Response To Stephen Hawking

[Charlemagne_III]

There was a singularity before the Big Bang…that’s not nothing. Also, I’d skimmed the thread Creation Ex Nihilo and just now read some more of it including the OPs link and it seems that Hawking has company. Some math wizards have found that the universe could have come spontaneously, from nothing, on its own.

Nihil Ex Nihilo

I believe the universe could have been created from nothing.

But it could not have created itself from nothing. There is no math in the world that could prove that.

Only God could pull that particular rabbit (Something) out of that particular hat (Nothing).

 

[epan]

All you need to understand is the second sentence that opens Part II.

*“Philosophy is dead,” Hawking asserts, and it is now science that carries “the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” *

This assertion is so juvenile as to disqualify Hawking from all serious consideration as a man of intellect.

You may disagree with Professor Hawking, so why not just say that, rather than impugn your own credibility with such a statement?

Do you claim that the most brilliant theoretical physicist of our time is disqualified from all serious consideration as a man if intellect? Do you also watch Fox News?

 

[Nan_S]

You may disagree with Professor Hawking, so why not just say that, rather than impugn your own credibility with such a statement?

Do you claim that the most brilliant theoretical physicist of our time is disqualified from all serious consideration as a man if intellect? Do you also watch Fox News?

I have been quietly following this thread for a while. But I have to ring in on this statement.

You presume that Hawking is “the most brilliant theoretical physicist of our time.” You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I am sympathetic to Hawking’s physical affliction; I am in awe at the lengths he has undertaken to overcome his limitations; I respect that he has accomplished things many ordinary mortals only dream of accomplishing. But the fact that he is convinced of certain theories of physics, and has dictated books explaining those theories, does NOT make him “the most brilliant theoretical physicist of our time.”

Rather, I suspect the bitterness he harbors against God for being afflicted has been what led him to deny the existence of God, and to convince himself of alternate theories that leave no room for the existence of God.

And that is not brilliance. That is intentional blindness.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you claim that the most brilliant theoretical physicist of our time is disqualified from all serious consideration as a man if intellect? Do you also watch Fox News?

Yes, I do.

A man of intellect is expected not to let his fate get in the way of his logic.

I will not be noticing any more of your posts.

Have a good day!

 

[Aloysium]

You may disagree with Professor Hawking, so why not just say that, rather than impugn your own credibility with such a statement?

Do you claim that the most brilliant theoretical physicist of our time is disqualified from all serious consideration as a man if intellect? Do you also watch Fox News?

Does that mean you agree with:
“Philosophy is dead,” . . . and it is now science that carries “the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

 

[Bahman]

Hey Bahman,

This is an interesting dialogue. I appreciate the exchanges.

I am noticing that there are a lot of terms being thrown around that are only partially defined, or perhaps I am using a definition in a different way than you are. Perhaps you could share your intellectual background, so I can have a better understanding of where you are coming from?

I have recently been delving fairly deeply into Aquinas through Ed Feser’s books and Aquinas’s writings. Prior to this in university, I studied Schopenhauer, Augustine, Ambrose, Jung, and Freud. Recently I listened to 28 hours of lectures providing an overview of Western Philosophy, so I have an entry level understanding of the major philosophers from the pre-socratics to the modern era.

What motivates me to make this request is that when you introduce the concept of consciousness and subconsciousness, that could mean a lot of different things to different people. Freud has a different understanding of it than Jung and other philosophers’ and psychologists.

God bless,
Ut

Hey,

I am also interested at ideas exchange. Thank you very much for your interest.

I have slightly different understanding of what consciousness and subconsciousness are. But first what is duty of intellect namely, to processing thoughts, to experiencing internal and external states and finally memorizing and organizing experiences.

All these functions are done in subconsciousness except the experiencing the internal and external states which is duty of consciousness. It is interesting that almost any mental process should be experienced by consciousness for further process. Why experience is needed at all? The main duty of consciousness is to create the knowledge of subject matter from information it receives. The knowledge is then delivered to subconsciousness for further process. Ironically we give the most of credit to consciousness which is not correct.

