Hawking theory about something coming from nothing

[John_Russell_Jr]

Not according to a modern conception of science. Theology is a science given a particular definition, assuming the truth of the revelation on which it is based.

… my dear friend ,

… still a science though , and like all sciences it is the pursuit of truth , all sciences search out and seek to understand truth , god = truth , the ultimate conclusion of all sciences if they cooperated would be that all is god or all is in god in all and many ways , so all sciences really study god , oft they just don’t know it , god = truth , and truth is not limited to pohilosophy or theology , these are just two branches of science …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

yes but philosophy and theology can describe what natural science cannot

for example philosophy and theology can explain God

science never can

… true dear friend , i agree , but empirical sciences do study god and strrive to learn about and understand god , but to really know , understand and appreciate what they study , observe and try to explain they need an all encompassing view of science incl philosophy and theology , all the sciences are supposed to work together in perfect harmony within their own fields cooperatiung in the pursuit of all truth and solving all problems , they are not meant to compete but to collaberate and cooperate in the pursuit of all truth as they strive to solve all problems , do you agree dear friend ??? …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why not just a physical state,

Depends what you mean by a physical state; i am sure there are many pseudo-conceptions and speculations that will allow you to ignore the obvious.

such as might give rise to particles and the interactions between particles, which might themselves set in motion a chain of cause-and-effect interactions that eventually give rise to all physical phenomena that we may observe, directly or indirectly?

It seems to me that you are trying to bypass the limitations of natural-causality.

1. You can’t get something from nothing. You can’t get change from nothing.
2. If an object does not already posses the quality of change, it will not change, unless something else makes it change, because out of nothing change cannot come.
3. In general, there are two types of causes; intelligent causes, and non-intelligent causes. When it comes to non-intelligent events, you can’t get change out of something which is not already changing or something which does not already proceed from a series of changing things. If a thing is not moving at all, then the law of efficient causality dictates that it will never change of its own accord since it does not posses within its nature the quality of change.
4. If the universe causes something to change, it is only because the universe as a whole already has the quality of change and is therefore mediating that change to other things, and not because it is the efficient cause of change.
5. This means that the universe, as a natural non-intelligent object, cannot by itself move from a state of timelessness to a state change, since that would be the same as getting something out of nothing.
6. When it comes to asking what the cause of change is, we cannot say its the universe, because the universe itself is subject to the rule change.
7. An intelligent-will is the only kind of cause that can be rationally conceived as being the efficient cause of its own change or the change of other beings, because the root of its motion can be attributed to its will. It would be fare to say that human intelligence is also subject to change like non-intelligent beings because we have physical parts. However; human Intelligence is different from other objects in the one vital respect that we can choose what we change into. Thus we can at least be described as the efficient causes of certain kinds of change, even though we are not the absolute cause of all change.
8. Thus efficient causality is present in the nature of intelligence in a way that it is not in non-intelligent things. Therefore some-kind of transcendent intelligence free of the limitations of space-time has more explanatory power for the existence of change in this instant than a non-intelligent-one, because the change of the universe can be attributed the the absolute will of a non-physical being.
9. Thus in eliminating all metaphysical possibility of a non-intelligent cause; all we are left with is an intelligent cause.
10. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable from this point onwards to say that the existence of a perfectly actual, intelligent, non-physical, timeless will, is the only sufficient cause that can simultaneously and instantaneously move something from a state of potentiality to something which is actually changing.
11. Despite any difficulty in understanding what that means, i can still say that given the impossibility of a non-intelligent cause we have to accept that an intelligent cause is a necessary conclusion. This i because in general these are the only two possibilities, and therefore the absolute exclusion of one justifies that absolute inclusion of the other.

Conclusion: While you are free to deny the conclusion, you cannot say that it isn’t the most reasonable conclusion; precisely because all physical possibilities are eliminated.

Understanding often tends to yield appreciation - yet theistic believers often seem wedded to the idea that their god is necessarily beyond our understanding. Is this just an effort to deflect the encroachment of scientific understanding?

It seems to me that there is a growing number of people who have a pseudo-understanding of the epistemological reach of science; and equally fail to appreciate the necessary limitations of their brain capacity. There will always be a mystery that science itself and by itself cannot penetrate.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

(Made a few spelling mistakes in the first post)

It seems to me that you are trying to bypass the limitations of natural-causality.

