God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[WmJackP]

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

God bless,
jd

Well, yes. In a hyper-technical sense you are quite correct. No ears with which to hear equals no sound, I guess. Only I would be reasonable certain that there are vibrations in the air caused by the crash of the tree makes. I do not subscribe (at least on the macro-scopic level) to a theory that everything disappears the instant an observer leaves the field of observation. The quantum level? I’m not so sure of. I’m still trying to figure out the status of Schroeder’s cat.

 

[WmJackP]

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

Hey, that will be interesting. I like Hawking and really smart Jebbies. That will be a show worth watching.

 

[WmJackP]

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

This isn’t Humpry Bogart, is it? I thought the smirking icons looked familiar.

 

[ContegoFides]

Here’s the text of the Spitzer response.

Frankly, it’s compelling. Not necessarily because it proves God’s existence, but rather because it proves that Hawkings metaphysical conclusions are, in a word, wrong.

The curious metaphysics of Dr. Stephen Hawking
By Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D.

Why would a preeminent physicist make the claim that “the universe can come from nothing?” This is precisely what Dr. Stephen Hawking has done in his new book, “The Grand Design,” when he notes, “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.”

This statement betrays Hawking’s fundamental assumption about the universe, namely that it came from nothing. But why would a preeminent physicist assume that the universe came from nothing? Presumably, because he believes that there are reasons for thinking that the universe had a beginning.

Let me put it in reverse: If one believes that there is significant evidence for a beginning of the universe then one is confronted with the question, “what was the universe before the beginning?” If the beginning is truly a point at which the universe came into existence then one is confronted by the fact that prior to the beginning, the whole physical universe was nothing.

What’s my point? If Dr. Hawking does not believe that there is any reason to think that the universe had a beginning (from physics or philosophy), then why does he even bother to speculate about how the universe could spontaneously create itself from nothing? I am left to assume that Dr. Hawking does believe there are reasons for thinking the universe had a beginning – otherwise his contention about “the universe coming from nothing” makes no sense.

It so happens that there is a considerable amount of evidence for a beginning of the universe from both physics and philosophy. In my new book “New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy” (Eerdmans, 2010), I speak about compelling evidence for the beginning of a universe from space-time geometry (the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem 2003, and the Borde-Vilenkin Proof –1993) and from the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). I also speak about the evidence of a beginning from the mathematical argument (implicit in the work of David Hilbert) against actual infinities constituting aggregative wholes. I am not certain whether Dr. Hawking has used these or other kinds of evidence to implicitly adduce a beginning of the universe, but it is difficult for me to believe that he has come to the threshold of metaphysics without any sense of one.

If we grant this, then the next step would be to examine the value of his metaphysical argument. Bear in mind here that Dr. Hawking has moved from the domain of physics to metaphysics (literally “beyond physics”) when he makes statements about “nothing” and “creation” and “the universe creating itself.” These metaphysical topics have been taken up since the time of Parmenides and Plato, and quite frankly, answered by them in a more consistent and rigorous way than Dr. Hawking. Why would I say this? Because these thinkers use the term “nothing” to mean “nothing” (i.e. “that which there is no such thing as”). Nothing should not be thought to be a vacuum or a void (which is dimensional and orientable – where you can have more or less space); and it is certainly not a physical law. Inasmuch as the laws of physics have real physical effects, they must be considered to be something physical.

Let’s take the law mentioned by Dr. Hawking above – the law of gravity. It has a specific constant associated with it and specific characteristics, and it has specific effects on mass-energy and even on space-time itself. This is a very curious definition of “nothing.” Therefore, Dr. Hawking’s phrase should be restated to say something like, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe has unfolded and developed.” But what must be avoided are the rest of the statements – “can and will create itself from nothing” and “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing,” etc. Now, if we rephrase Dr. Hawking’s statement in the above fashion, then he has clearly not explained why there is something rather than nothing. He has only explained that something comes from something (i.e. the universe from physical laws such as the law of gravity).

