Hawking theory about something coming from nothing

[Sair]

Conclusion: from this point on, you can either choose to give up rational discourse and say that the universe came out of nothing. Or you can admit that the only rational conclusion is the fact that physical reality is created by something non-physical.

Why did the universe need to ‘come out of’ anything? The big bang only theorises the beginning of the universe as we know it - we don’t know what existed before the expansion posited by this theory.

For that matter, why is the philosopher’s ‘nothing’ a more rational supposition than the physicist’s ‘nothing’? If you believe a god can exist eternally without a beginning, why not a much simpler entity, like a quantum vacuum?

 

[Reivax]

?

Go on…

I don’t see what’s wrong with those statements. God is illogical. Belief in God requires faith, it does not rely on evidence or logic. Do you disagree?

 

[Al_Moritz]

The cosmological argument for God has never really been much of an argument. To say everything must have a cause is a fair statement. But to say that God was the first cause is paradoxical to this reasoning in the first place. Because it would follow that God must require a cause. Most people answer this by the ‘uncaused cause’ explanation, which is simply the fallacy of special pleading.

That would be special pleading indeed. As Edward Feser points out, no serious philosopher who has ever proposed or defended the cosmological argument has ever formulated the argument as “everything must have a cause” (Read Feser if you want to know how the argument really goes). Certainly, Dawkins for example presents the argument in The God Delusion in such a way, but who else than philosophically uninformed atheists would believe that this kindergarden version of the argument represents the real deal?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Go on…

I don’t see what’s wrong with those statements. God is illogical. Belief in God requires faith, it does not rely on evidence or logic. Do you disagree?

Belief in God is rationally defensible.

But that besides the point. My problem with what you said is the following. According to you, hope is illogical, but at the same time you claim that it is possible that out of nothing comes nothing. I mean, if you are going to believe in that kind of irrational magic which in principle cannot be made evident by science, then why have such a hard time believing in God?

 

[Reivax]

Thanks Al Moritz for the reply,

That would be special pleading indeed. As Edward Feser points out, no serious philosopher who has ever proposed or defended the cosmological argument has ever formulated the argument as “everything must have a cause” (Read Feser if you want to know how the argument really goes). Certainly, Dawkins for example presents the argument in The God Delusion in such a way, but who else than philosophically uninformed atheists would believe that this kindergarden version of the argument represents the real deal?

That is a fair criticism, however, it is important to note that there are two main forms of the cosmological argument. The argument from contingency and the Kalam cosmological argument. It is indeed my fault for not specifying which cosmological argument I was attacking, which was the Kalam cosmological argument:

The Kalām cosmological argument:

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Therefore:

The universe has a cause of its existence.
If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

Therefore:

God exists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

My own take on the contingency argument:

My problem is with contingency. Advocates of the contingency argument suggest that if the ‘parts’ of the universe are contigent, it must follow that the universe itself is contingent. Which is simply the fallacy of composition. E.g. “Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness.”

If you’re up for some reading on cosmological arguments, both arguments for and against, this article from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is really in depth:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#2

 

[Al_Moritz]

That is a fair criticism, however, it is important to note that there are two main forms of the cosmological argument. The argument from contingency and the Kalam cosmological argument. It is indeed my fault for not specifying which cosmological argument I was attacking, which was the Kalam cosmological argument:

Yes, but “everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause” is still not the same as “everything that exists must have a cause”.

Just sayin’ – not that I am a big fan of the Kalam argument myself.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If you’re up for some reading on cosmological arguments, both arguments for and against, this article from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is really in depth:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#2

I know that link. However, it only scratches the surface. In order to fully understand the classsical cosmological argumnents of Aristotle and Aquinas it is necessary to understand their metaphysical concepts of act and potency, substance and accident (both philosophers) and, preferably also “esse” and “actus essendi” (Aquinas). I suggest to read Feser’s Aquinas, available dirtcheap at Amazon.

 

[Reivax]

I know that link. However, it only scratches the surface. In order to fully understand the classsical cosmological argumnents of Aristotle and Aquinas it is necessary to understand their metaphysical concepts of act and potency, substance and accident (both philosophers) and, preferably also “esse” and “actus essendi” (Aquinas). I suggest to read Feser’s Aquinas, available dirtcheap at Amazon.

My bad.

Thanks, I’ll add it to my list. My list is very long, so it might take me a while to get there, but it’s on the list, so I will get there.

 

[Al_Moritz]

My bad.

Thanks, I’ll add it to my list. My list is very long, so it might take me a while to get there, but it’s on the list, so I will get there.