 

[tonyrey]

You may disagree with Professor Hawking, so why not just say that, rather than impugn your own credibility with such a statement?

Do you claim that the most brilliant theoretical physicist of our time is disqualified from all serious consideration as a man if intellect? Do you also watch Fox News?

Even Einstein made mistakes! That is the weakness of an appeal to authority…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Even Einstein made mistakes! That is the weakness of an appeal to authority…

Yes, as some of Einstein’s later philosophical writings suggest, he was not a deep philosopher, though he tried.

There are different ways to be a man of intellect. You could say chessmasters are men of intellect. They use their intellect, however, mainly to prove and to flatter themselves that they have an intellect to use. I’m not denigrating chessmasters; I’m just saying that there are men of intellect and there are men of intellect. Some use their talents to the hilt in their speciality, but drive nearly on empty in other regards.

The man who says “philosophy is dead” proves he is nearly driving on empty … certainly as a philosopher.

 

[utunumsint]

Hey,

I am also interested at ideas exchange. Thank you very much for your interest.

I have slightly different understanding of what consciousness and subconsciousness are. But first what is duty of intellect namely, to processing thoughts, to experiencing internal and external states and finally memorizing and organizing experiences.

All these functions are done in subconsciousness except the experiencing the internal and external states which is duty of consciousness. It is interesting that almost any mental process should be experienced by consciousness for further process. Why experience is needed at all? The main duty of consciousness is to create the knowledge of subject matter from information it receives. The knowledge is then delivered to subconsciousness for further process. Ironically we give the most of credit to consciousness which is not correct.

I do believe that some mental processing happens in the subconscious, but most of it is sub-rational and sometimes the mental subconscious constructs we create from our experiences are downright irrational. If we follow Freud, the ego is the weakest part of our nature, with the totally irrational ID and super ego clobbering it at every stage. I think this view of consciousness is very dark, and I rather put my trust in Aristotle who believes that the conscious mind ought to be the master of the passions. There is a certain notion of unconscious patterns that get developed over time. For example, if one makes a rational decision to learn a certain virtue, such as prudence, (or a parent for a child through good education), then that virtue, as it is practiced, becomes a habit, which means the action is almost unconsciously done. Those habitual habits can be built upon to reach other virtues. And the same goes for vices. They begin a bad moral choice, that when repeated enough become habits and unconscious inclinations towards evil that again creates fertile ground for other evil actions.

But perhaps this is getting off topic for this thread. I am not sure how we got from Stephen Hawking to here. But if we were to apply this notion of habit building to a person like Stephen, I could see how his habit of looking at reality through the lens of physics gives him the tendency to interpret all of reality in that way - through a view that focuses exclusively on the quantitative and rejects all qualitative realities as illusions.

That said, the same could be said for those Scholastics at the time of Galileo - they were so immersed in their Scholasticism, that they could not see the value of a quantitative approach to knowledge that focuses on observations and making predictions based on those observations. We certainly don’t want to return to this starting point. But some middle ground that acknowledges the value in both ways of knowing would be good.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

All these factors presuppose the power of reason!

Power of intellect you mean.

Searle’s argument is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that consciousness is caused by the physical processes of the brain. In other words he is a materialist.

And what is matter? He might be correct if matter is a form of mind.

You mean “Yes!” You are agreeing with me.

Let me correct myself. All knowledge is created as a result of mental activity stimulated only by objective reality whether stimulus is caused by intellect itself or by others.

 

[Faith1960]

Ok, thanks for all the replies, I get it now. But now what about this? I found this on another thread and it appears that some guys in China have mathmatical proof that the universe came into being all by itself, without God.

medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3

 

[Aloysium]

Ok, thanks for all the replies, I get it now. But now what about this? I found this on another thread and it appears that some guys in China have mathmatical proof that the universe came into being all by itself, without God.

medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3

Your statement is a contradiction - you didn’t get it.
Do you or do you not believe that God created the universe? If you do not, perhaps you should not call yourself a Catholic - you are not.
If you have doubts, your time would be better spent participating in every aspect of the Church: contemplation of its teachings, prayer, the mass and sacraments.
If your doubts persist, the Holy Spirit may be telling you that what is needed is not an intellectual understanding, but rather a personal relationship with God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ok, thanks for all the replies, I get it now. But now what about this? I found this on another thread and it appears that some guys in China have mathmatical proof that the universe came into being all by itself, without God.

medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3

Where is God referred to in the article? I didn’t see it. Did I read too fast?

