Stephen Hawkings Curiosity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Terraius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Terraius

Guest
Did anyone else watch this show? Before this came out recently I actually had respect for his work. Now, honestly, I think he is just a buffoon.

Hawking examines the universe, and concludes, that the Big Bang and creation created itself, from nothing, because time did not exist, and therefore God didnt exist *(As if any Abrahamic religion claims God is bound to this mortal plane of existence and bound to its natural laws) * and therefore nothing was around.

The plane of existence contained zilch, nothing, and it became the universe through positive and negative energy.

Being a mediocre studier of sciences, I myself have done plenty of study on the negative/dark energies that scientists recently declared to be in existence in cohort with the positive energies of the universe.

Nowhere have I ever read that negative energy and positive energy combine to annihilate eachother completely. This would contradict the notion that matter cannot be destroyed, and based on face value, would be a paradox, as we should examine our universe slowly vanishing due to negative and positive energy clashing, but instead, it just keeps growing, and growing, and growing.

He tryed to explain that the universe was a proton. Protons vanish and reappear out of nowhere, just as he claims the universe to have done.

Yet, if this is true, then why would the universe be expanding? Protons and neutrons, electrons, etc, do not rapidly expand outwards. They remain constant.

So much in that show just made me irrate. I cannot believe any self respecting quantum physics practioner or studier out there could take him seriously. His claims were full of paradoxes and straw mans which contradicted plenty of physical laws.

Anyone else :manvspc::slapfight::banghead: right now??
 
Hawking is a renowned physicist. He is not a renowned theologian. I suspect that 99% of the people on this forum know a whole lot more about theology than Hawking does.

If I went to dinner with him, and the wine steward recommended one bottle but Hawking recommended another, I would take the steward’s advice.

Hawking doesn’t always even get the physics right. He once thought that a fundamental law of physics (the Law of Conservation of Information) did not apply inside a black hole. That’s like saying thermodynamics doesn’t apply - it’s a fundamental law of physics. Lenny Susskind called him out on that, waging a long battle among the physics community to correct this silly notion (Hawking finally conceded).

If he is willing to put forth silly theories in physics (an area in which he is an expert), I don’t expect much substance from his theories on theology.
 
Yeah I knew the episode would be a joke when it was hosted by an atheist such as Hawkings. I didnt even care enough to watch it. He has no proof that the the Universe came from nothing and is making as you stated a strawman argument. The Universe is not a proton and they definitely dont work in the same ways. And his argument about there being no time and therefore no God is just stupid. First, many scientists arent even sure if time exists in the scientific community. And other scientists arent sure what time was like before the big bang even if it did exist. Besides there would be no experiments or ways to find out about time in the past. Others aren’t even sure of the Big Bang. I’ve heard of at least one person ( a young prodigy) who said that the big bang theory in the present state doesn’t fit the Universe where there is a lot more Carbon than would be predicted by the theory. So, Science has a lot of faults in its logic and most of its theories could easily fall apart and be changed within the century.
 
We sat and watched and though I can understand how you might be upset with Hawking, I think it’s no big deal because we also sat there and poked holes in his position all over the place, as did most every authority they had on there after him.

His idea that God cannot exist because there was no time before creation began is silly because it overlooks that time is a created thing and a creator would be outside of time.

Like Cardinal Christoph von Schönborn says in his book and in a discussion with me by phone on Catholic Answers Live a couple of years ago, science errs when it tries to cross over and speak in religion just as religion errs when it tries to cross over and speak in science. (Specifically we were talking about Young Earth proponents in that context.)

Most of the people they talked to, with the exception of the one atheist scientist on the panel, pretty much stated that Hawking had overstepped.

IMO it worked more against his position than it did for him.
 
Personally I believe in a big bang. Not in The Big Bang theory at large since it is filled with loops. But A big bang theory, in that, the universe had to have a common origin, and came to being in its current state through slow but steady expansion, as opposed to the universe simply at be. The underlying details, Science and Theology is still working out.

Besides if I was God I would totally create existence with an explosion. :cool:
 
IMO it worked more against his position than it did for him.
Click to expand...
I KNOW. thats what makes me mad. I honestly think he is going nuts. Hawking used to be a well composed physicist, with the one exception of his theory on black holes, and even then, he conceded it wasnt well thought out.

Now he is throwing all that away for a crazy idea, that to me, is nothing more then pseudo-/neo-annhilationalism which has been debunked countless times by quantum mechanics.
 
I watched the second half of the show, and I believe “straw man” is good summary of the arguments against God’s existence.

My first complaint was that it was dumbed down to a very low common denominator. It relied heavily on razzle-dazzle fillers (triumphant music, and amazing graphics), and very little on presenting the underlying science. We just have to trust Hawking’s word for it that this is the consensus among scientists (which is very unscientific).

I’m fairly well educated about physics, and I understand that there is a lot of weird phenomenon that has been observed. I accept that some “immutable” laws of physics might not be quite so immutable, but he didn’t present any evidence demonstrating this in some of his arguments. Again, unscientific.

