up to be one of the most provocative discussions on the need for a Creator in physics. Stephen Hawking’s latest controversial work The Grand Design – “no God required” – has drawn vigorous retort from the religious community. One prominent philosopher and metaphysical expert, Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D., made a strong rebuttal to Hawking’s claim.** On Friday, September 10, King will host both Hawking and Spitzer as they defend their opposing viewpoints. **

Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D., President of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith, immediate past president of Gonzaga University and author of the recently published New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy quickly responded to Hawking with a reply entitled “The Curious Metaphysics of Dr. Stephen Hawking.” An expert in metaphysics and the ontology of physics, Spitzer has published extensively on the relationship of these two disciplines and the philosophy of God. Spitzer is currently producing a documentary on God and Modern Physics which is scheduled for completion in November. It features eight esteemed physicists who present an astrophysical response to atheism. An accomplished academic in his own right, Spitzer holds four advanced degrees: Ph.D. Philosophy, CUA, Th.M.; Weston School, Cambridge; M.Div. Gregorian University, Rome; M.A., Philosophy St. Louis University.

Hawking is a theoretical physicist who gained widespread attention from his book A Brief History of Time, along with several subsequent works, including his latest and hotly debated The Grand Design. In the recent book, Hawking argues against the need for a creator or God. Hawking’s assertion has sparked widespread dismay and represents a disconnect from his earlier works which were open to the possibility of a creator. In 2005, Hawking published *God Created *the Integers: The Mathematical Breakthroughs that Changed History. Hawking recently retired from his post as a professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, a position he held for 30 years.

Be sure to watch the grand discussion on Grand Design, scheduled to air on CNN’s Larry King Show, Friday at 9pm EDT. Updates will be announced as they are made available. To learn more, visit magisreasonfaith.org.

Try these links:
magisreasonfaith.org/blog/?p=39

magisreasonfaith.org/index.htm

www.magisreasonfaith.org