But let’s go back to Dr. Hawking’s underlying assumption, namely that there are reasons to think that something came from nothing – namely, reasons for a beginning. How have philosophers and metaphysicians traditionally responded to this question? With what many term the first principle of metaphysics, “From nothing only nothing comes.” If you take nothing literally – that is if one acknowledges that there is no such thing as nothing, then one cannot attribute anything to nothing. One cannot attribute characteristics, actions, powers and so forth to nothing. In this absence of everything, one can only conclude that “only nothing can come from nothing.” What does this mean?

 

[ContegoFides]

Conclusion to same.

It means that if the physical universe had a beginning (a point at which it came into existence” then prior to that point it was nothing. And if it was nothing then it could not have created itself (because only nothing can come from nothing). So what does that imply? The very reality that Dr. Hawking wants to avoid, namely, a transcendent power which can cause the universe to come into existence.

Why should we consider this power to be transcendent (that is – transcending the universe as a whole)? Because if the universe was nothing prior to its beginning, then the reality which causes it to exist must be completely beyond it (independent of it). This transcendent reality which causes the universe as a whole to exist is frequently termed “creator” or “God.” In my view, Dr. Hawking has not yet shown the non-necessity of this reality. Indeed, he implies it by assuming the existence of a beginning in his assertion about the universe coming from nothing.

 

[WmJackP]

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.

Well isn’t your argument, simply stated, that a greater cannot come from a lesser? I don’t think that is true. It is quite common in nature that complexity arises from the simple. Out of the nebula, arise the stars and constellations, for example.

A better argument for a God, I think is that there seems to be an organizing principle in the universe. Why that should be and how that can be is a mystry, but, where I have a difficulty with calling this “organizing principle” a God, is the manner believers use the term—believers seem to want to personalize this incredibly mysterious force of nature, indeed, force of reality, and, to me this seems terribly anthropomorphic. Then when religions get involved, then come all sorts of rituals , incantations, and,staple prayers intended to placate or propiate their gods. At that point I see too much similarity with magic, witchcraft and superstition.

I believe in “God” but in a much different way than you. my view is that there is this incredibly overwhelming reality—an underlying rationality in the universe and organizing principle---- the secrets to which are the discoverable only through science—but this “Reality” isn’t a person and it isn’t interested in whether I go to Mass on Sunday or how I live my life. It is much much much more majestic than that. I can worship it I guess, but, it won’t be influenced by that. I can defy it, but, my defiance has no affect. Somedsay we may be so advanced that humans might even discern a “purpose” to all of this—but, I rather doubt it will ever happen in our lifetimes.

 

[Windfish]

Hey, that will be interesting. I like Hawking and really smart Jebbies. That will be a show worth watching.

Apparently, Chopra will be on. It’s like with a clutz friend you may have. He thinks he’s helping, but he’s NOT.

 

[ContegoFides]

God did not create the universe, says Hawking

This tile reminds me of something wonderful I saw scribbled on the bathroom wall of the men’s room while I was in college:

“God is Dead!”
-Nietzsche

“Nietzsche is dead!”
-God

Apparently hardly original, but amusing nonetheless. zazzle.com/black_god_nietzsche_dead_tshirt-235420416585452913

 

[Windfish]

Hey, ContegoFides!

 

[ContegoFides]

Hey, ContegoFides!

What’s up?

 

[grannymh]

Well isn’t your argument, simply stated, that a greater cannot come from a lesser? I don’t think that is true. It is quite common in nature that complexity arises from the simple. Out of the nebula, arise the stars and constellations, for example.

A better argument for a God, I think is that there seems to be an organizing principle in the universe. Why that should be and how that can be is a mystry, but, where I have a difficulty with calling this “organizing principle” a God, is the manner believers use the term—believers seem to want to personalize this incredibly mysterious force of nature, indeed, force of reality, and, to me this seems terribly anthropomorphic. Then when religions get involved, then come all sorts of rituals , incantations, and,staple prayers intended to placate or propiate their gods. At that point I see too much similarity with magic, witchcraft and superstition.

I believe in “God” but in a much different way than you. my view is that there is this incredibly overwhelming reality—an underlying rationality in the universe and organizing principle---- the secrets to which are the discoverable only through science—but this “Reality” isn’t a person and it isn’t interested in whether I go to Mass on Sunday or how I live my life. It is much much much more majestic than that. I can worship it I guess, but, it won’t be influenced by that. I can defy it, but, my defiance has no affect. Somedsay we may be so advanced that humans might even discern a “purpose” to all of this—but, I rather doubt it will ever happen in our lifetimes.