So far as I know, mathematics does not concern itself with God, even though God is the supreme Mathematician.

 

[Faith1960]

Where is God referred to in the article? I didn’t see it. Did I read too fast?

So far as I know, mathematics does not concern itself with God, even though God is the supreme Mathematician.

Ok, you’re right, they don’t mention God but the implication is that the universe came from nothing, on it’s own, without God.

Though I guess one could say these guys have proven God, by saying the universe came from nothing, which is what the Church teaches, but by God.

 

[Faith1960]

I sent an email to him after all, but I don’t really expect to hear back from him or his people, but you never know.

He replied! He gave me a couple,articles to read, which I’m doing now.

 

[tonyrey]

All these factors presuppose the power of reason!

Your knowledge of English is limited! Look it up in Google.

Searle’s argument is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that consciousness is caused by the physical processes of the brain. In other words he is a materialist.

• And what is matter? He might be correct if matter is a form of mind.

Searle did not believe matter is a form of mind.

Let me correct myself. All knowledge is created as a result of mental activity stimulated only by objective reality whether stimulus is caused by intellect itself or by others.

What occurs in the mind is not objective but subjective!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ok, you’re right, they don’t mention God but the implication is that the universe came from nothing, on it’s own, without God.

Though I guess one could say these guys have proven God, by saying the universe came from nothing, which is what the Church teaches, but by God.

The second sentence is better than the first.

 

[Faith1960]

Your statement is a contradiction - you didn’t get it.
Do you or do you not believe that God created the universe? If you do not, perhaps you should not call yourself a Catholic - you are not.
If you have doubts, your time would be better spent participating in every aspect of the Church: contemplation of its teachings, prayer, the mass and sacraments.
If your doubts persist, the Holy Spirit may be telling you that what is needed is not an intellectual understanding, but rather a personal relationship with God.

I have O C D and worry about religion. Your uncharitable post, of which I assume you’ll deny is uncharitable, doesn’t help me at all.
So, thanks a lot.

 

[Richca]

As I pointed out, all knowledge **originates **

in mental activity - not material objects! In that sense it is subjective. Introspection is knowledge that is both subjective and objective. It is unique because we are directly aware of what occurs in our mind.

Our sensory and intellectual powers are principles of knowledge for without these powers we can have no knowledge but the cause of our knowledge is the external material world. We can have no knowledge of anything whatsoever without the sense impressions received through our five external senses from material objects. From these sense impressions the internal senses divide and unite and produce perceptions, images and recollections which produces a phantasm which is the final product of the senses and this phantasm is presented to the intellect. The intellect abstacts the forms of things from the sense phantasm and from their individuating matter and thus is able to perceive the nature and essences of material substances. We are not born with innate ideas. We get all our ideas from our contact with reality which contact is first made with our five external senses which is why as I said in a previous post that Aristotle said that the principle of knowledge is in the senses.

Our sensory and intellectual powers are passive powers, i.e., they are in potency. They are reduced from potency to act by the soul’s contact with the exteral material world which as I have said is first made with our five external senses.
The intellect itself in this life does not understand anything without a phantasm which is a sense image of some sort produced from the internal senses which get their data from the five external senses which in turn are the sense impressions of the material world.
In one sense, our knowledge is subjective because the knowledge of anything exists in the knower. In another sense, all true knowledge is objective because we gather all our knowledge from our contact with the material world.

Quote:
The heart has its reasons that reason does not know.

 

[Richca]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richca
Hello Faith, God caused the universe to come into being. “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1)

But what does causality mean?

Causality means in general that something causes something to be. For example, if you painted a picture, you would be the cause of the existence of that painted picture. The painted picture would be an effect of your action or causality.
Now God is the cause of the existence of the universe. He brought it forth from non-being to being. The universe is the effect of God’s action or causality.