My second, and mostly final complaint (shared by many on this thread), is that Hawking’s arguments boil down to neither time, nor space existing prior to the big bang. No time+No space=No god. Any person moderately informed about theology and religion should realize that this doesn’t convince a person of faith, as God exists outside time and space.

He supports this thesis with what amounts to Occam’s razor - that he believes that the simplest theory is that God does not exist, therefore it must be true. Occam’s razor is a rule of thumb, not a fundamental law of physics.

Basically, the show was 2 hours of filler, and fifteen minutes of flawed arguments. At best he simply proved through thought experiment that God cannot be proved by physics, which simply brings us back to square one.
 
Hawkings is a shadow of his former self. A a former good scientist with interesting theories. He is senile and should retire; to avoid making a fool of himself and of science. He wants to see himself as the ultimate scientist that finally proved there is no God and that his theories are the ultimate truth.

I respected the man until that episode; he made scientists look back by rushing into an unproven conclusion.
 
Church Militant:
Like Cardinal Christoph von Schönborn says in his book and in a discussion with me by phone on Catholic Answers Live a couple of years ago, science errs when it tries to cross over and speak in religion just as religion errs when it tries to cross over and speak in science. (Specifically we were talking about Young Earth proponents in that context.)
Click to expand...
Sounds like Cardinal von Schönborn is a fan of Cardinal Newman, who discusses this very thing in his “Idea of a University.”

Science today REGULARLY oversteps its bounds, and people CONSISTENTLY tolerate it. The problem, I think, is partially due to poor training in the Universities. There are no boundaries set to ANY discipline. Everything appears to be up for grabs. It favors an undisciplined and irregular mentality.

Even medical research, brain studies, etc. go to any length to disallow free will, or any human “spirit” that animates our bodies.

Every branch of every science regularly oversteps its boundaries, and we must be vigilant and resist their encroachments.
 
To be a popular author today you must say shocking things. Our culture appreciates that which shocks the senses. We see it in our entertainment TV programs. Even in academics you dont get famous by writing books that say everything is as we thought it was. You get popular by challenging ideas. The academics who are most successful in popular culture are those that reject the ideas and institutions of the past. Those who value this aren’t interested in good arguments so much as an authority in some field rejecting God, morality and ancient institutions (marriage, the family, culture etc.).

Given the condition of our modern culture it is unlikely that someone who is widely popular is saying things that are correct or good. Not that it is impossible. Man has always wanted to avoid God but our modern culture is especially determined to do that. If there is a God He must be terribly displeased with our choices.
 
I don’t doubt Hawking said these things, and he may be an atheist. That said, in his defense I read an interview where they came to a conclusion he didn’t explicitly make. He made some remark which was more inflammatory than it needed to be, something like, “the afterlife is a fairy story for those who are afraid of the dark.” In this particular instance, it didn’t appear he was not talking about a soul or spirits, he was talking about functions of the human brain.

That said, after watching a particular lecture about particle physics that I found through stumbleupon.com, I was once again in awe of complex and wonderful the universe – and that’s just what we know.

The current theory being tossed around by many physicists these days is “string theory,” for which we have yet to be able to show experimentally like we could the revolutionary predictions and ideas from Einstein and Bohr.

But string theory requires the existence of 10 space dimensions and one time dimension. That means there are 7 dimensions we have no perception into. An honest physicist, IMO, cannot honestly say “there is no God,” when they themselves claim there are probably at least 7 dimensions that we have no way to measure or even imagine.

Sure, they can honestly say, “I don’t believe in God,” because they are not thus denying God but stating they do not believe in it. My son used to tell those who mocked people of faith, “atheism is just as much a religion as any denomination.” They can also say, “we have no firm scientific evidence of God.” That’s an honest statement because if we could prove the existence of God with science, then we would no longer need faith. It would not be faith, but sight.

But science HAS proven that there are things beyond our ability to perceive or measure. Historically, over and over the most sacred cows of physics get destroyed at some time in the future, such as conservation of mass. At one time the earth was thought to be flat. For all intents and purposes, it may as well have been. As an engineer, I don’t seek truth, but I seek to build models of reality that work well enough that I can use it to design something or to predict behavior of something. As far as how to get to the temple, or around the state I live in, a flat map is a perfectly apt approximation.

Isaac Newton, the founder of classical physics, found that he could analyze and predict behavior of things. Einstein showed us that things are much more complex and bizarre than other physicists, trained in Newtonian physics, could imagine. In time, we developed ways of making use of Einstein’s formulas. Let me give you an example.

One train is approaching from the south at 100 miles per hour. Another is approaching from the north at 100 miles per hour. If I were on one train, looking at the other, how fast would our measurements say we are closing in on each other? The “obvious” answer is 200 mph, but that’s not exactly right. It’s close enough for any purposes we ever need, so to say 200 is the answer is, as far as anything useful, exactly right. But relativity says it isn’t quite that way. The reason is that the trains are going so slowly compared to the speed of light, that the discrepancy is not measurable with modern technology.

But if the trains were particle beams, or somehow could go 100,000 miles per second, now relativity plays a significant role. If two trains were approaching from north and south, respectively, and I measured them each at 100,000 mps, it turns out if I was in one, the other would be approaching at a speed of 155,000 mps. A general rule for engineering, is that if the things you are working with go more than 10% of the speed of light, you have to consider relativistic effects.