Excellent. I applaud you for your willingness to actually study the issues, which is rare. I did so too, which led me from being an ID proponent to being a die-hard evolutionist and to the conviction that, given the progress in recent research, an origin of life by natural causes *) is highly probable, see my article for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

*) which is not the same as “godless” causes

 

[Abba]

but we eventually get to an example of a cup of coffee. HE says well we know its made of milk and coffee and some other stuff, and that comes from places and such. Then the show goes down into the subatomic level and he says that at this level we can see where something is created from nothing. Apparently protons can create themselves out of nothing but only in the short term. He says then now that we know something can come from nothing, he never explains why it happens just just explains that it happens, it must be possible for the universe to come from nothing because at one time it was smaller then protons.

Now my question does this theory hold much water, does he actually have a good theory for the how the universe can come from nothing?

if he does then the first 3 of Aquinas’s proofs loose lots of credibility. Actually I would find it very difficult to find a place for God in this universe if a universe can create it self from nothing.

is there anyone here who can actually explain how protons can create themselves out of nothing or where someone may come up with that idea. Its far beyond my basic understanding of the science.

Lets say this is true where is God’s place for in this.

thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

Well, I am not a scientist, but, Hawking is barking up my tree.

I am not very eloquent either but I would firstly like to note that Hawking is stepping out of science and into philosophy which he claims is dead. He claims to speak for modern science; who made him the God of science? He cannot speak for modern science. He can speak for himself and present his own scientific theories and scientific results but he cannot pretend to be the voice of modern science. And, if and when those theories of his go into metaphysics he needs to encounter philosophers face to face, not be making proclamations with false authority from some chair of science that he is under the illusion gives him the power to override philosophy and state his claims as given - just because he is under the illusion that he can speak for science. Yet, philosophy according to Hawking, the area that he is going into - is dead.

Mr. Hawking is making so many logical errors(e.g. passing his speculations as hard science) that I think people are just being courteous in responding to his claims. But, also, people are responding because he is addressing the public and using his fame and self claimed glory to present his own ideas and pretending that they really have scientific value.

I saw the little clip you linked to about the protons appearing and reappearing. Well, my take is that there are a lot of things that happen with matter that we cannot explained - yet. But, we cannot take these things and theorize to back up some baby theory of ours. Take the protons appearing and note what they said - re-appearing. So, they are re-appearing not being created spontaneously - just disappearing from sight and re-appearing. Maybe this has something to do with a twin effect like with photons. I don’t know, or maybe it is because it is behaving as a wave and not as a particle? I am not a scientist but, how about that law of thermodynamics that energy cannot be created or destroyed? Is Hawking replacing that one with this little baby theory of his? Well, he will have to prove it, I guess, right? I am going to check in a physics for the lay person I am reading now written by a Vatican astronomer - the book is in my car though, I’ll check later.

It also seems to me that if something is appearing and disappearing like that there seems to be already a process in place and so that it would not be appearing and disappearing from nothing. But, like a regeneration.

I like his comment back in the days about if we went through a black hole we would come out like spaghetti on the other side. Now, it seems that whole theory of his with the black holes is unproven and has cost CERN a looooooooot of money. To be honest, I really do not know what Hawking has accomplished as a scientist. He wrote a couple of physics books for the public and became famous and he holds the chair of Newton at Cambridge but what else? He must have done something else, does any one know? Note his is not a Noble Prize winner - you have to have something to get it.

Allow me a little psychoanalysis. It seems that Mr. Hawking has enjoyed the fame his little books for the public has brought him. Fair enough. But, fame can become addictive and I wonder how much of this attention getting tactic of his has to do with exactly wanting the attention and the ‘glory’ and of course the money. I remember reading sometime ago, I believe it was her son who said this, that Jaquelyn Kennedy Onassis felt really bad from many years because she felt rejected by the American public. Fame can become a problem for some. I think Hawking got a taste of it and loves it.

I have enjoyed watching the videos of John C. Lennox, here are two where he rebuttals Hawkings. I like the way he is so nonchalant about it all. He just seems to me to be a nice.:

youtube.com/watch?v=2Eajt5e7MUM&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=P1r9qCtFBGo&feature=related

 

[danserr]

Thanks Al Moritz for the reply,

That is a fair criticism, however, it is important to note that there are two main forms of the cosmological argument. The argument from contingency and the Kalam cosmological argument. It is indeed my fault for not specifying which cosmological argument I was attacking, which was the Kalam cosmological argument:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#2

I note that even this version of the Kalam Cosmological argument does not leave one open to the question, “what caused God?” The KCA does not assert, “everything that exists has a cause,” but “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” It then goes on to argue that the universe began to exist, hence one can logically accept that the universe must have a cause, but is in no way logically committed to the absurd proposition that God has a cause.

