Response To Stephen Hawking

[Faith1960]

Well his first point is simply to delineate philosophy from science. What Hawking is doing in the first three chapters of the book is philosophy. The way I understand what he is saying is that science does not give a total explanation of reality. From the get-go with Galileo and Descates, you had a move to mathematize of all physical reality. This move of Galileo was inspired by the philosopher Pythagoras who believed that mathematics was the underlying reality behind the material universe. Aristotle had the 10 causes to describe every physical thing. These were:

1. Substance
2. Quantity
3. Quality
4. Relation
5. Place
6. Time
7. Position
8. State or habitus
9. Action
10. Affection

As you can see, when you use the scientific method to make predictions, you primarily do this though measurable observations and focus exclusively on category 2- quantity. This is not a bad thing in itself, but it is a constriction of reality as we humanly know it. If you have read chapter 3 of Hawking’s book, you will notice that he tried to reduce all the hard and soft sciences to physics, going from physics to chemistry, to biology, and finally to psychology, but the higher up the chain of sciences you get, the less quantitative methods are effective, the more you have to take into account other categories of reality. In short, there is a whole slew of things being discussed in Hawking’s book that are simply outside of the scope of physics.

I think this is a valid point to make before looking at what Hawking is doing to try to prove that the universe does not need God to create it. Most of the (good) proofs for the existence of God are not scientific. They are philosophical. They rest on intellectual reasoning that look at reality as a whole, not just the limited focus of physics (math).

So that is a commentary on his first point. I’ll check out his next point later. Let me know if this is helpful.

(If you are looking for a discussion based on physics alone about the existence of God, then you have to understand that all such attempts fundamentally point to probabilities. Given X, Y, or Z, it is fundamentally unlikely that the universe began by chance. If that is what you are looking for, then this book by Father Robert Spitzer may be pretty good. amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=la_B001K7TYHC_1_1/177-5597049-2118763?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402172044&sr=1-1 He also has some clips on his web site that describes some of the theories in his book magisreasonfaith.org/science_creation.html ).

God bless,
Ut

Did you get to Part II where he discusses Hawking yet? If so, translation please.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hawking claims something came from nothing which invokes Gravity, However what is known is we have no idea how universal gravity is equated. He has nothing but fringe theory. He arrives here via M-Theory then “assumes” one possible solution.

The two questions Hawking’s addressed.

Where did the universe come from, and why are laws of nature what they are today.

To eliminate God is to prejudge the non existing knowledge.

NOTE----He does NOT answer the Something from Nothing issue. Plain and simple.

We do not have the knowledge to answer this yet. Hawking “assumes” there is one possibility of gravity. Its an assumption to be sure.

“M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable. Further work continues to find mathematical constructs that join various surrounding theories. However, the tangible success of M-theory can be questioned, given its current incompleteness and limited predictive power.”

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FM-theory&ei=dleZU8_3IIicyASqu4HABQ&usg=AFQjCNGAARRYXfRepBKZsCpbLKKnYBVgog

Intellegent is Hawking but capable of oversight here. Math is the language of God, it exits in the mind, and physics has no definition suitable for conscience.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

worry about religion.

You can only believe by faith in what you are “not sure about”, no physical explanation exists, and Hawking has placed his faith in himself…that is “belief” not fact of knowledge.

Faith, something “unknown” is doing “something”.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

“no knowledge of anything” is correct but a person is not a thing!

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.

All our knowledge except our immediate, direct awareness of our thoughts, feelings, sensations and intuitions. That is beyond the scope of science and neuroscience.

The heart referred to here is the intellectual appetite which is our will. Now the will does not reason anything. It is the intellect that reasons. Nor can the will will anything without the intellect presenting some good to it. We cannot will or love what we do not know.

The intellect certainly plays a part but it cannot explain love in all its fullness:

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

1 Corinthians 20-30

 

[Aloysium]

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.

You are aware that your fears are irrational. Truly, there is nothing to worry about.
You suffer from a mental illness. You may wish to channel your tormentors onto these pages in order to exorcise them, but I do not believe it will help you as much as going to mass, praying, sticking with scripture and participating in the sacraments of communion and reconciliation (hopefully scrupulosity is not also a symptom of you obsessive-compuive disorder).
Clearly, you will not be judged on what you think but rather on what you do.

BTW: What I tried giving up for Lent was actually, being uncharitable; it was a struggle and no one even noticed a difference. I never ask more of others than what I expect from myself; but, I tend to be very demanding of myself and this can be experienced as being rather harsh in my relationships. I think we should aspire to Sainthood, which is available to all through the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross.

I will pray for you and ask that you pray for me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

being uncharitable

Obedience is the most difficult of the ecclesial vows, and according to Thomas Merton and many others. I tend to agree, this isn’t the same for everyone though. It’s sinful when it’s done with a desire to hurt someone.