1. You can’t get something from nothing. You can’t get change from nothing.
2. If an object does not already posses the quality of change, it will not change, unless something else makes it change, because out of nothing change cannot come.
3. In general, there are two types of causes; intelligent causes, and non-intelligent causes. When it comes to non-intelligent events, you can’t get change out of something which is not already changing or something which does not already proceed from a series of changing things. If a thing is not moving at all, then the law of efficient causality dictates that it will never change of its own accord since it does not posses within its nature the quality of change.
4. If the universe causes something to change, it is only because the universe as a whole already has the quality of change and is therefore mediating that change to other things, and not because it is the efficient cause of change.
5. This means that the universe, as a natural non-intelligent object, cannot by itself move from a state of timelessness to a state change, since that would be the same as getting something out of nothing.
6. When it comes to asking what the cause of change is, we cannot say its the universe, because the universe itself is subject to the rule change.
7. An intelligent-will - on the other hand - is the only kind of cause that can be rationally conceived as being the efficient cause of its own change or the change of other beings, because the root of its motion can be attributed to its will. It would be fare to say that human intelligence is also subject to change like non-intelligent beings because we have physical parts. However; human Intelligence is different from other objects in the one vital respect that we can choose what we change into. Thus we can at least be described as the efficient causes of certain kinds of change, even though we are not the absolute cause of all change.
8. Thus efficient causality is present in the nature of intelligence in a way that it is not in non-intelligent things. Therefore some-kind of transcendent intelligence free of the limitations of space-time has more explanatory power for the existence of change in this instant than a non-intelligent-one, because the change of the universe can be attributed the absolute will of a non-physical being.
9. Thus in eliminating all metaphysical possibility of a non-intelligent cause; all we are left with is an intelligent cause.
10. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable from this point onwards to say that the existence of a perfectly actual, intelligent, non-physical, timeless will, is the only sufficient cause that can simultaneously and instantaneously move something from a state of potentiality to something which is actually changing.
11. Despite any difficulty in understanding what that means, i can still say that given the impossibility of a non-intelligent cause we have to accept that some kind of intelligent cause transcending space and time is a necessary conclusion. This is because, in general, these are the only two possibilities, and therefore the absolute exclusion of one justifies the absolute inclusion of the other. The favor falls on intelligence because of the efficiency of will

Conclusion: While you are free to deny the conclusion, you cannot say that it isn’t the most reasonable conclusion; precisely because all non-intelligent possibilities are eliminated.

It seems to me that there is a growing number of people who have a pseudo-understanding of the epistemological reach of science; and equally fail to appreciate the necessary limitations of their brain capacity. There will always be a mystery that science itself and by itself cannot penetrate.

 

[greylorn]

… quik note : philosophy and theology are also sciences and all sciences are supposed to work together to solve all the problems , not see each other as competition …

This statement is absolutely absurd.

You clearly have no idea what science is, and should not be writing in public as if you do.

 

[greylorn]

yes but philosophy and theology can describe what natural science cannot

for example philosophy and theology can explain God

science never can

If philosophy and theology can explain God, why have they utterly failed to do so by offering an explanation of God’s nature and purpose that does not result in contradictions with reality?

And as it turns out, God’s origin can be easily explained with a bit of thermodynamic tweaking. His purposes can be reasonably guessed at when the physical universe is taken to be a superior bible than the invented words of men.

You do not know enough physics to determine what it cannot do, so best to keep your ignorance under a bushel instead of on open display. .

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

This statement is absolutely absurd.

You clearly have no idea what science is, and should not be writing in public as if you do.

… my dear friend ,

… yoiu may be wrong and i right you know !!! , read on please –

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby “science” refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see “History and etymology” section below).[5]
Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the two words, “science” and “philosophy”, were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, “natural philosophy” (which is today called “natural science”) had begun to be considered separately from “philosophy” in general.[6][7] However, “science” continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.
In modern use, “science” is a term which more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, and not the knowledge itself. It is “often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use.”[8] This narrower sense of “science” developed as a part of science became a distinct enterprise of defining “laws of nature”, based on early examples such as Kepler’s laws, Galileo’s laws, and Newton’s laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as “natural science”. Over the course of the 19th century, the word “science” became increasingly associated with the disciplined study of the natural world including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of “science”, such as formal science and applied science.[9]

above from – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

continued –

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

continued from last post —

also –

sci·ence , from – dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

/ˈsaɪhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəns/ sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelledsahy-uhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns] sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show IPA
noun 1. abranchofknowledgeorstudydealingwithabodyoffactsortruthssystematicallyarrangedandshowingtheoperationofgenerallaws:themathematicalsciences.