I see where you are coming from and kind of agree. However, I am beginning to realize that the best proof for God resides in human nature which can be observed as rational/corporeal. Defending human nature has to come first which would be off topic for this thread.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well isn’t your argument, simply stated, that a greater cannot come from a lesser? I don’t think that is true. It is quite common in nature that complexity arises from the simple. Out of the nebula, arise the stars and constellations, for example.

That’s like saying I saw a rabbit come from nowhere, therefore the rabbit came out of nothing. You cannot argue from an observation that more can come from that which is by definition existentially less. Its a contradiction. Its merely apparent that things come from less, but that which is apparent cannot in-itself be proof that something in reality supersedes logic. You cannot possibly know that physical things only come from physical things and are generated only according to the power of physical things; thus you are making a baseless inference. Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus your argument is logically and epistemologically invalid, since your argument basically amounts to saying that things are coming out of nothing all the time.

 

[WmJackP]

I see where you are coming from and kind of agree. However, I am beginning to realize that the best proof for God resides in human nature which can be observed as rational/corporeal. Defending human nature has to come first which would be off topic for this thread.

I understand absolutely that “human nature” presents an utterly interesting aspect to what I said. What it is to be human? Certainly to be human is to be capable of great art, great triumphs, great works. Remember Shakespeare “what a piece of work is man… In form and movement how like an angel. In reasoning and apprehension, how like a god…” I think it went something like that.

I’m not sure it is proof of personal god, however. Certainly, it is evidence of the power and incredible force of whatever this underlying principle of reality is, .

 

[grannymh]

I understand absolutely that “human nature” presents an utterly interesting aspect to what I said. What it is to be human? Certainly to be human is to be capable of great art, great triumphs, great works. Remember Shakespeare “what a piece of work is man… In form and movement how like an angel. In reasoning and apprehension, how like a god…” I think it went something like that.

I’m not sure it is proof of personal god, however. Certainly, it is evidence of the power and incredible force of whatever this underlying principle of reality is, .

Don’t breathe a word, but I am not sure how to prove the leap to a belief in a supernatural spiritual being. Back in high school, when I stamped my foot, looked up, and said “God, I want to know right now if You exist”, I ended up using a proof of His existence that was illogical, unreasonable, and full of nonsense. It worked for me and it has not failed in all these years. So, now you can understand why I smile when others discuss proofs.

On the other hand, I am very interested in how others make that leap of faith to God.
I found this link on Father Spitzer’s website. I have not completely read it. However, the more I research Father Spitzer, the more I like him magisreasonfaith.org/blog/?p=40

Blessings,
granny

Shakespeare and metaphysical poets can be great teachers.

 

[WmJackP]

That’s like saying I saw a rabbit come from nowhere, therefore the rabbit came out of nothing. You cannot argue from an observation that more can come from that which is by definition existentially less. Its a contradiction. Its merely apparent that things come from less, but that which is apparent cannot in-itself be proof that something in reality supersedes logic. You cannot possibly know that physical things only come from physical things and are generated only according to the power of physical things; thus you are making a baseless inference. Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus your argument is logically and epistemologically invalid, since your argument basically amounts to saying that things are coming out of nothing all the time.

The rabbit that comes out of nowhere? That is precisely what science states occurs at the quantum level. Google “schroedinger’s cat” sometime, and, recall Shakespeare’s lines in Hamlet concerning what may be in Horatio’s petty philosophy. After you’ve done that and reflected on it, please tell me what you think. WJP

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The rabbit that comes out of nowhere? That is precisely what science states occurs at the quantum level. Google “schroedinger’s cat” sometime, and, recall Shakespeare’s lines in Hamlet concerning what may be in Horatio’s petty philosophy. After you’ve done that and reflected on it, please tell me what you think. WJP

Science does not state that this occurs on the quantum level. Your argument is purely semantic. When somebody says that a thing came from nothing in the context of the empirical sciences, they mean physical reality did not come from something physical, and given the methodological assumption of naturalism they say it came from nothing. This is not, however, an epistemological statement about the absolute nature of reality, since they cannot possibly know, given the context of physics and the epistemological limitations of the empirical method where physical reality came from. Thus the word nothing, when used by competent scientists, obviously has contextual limitations dictated by the method of its investigation. Ignorance of this fact has mislead you.