Edit: ah, excuse me, I see Al M. has already observed this. I actually do kind of like the KCA myself though.

My problem is with contingency. Advocates of the contingency argument suggest that if the ‘parts’ of the universe are contigent, it must follow that the universe itself is contingent. Which is simply the fallacy of composition. E.g. “Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness.”

As Fesar points out here, not all inferences from the particular to the general commit the fallacy of composition. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/hume-cosmological-arguments-and-fallacy.html

For example, to say:

• Every lego in the lego structure is small, therefore the lego structure is small, is indeed the composition fallacy, but to say,
• Every lego is red, therefore the lego structure is red, is not.

The second does not commit the composition fallacy because of what we know about the nature of color; putting 2 red things together does not make green. On the other hand, putting 2 smaller things together does increase the size. This comes from the nature of size.

The cosmological argument seems more like the example from color. How should putting 2 contingent things together make one necessary being? This is wholly implausible. Read Fesar’s link for the whole explanation.

 

[Reivax]

Excellent. I applaud you for your willingness to actually study the issues, which is rare. I did so too, which led me from being an ID proponent to being a die-hard evolutionist and to the conviction that, given the progress in recent research, an origin of life by natural causes *) is highly probable, see my article for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

*) which is not the same as “godless” causes

I just read your article, impressive stuff from what I could tell and well researched. I have to admit that I didn’t understand much of it, due to my lack of biological knowledge. I only have a year 12 biology education, and in addition to that just what I’ve independently researched in my own time. But I think I got the general idea about most concepts and the conclusion of the article.

That’s interesting that you used to be an ID proponent, when did you change your mind? Intelligent Design and die-hard evolution are polar opposites.

Also I could not help but notice that the article was posted in Oct 2006, and edited in July 2010. Since then has there been much development?

 

[levinas12]

Hawking doesn’t understand what creation ex nihilo means, as JDaniel has pointed out.

The doctrine that God created the universe ‘ex nihilo’ is itself a negation of the claim that God created the universe ‘out of’ nothing. There is no ‘out of’. To say that there was ‘nothing except God’ is contradictory, because it takes God to be a ‘thing’ or kind or category of which there was none other. But God is none of these things. The doctrine of creation ‘ex nihilo’ acknowledges the astonishing fact that the world exists, and that therefore it was created by something which, necessarily, is outside the world and outside (at least our univocal) grammar about the world.

The OP says that he finds it difficult to find a place for God in the universe, etc. A good theist is well ahead of you, because he finds it impossible that there should be any place for God in the universe.

I don’t mean to be cryptic; what I’m trying to point out is that you are falling into what is known as onto-theology, and in doing that you wind up worshiping idols, or denying idols.

You’ve been reading some Heidegger (maybe).

I mentioned similar points on another thread.

Have you,by chance, read Sokolowski’s book, God of Faith and Reason? Soko develops the theme of the Christian distinction based on Anselm, that God without the world is just as “great” as God with the world. This distinction establishes the difference between Aristotle (eternally necessary world) and Christian theology (totally unnecessary world requiring a Creator who is “absolutely outside”). Bottom line: the world was not created out of some divine need, but arose from a generous love.

Have you thought about posting a thread on the dangers of onto-theology?

 

[JDaniel]

Whew! Great reply!

This argument takes us down a road we’ve traveled before. The study of physics is not limited to the study of matter, although that is how it began. After awhile physicists undertook the study of light and electricity, and discovered that these things were not matter, although they interacted with matter.

As a matter of fact, I do believe you mentioned something about this in one of our earlier discussions. Yet, I must ask some questions in light of Wikipedia’s article on electricity:

In general usage, the word “electricity” adequately refers to a number of physical effects. In a scientific context, however, the term is vague, and these related, but distinct, concepts are better identified by more precise terms:

Electric charge: a property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interactions. Electrically charged matter is influenced by, and produces, electromagnetic fields.
Electric current: a movement or flow of electrically charged particles, typically measured in amperes.
Electric field: an influence produced by an electric charge on other charges in its vicinity.
Electric potential: the capacity of an electric field to do work on an electric charge, typically measured in volts.
Electromagnetism: a fundamental interaction between the magnetic field and the presence and motion of an electric charge.

Do you foresee my questions?

“Physical” now means, Matter, and that which interacts with matter, and which interacts with other non-material aspects of the physical universe which interact with matter and one another.

Question: is it the “interaction of particles” that are non-material aspects of the physical universe?

By the most simple, clear, and obvious reasoning, if God created matter, and if God can control the behavior of matter and any other component of the universe, then God is, by definition, a physical entity!