1. systematicknowledgeofthephysicalormaterialworldgainedthroughobservationandexperimentation.
2. anyofthebranchesofnaturalorphysical science.
3. systematizedknowledgeingeneral.
4. knowledge,asoffactsorprinciples;knowledgegainedbysystematicstudy.

… it is true dear friend , perhaps google before you speak hey …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

If philosophy and theology can explain God, why have they utterly failed to do so by offering an explanation of God’s nature and purpose that does not result in contradictions with reality?

And as it turns out, God’s origin can be easily explained with a bit of thermodynamic tweaking. His purposes can be reasonably guessed at when the physical universe is taken to be a superior bible than the invented words of men.

You do not know enough physics to determine what it cannot do, so best to keep your ignorance under a bushel instead of on open display. .

… my dear friend ,

… tell me in simple plain english your problem of no explanation of gods nature and prpose that does not result in contradictions with reality , and i’ll solve them if you want , try me , i don’t possess infinite knowledge but my understanding and appreciation of my knowledge are quite good and what problems i understand i can solve …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[greylorn]

… my dear friend ,

… yoiu may be wrong and i right you know !!! , read on please –

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby “science” refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see “History and etymology” section below).[5]
Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the two words, “science” and “philosophy”, were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, “natural philosophy” (which is today called “natural science”) had begun to be considered separately from “philosophy” in general.[6][7] However, “science” continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.
In modern use, “science” is a term which more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, and not the knowledge itself. It is “often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use.”… ya da ya da etc.

I see that you come from the “baffle them with bullpucky” school of pseudo-intellectuals. Those who employ this technique
are usually taught not to use it to confuse themselves.

 

[catholictiger]

If philosophy and theology can explain God, why have they utterly failed to do so by offering an explanation of God’s nature and purpose that does not result in contradictions with reality?

And as it turns out, God’s origin can be easily explained with a bit of thermodynamic tweaking. His purposes can be reasonably guessed at when the physical universe is taken to be a superior bible than the invented words of men.

You do not know enough physics to determine what it cannot do, so best to keep your ignorance under a bushel instead of on open display. .

it hasn’t it just like every controversial subject there are people who disagree with people who have proved god

for example

Aristotle and Aquinas have given some really good proofs of God

but humme comes in and gives a kinda bad refuting of their arguments for God and think he wins.

people will disagree with. They will say the former have a bad definition and humme is spot on for his refuting.

btw why I think Humme is off is because he has the wrong idea of Change Cause, and all the like

he things Causes is I push this pen, it moves, therefor my pushing of the pen is the cause of the moving of the pen. That is completely way off of what Aristotle have explained. Aristotle means what is the ultimate cause of something, its not a liner in time relationship. The action and the patient exist at the same time.

I could get into a discussion on aristotle and aquanias but I’m still learning his idea about this stuff, and I don’t have much time to do this stuff.

BTW according to aristotle the soul problem he would have with Hawkings is that the universe would have no causes, there would be no change in the world, and so on and so forth. For most of the ancients the idea of there being nothing is absurd. Now it is evident the universe doesn’t have a beginning so they get that wrong, but they are spot on the idea of that something must exist for there to be a cause or a change in something. This very well could be God, and Aquianas and I think Aristotle to maybe is able to show that there must be a god for change and cause to happen.

 

[catholictiger]

This statement is absolutely absurd.

You clearly have no idea what science is, and should not be writing in public as if you do.

this is the problem with moderns they put down philosophy and theology

they think philosophy is just thinking of thinking, which is kinda absurd in itself.

they probably think theology is pointless, tells us nothing.

But philosophy is great and tells us many things about the universe that Science is far from telling us, or can never tell us.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

I see that you come from the “baffle them with bullpucky” school of pseudo-intellectuals. Those who employ this technique
are usually taught not to use it to confuse themselves.