Therefore the idea that the universe literally came out of absolutely nothing is a purely philosophical idea which has nothing to do with science. Schroedinger’s cat does not prove that physical reality came out of absolutely nothing; that is not the purpose, cause or the effect of that idea. Being in two states at once, what ever that means ontologically, is not the same as saying that absolutely nothing and something is qualitatively identical.

 

[ContegoFides]

Whether or not “absolutely nothing” is a purely philosophical idea doesn’t change the fact that everything must have a cause or an origin, including the laws themselves. To say otherwise is nonsense, as everything must have an origin. The first cause must be transcendant to physical laws, which leads us to inquiry of the Divine.

Naturally, one may state that one does not believe in God without physical proof, though logically, in view of the above, doing so is like putting blinders on a horse so that the horse does not believe that anything can be seen except what is in front of it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Whether or not “absolutely nothing” is a purely philosophical idea doesn’t change the fact that everything must have a cause or an origin, including the laws themselves.

And you know this because?

Its not that I don’t agree with your statement; it is certainly true that anything which begins to exist needs a cause. But the reasons you gave for this fact (nonsense), will not convince somebody who doesn’t see why it isn’t possible and perceives science as the absolute arbiter of truth and rationality.

1. First we have to show that science isn’t in fact teaching the idea that the universe came out of absolutely nothing. People fail to understand this because they forget or fail to recognise the context in which the empirical method operates, and also the fact that inductive inferences - in the context of science - are made in reference to the methodological assumption of naturalism.
2. Then you have to show the atheist that the idea of something coming from nothing is metaphysically unsound. This requires one to understand “being” in terms of its “act” as opposed to non-actuality.

We must realise from this moment forth that its not just God that is under attack here, but rather it is the very idea of “impossibility” that is being attacked. The distinction between real and unreal is being attacked. Its obvious why the atheist wants to attack it, and they use what science is apparently saying in order to justify their irrational position. That’s why it is extremely important for us to point at the epistemic and methodological limitations of science when it comes to knowing truth.

Merely saying that the atheist is talking nonsense will not vindicate reason or the existence of God, because as soon as one holds that there is no such thing as impossibility, the word nonsense becomes meaningless.and probability becomes a tautology since there is no such thing as absolutes. No such thing as truth for that matter.

This problem is made even worse when we have Catholics subscribing to the “nonsense” that undermines our faith.

 

[humble_catholic]

I think Doctor Craig expplains virtual particles very well here.

youtube.com/watch?v=Clr8uL3M7Ow

Here is another of his videos. It seems like this kind of theory was also used in the 1980’s to state that the universe itself was a virtual particle. This theory was shot down and abondoned rather quickly lol. It seems like Hawkings is desperate to make one last splash of attention here. He Certainly isnt appealing to common sense or logic.

youtube.com/watch?v=_xAP06ykvZM

What Mindovermatter said was correct, they are using the word nothing fallaciously, and it seems like atheists are more then happy to abondon logic and science to agree with it

 

[JDaniel]

And you know this because?

Its not that I don’t agree with your statement; it is certainly true that anything which begins to exist needs a cause. But the reasons you gave for this fact (nonsense), will not convince somebody who doesn’t see why it isn’t possible.

First we have to show that science isn’t in fact teaching the idea that the universe came out of absolutely nothing. People fail to understand this because they forget or fail to understand the context in which the empirical method operates, and that inferences are made in reference to the methodological assumption of naturalism.

Then you have to show the atheist that the idea of something coming from nothing is metaphysically unsound.

MoM:

Furthermore, something coming from nothing is physically unsound. That is the reason for the postulation of virtual particles. VP’s are no different than anything else that exists in the imagination of men.

We must realise from this moment forth that its not just God that is under attack here, but rather it is the very idea of “impossibility” that is being attacked.

Well, there’s always "Non-Sense! I am growing less and less impressed with scientists. And, I am an ex-science teacher. and and ex-scientist. I am going to stay attached to my medical science, and throw the rest under the proverbial bus!

God bless,
jd