Question: if it turned out that God is Spiritual, not physical, not material, yet created the universe, because the material universe had to have a beginning that was/is necessarily outside of it, would one still insist the God must be physico-material?

I realize that you are determined to maintain the confused definition of God set forth millennia ago by men who had no clue about physics, and so long as you persist in adhering to such dogmas, we cannot find agreement on these issues.

Question: do you not think your adherence to the dogmas of science and physics (usually relied upon by atheist scientists) is somehow not dogma?

Nonetheless, you might take a moment to ask yourself this:

What if Christ had appeared in the late nineteenth century, and a new Church built upon his teachings began to form in the mid-20th century? Imagine that it became successful, and plans to schedule a conference in 2012 of its most educated followers, for the sole purpose of filling in the metaphysical blanks, answering questions like:
​

What is the nature of God?

Question: Would god lie to His creatures?

What are the properties of God, and how does He fit into the physical universe we understand?

Question: (Relative to the aforementioned question) God has imparted to hundreds if not thousands of our predecessors His properties (determinants), were they lies, or were all of those people so insipid that they could not have really known - until the advent of Physics?

Did God violate the energy conversation law by creating it?

Question: Is it impossible for omnipotence to accomplish that?

What was God’s purpose in creating the universe?

Question: How could anyone know that?

Why did God create mankind?

Question: How could anyone know this, as well?

Do you honestly believe that participants at this conference would come away with answers identical to those devised by Church fathers centuries ago?

“Honestly,” yes I do - despite the prevalence of contrariness.

You might also ask yourself why you agree with Hawking and Krauss, two determined atheists, and disagree with one of the few physics theorists promoting belief in creation?

Someone else mentioned that we want you to do what you are doing, but, we sincerely want you to get it right.

We will continue to disagree on this, because I insist upon simple definitions for simple things.

Now, greylorn, you also insist upon altering accepted definitions, from time to time, do you not?

While you have defined your version of the meaning of nothingness, I still prefer mine. Simplicity and clarity is important to me.

Simplicity sometimes results in overly simplistic results that are far off the mark.

I do not see that acceptance of the First Law of Thermodynamics and related principles is a “conundrum.” It certainly is not for me. Energy is a kind of raw substance which has always existed.

IOW, energy has existed for “infinite past time?”

God first used it to develop consciousness,

continued . . .​

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

May I ask, respectfully, whose consciousness?

then to use it as the “clay” from which He made the universe.

Question: Do you think that this just might be a postulation required of the presumption?

However, it would be a serious conundrum for someone who insists that a non-physical God made the universe from nothing,

The ultimate problem is: the universe is here. We can touch it and see it. But, we cannot touch and see God in the same ways. Now, logically, if God were physico-marterial and then created all that is (reality), did He create Himself simultaneously? Did He exist before He existed?

The stuff from which the universe is made, energy, has always existed. The other stuff from which God, and ourselves is made, always existed.

Question: Could this be another “postulation” required of the protected premises?

Yes, the book is finished. I’m now trying to get it printed. And I have been fortunate enough to obtain excellent editorial advice and new ideas from several CAF members.

If you don’t mind, I’ll keep asking you about it until it is out in print.

All things considered, this is a first-rate forum, with space for contrary thought. I’ve learned much from its members, yourself included. Thank you,

Thank you. I am sure we’re not finished.

jd

 

[Reivax]

As Fesar points out here, not all inferences from the particular to the general commit the fallacy of composition. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/hume-cosmological-arguments-and-fallacy.html

For example, to say:

• Every lego in the lego structure is small, therefore the lego structure is small, is indeed the composition fallacy, but to say,
• Every lego is red, therefore the lego structure is red, is not.

The second does not commit the composition fallacy because of what we know about the nature of color; putting 2 red things together does not make green. On the other hand, putting 2 smaller things together does increase the size. This comes from the nature of size.

The cosmological argument seems more like the example from color. How should putting 2 contingent things together make one necessary being? This is wholly implausible. Read Fesar’s link for the whole explanation.

Thanks, that was an interesting article. I’ll have to re-read an analyze it again before I can really come to a conclusion though, the whole contingency thing gives me a headache. But in the mean time I have some other questions the first of which ties in with Fesar’s entire approach:

I’ve brought this up before on the forum. Don’t you think it is a disservice for a theist to use logic and science to argue the existence of God? Consider that belief in God is by definition, faith-based. When I was a Catholic, it was my understanding that God was irrational and that faith is unreasonable and unreliable, it is just something you can choose to have. This is supported by William of Ockham when he explained

“only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

I’ve seen attempts to use Occam’s razor to support the existence of the Christian God, but this is simply a misuse of the concept. They will often suggest that God is a simpler explanation because it makes the least assumptions. While the truth of the matter is that God’s existence would complicate things a lot more for reasons such as inconsistent revelation, the problem of evil, divine intervention and other logical inconsistencies. There simply does not need to be a God.