… my dear friend ,

… what are you rebelling against ??? , can you tell me , or is it a secret ??? …

… may god bless and love you ,

… joihn …

 

[tonyrey]

And as it turns out, God’s origin can be easily explained with a bit of thermodynamic tweaking.

How?

 

[JDaniel]

… my dear friend ,

… what are you rebelling against ??? , can you tell me , or is it a secret ??? …

… may god bless and love you ,

… joihn …

John:

You are such a shining example of kindness. Oops! I probably should not have pointed that out as now your head may grow!

God bless,
jd

 

[greylorn]

this is the problem with moderns they put down philosophy and theology

they think philosophy is just thinking of thinking, which is kinda absurd in itself.

they probably think theology is pointless, tells us nothing.

But philosophy is great and tells us many things about the universe that Science is far from telling us, or can never tell us.

I put down incompetent philosophy and illogical theology. This includes a lot of worthless ideas of which others are fond. IMO they need to be put down, like a rabid skunk needs to be shot. By way of compensation, I invent theology and philosophies for others to put down.

What are these wonderful things which you fancy that philosophy is telling us?

 

[greylorn]

How?

Explained in my book. No space here to discuss thermodynamics.

 

[greylorn]

… my dear friend ,

… what are you rebelling against ??? , can you tell me , or is it a secret ??? …

… may god bless and love you ,

… joihn …

I’m rebelling against idiocy. You can stop with the repetitive, thus meaningless, “My dear friend,” nonsense. You remind me of John McCain, an idiot politician with the imagination of a fence post. I am not your friend, and do not desire the position.

 

[greylorn]

it hasn’t it just like every controversial subject there are people who disagree with people who have proved god

for example

Aristotle and Aquinas have given some really good proofs of God

but humme comes in and gives a kinda bad refuting of their arguments for God and think he wins.

people will disagree with. They will say the former have a bad definition and humme is spot on for his refuting.

btw why I think Humme is off is because he has the wrong idea of Change Cause, and all the like

he things Causes is I push this pen, it moves, therefor my pushing of the pen is the cause of the moving of the pen. That is completely way off of what Aristotle have explained. Aristotle means what is the ultimate cause of something, its not a liner in time relationship. The action and the patient exist at the same time.

I could get into a discussion on aristotle and aquanias but I’m still learning his idea about this stuff, and I don’t have much time to do this stuff.

BTW according to aristotle the soul problem he would have with Hawkings is that the universe would have no causes, there would be no change in the world, and so on and so forth. For most of the ancients the idea of there being nothing is absurd. Now it is evident the universe doesn’t have a beginning so they get that wrong, but they are spot on the idea of that something must exist for there to be a cause or a change in something. This very well could be God, and Aquianas and I think Aristotle to maybe is able to show that there must be a god for change and cause to happen.

You can prove for yourself that Aquinas’ proofs of God are valueless in either of two ways. The easiest is to reproduce them, by yourself, on paper or computer, from your mind at the moment, without first looking them up. I will bet you that you cannot even come close.

The reason for this is that they are complex, illogical, and incorrect, and the human mind has a difficult time recalling complex but illogical arguments. It does quite well recalling complex and logical, correct arguments.

I propose that like most religious people, you do not actually understand Aquinas’ arguments, Rather, you and they trust that others who claim to understand them actually do, You also trust the assurances of these unmet others that Tom’s arguments are valid.

Did you even take and ace high school geometry? How about algebra, trig, spherical trig and calculus? Those theorems are easier to comprehend than Aquinas’ stuff. Unlike Aquinas, they cannot be easily refuted.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

I’m rebelling against idiocy. You can stop with the repetitive, thus meaningless, “My dear friend,” nonsense. You remind me of John McCain, an idiot politician with the imagination of a fence post. I am not your friend, and do not desire the position.

… your a sick puppy dear friend , and my being your friend is not contingent on your reciprocity at all , i love you and must warn you though you won’t like it – if your level of insanity is not so great your incapable of thus guilt your going to hell , the reason you are like this , if not due to excessive insanity , is your already in hell now , just not having the full experience , you will find plenty there who are not your friends , perhaps you will then be happy – i doubt it , why don’t you just try to love which is all human beings are supposed to do at its core , up to you dear friend , god bless you , john …