Another question. There are so many different religions and belief systems that explicitly contradict one another, they simply cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong. As there is no physical way to scientifically examine or test which belief system is correct, how can one determine which is right? Revelation and faith are a common answers to this, but this goes straight back to the fact that faith is unreliable and unreasonable, and that anecdotal experiences are equally unreliable. Note that previous deistic beliefs were held with the same faith-based conviction that the God’s of monotheistic religions are. How do you discredit Zeus, Isis or Krishna? All this is simply tied up as the argument from inconsistent revelations.

Last question, why doesn’t God heal amputees?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

 

[Abba]

Oh, yeah, uh huh!..:extrahappy::dancing:

Here I am trying to participate on this thread and making my little comments and no one even acknowledges me. But, I continue to search for a direct answer for the PO and I ran into this article where the writer uses the exact same argument I used. :clapping: When I thought of it, I had to go and ask my fifteen year old what the name of that law that stuff cannot be destroyed or created and he told me thermodynamics. Here is someone using it against Hawking. I feel good…tirurirurudo, I knew that I would now…

“For one thing, this idea raises the questions: “Do the protons appear from some previous location then return to it”; or, “Do they spontaneously create themselves from nothing and then vanish back into nothing.” It is the premise of the second question, that protons spontaneously create themselves from nothing; then return to nothing, which violates the physical law of conservation of matter and energy. This law centers on the fact that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, the idea that these protons appear from a preexisting place in time then move back to it fits the law of conservation of energy, whereas, the idea that they are spontaneously created then destroyed contradicts that law! So, from this aspect of the first law of thermodynamics, the Universe could NOT “just ‘pop’ into existence” from nowhere!”
drallendunckley.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/critique-of-hawking%E2%80%99s-is-there-a-creator/ He is not a scientist but it is a legitimate objection.

The objection needs to me addressed by Hawking. How can he present the idea that matter can be destroyed and created (after the BB) without accounting for the law of thermodynamics? It’s a bit like saying three plus one equals five because that’s what it appears to me at the moment and so let it be written. Excuse-moi?

 

[Abba]

Ooooh, my reading continues… Hawking does respond to the objection of the violation of the laws of thermodynamics with his Multiverse theory… But, yeah, right.I haven’t read the book The Grand Design and it may not make it on my list for quite sometime as I am reading really interesting stuff now and will not have time for a while to pick that up.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I just read your article, impressive stuff from what I could tell and well researched. I have to admit that I didn’t understand much of it, due to my lack of biological knowledge. I only have a year 12 biology education, and in addition to that just what I’ve independently researched in my own time. But I think I got the general idea about most concepts and the conclusion of the article.

That’s interesting that you used to be an ID proponent, when did you change your mind? Intelligent Design and die-hard evolution are polar opposites.

In 2006 I became interested in the issues, and I decided to follow the evidence. Regarding evolution, I changed my mind upon reading Ken Miller’s article:

millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html

and his book Finding Darwin’s God, as well as a scientific article that is referenced there and refutes irreducible complexity of biochemical pathways. Further important reading was Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable (when he stays with biology he is excellent) and diverse articles at Talkorigins.org.

Regarding the origin of life, it was two and a half months of study of the primary scientific literature for a few hours per day.

Also I could not help but notice that the article was posted in Oct 2006, and edited in July 2010. Since then has there been much development?

A LOT (look at all the references from 2007, 2008 and 2009 in the article). Since the beginning of the millennium, the pace of promising research has picked up tremendously. I plan to update the article every three or four years.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’ve brought this up before on the forum. Don’t you think it is a disservice for a theist to use logic and science to argue the existence of God? Consider that belief in God is by definition, faith-based. When I was a Catholic, it was my understanding that God was irrational and that faith is unreasonable and unreliable, it is just something you can choose to have. This is supported by William of Ockham when he explained

"“only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.”

Huh??

Oh man! If I had that attitude I would have long been an atheist by now! No, the Catholic Church has always maintained that belief is rational and must be grounded in a rational basis. It explicitly condemns fideism, faith solely for the sake of faith. I was always interested in rational arguments for the existence of God, and I would stop believing the very moment I thought there weren’t any, and that metaphysical naturalism was the more rational position.

No, I can’t “choose to have” faith if there are no friggin’ reasons for it!