Back to the point, if we can say there are seven dimensions we cannot perceive, how can we say there isn’t some form of intelligence who does perceive those dimensions, that can operate in ways we cannot perceive, measure, predict, or even imagine. How can we say there is no spirit world? We can’t.

One of my favorite books along these lines is “Flatland,” written over 100 years ago by mathematician and theologian Edwin Abbott. It is in the public domain and available for sale at many places – just google “flatland abbott.”. It is about a two dimensional world, where one of its inhabitants, a square, is approached by a three dimensional sphere. The sphere can tell him what is in his cabinets without being in his house. It can touch the square on its insides. At one point the square concludes that the sphere must be a god, or a magician. It’s a fairly short book, so I highly recommend reading it.

In summary, an honest physicist can believe there is no God, but can’t prove it any more than (s)he can prove there is one. Belief in God is an article of faith.

Alan
 
I agree, I watched this show and, just like you, lost all respect for Hawking.
There is more evidence for our Christian God than there ever will be for his theory, which has already been debunked on several websites through the web.
However, I do pray that he may see the truth, and that he may attempt to reconcile himself with God.
 
Hawking’s Curiosity? How about how he continually delves into theology… and he’s not a theologian. That’s strange!
 
AlanFromWichita the point wasnt that he said he didnt believe in God. Good for him, there are millions that dont believe in God.

The problem is that Hawking thinks he is an expert quantum physicist and Theologian. He is horrible at both and doesnt need to pretend like he knows a bit of either to prove his lame theories.
 
Terraius said:
AlanFromWichita the point wasnt that he said he didnt believe in God. Good for him, there are millions that dont believe in God.

The problem is that Hawking thinks he is an expert quantum physicist and Theologian. He is horrible at both and doesnt need to pretend like he knows a bit of either to prove his lame theories.
Click to expand...
Point taken. 👍

I just feel the same way about physicist in general… some are honest, others think they know it all.

Alan
 
Tyler1234 said:
I agree, I watched this show and, just like you, lost all respect for Hawking.
There is more evidence for our Christian God than there ever will be for his theory, which has already been debunked on several websites through the web.
However, I do pray that he may see the truth, and that he may attempt to reconcile himself with God.
Click to expand...
I actually don’t challenge most the science behind the episode. I challenge his conclusion that there is no God, as it is a total non-sequitor to the scientific claims he made.

I challenge his presentation of his claims as consistent with scientific consensus, as it even the most ardent string-theorist would still admit that string theory has many inconsistency to overcome. However to say Hawking’s theory is wrong because it was “debunked on several websites”, is too simplistic and argument and unscientific. There is a lot of research that he poorly summarized on his show, some of which will be overturned in the due course of research, some which will be further substantiated.

Either way, my biggest gripe is using this honest research of hundreds of individuals to make an inappropriate theological claim. It gives scientists and researchers everywhere a bad name.
 
Terraius said:
Did anyone else watch this show? Before this came out recently I actually had respect for his work. Now, honestly, I think he is just a buffoon.

Hawking examines the universe, and concludes, that the Big Bang and creation created itself, from nothing, because time did not exist, and therefore God didnt exist *(As if any Abrahamic religion claims God is bound to this mortal plane of existence and bound to its natural laws) * and therefore nothing was around.

The plane of existence contained zilch, nothing, and it became the universe through positive and negative energy.<—Did the “physicist”:rolleyes: explain where the energies came from?

Being a mediocre studier of sciences, I myself have done plenty of study on the negative/dark energies that scientists recently declared to be in existence in cohort with the positive energies of the universe.

Nowhere have I ever read that negative energy and positive energy combine to annihilate eachother completely. This would contradict the notion that matter cannot be destroyed, and based on face value, would be a paradox, as we should examine our universe slowly vanishing due to negative and positive energy clashing, but instead, it just keeps growing, and growing, and growing.

He tryed to explain that the universe was a proton. Protons vanish and reappear out of nowhere, just as he claims the universe to have done.

Yet, if this is true, then why would the universe be expanding? Protons and neutrons, electrons, etc, do not rapidly expand outwards. They remain constant.

So much in that show just made me irrate. I cannot believe any self respecting quantum physics practioner or studier out there could take him seriously. His claims were full of paradoxes and straw mans which contradicted plenty of physical laws.

Anyone else :manvspc::slapfight::banghead: right now??
Click to expand...
If the plane of existence contained zilch, how did the energies get there?
The older this guy gets, the more ridiculous he seems to get?
Did he REALLY think nobody would ask such an obvious question?
 
Even String Theory recognizes the need for there to A) Be a beginning, and B) For the beginning to have had some sort of Cause to accumulate the Effect, since, String Theory is simply a reconciliation between Quantum physics and General Relativity, and both of the latter theories/systems also recognize the basic principals of cause and effect, not the watered down straw man of ‘In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing exploded.’

Even the most basic creationist theories underline that there had to be SOMETHING in the beginning to have caused the effect. How it got there isnt necessarily the point as that crosses the boundary into theology/philosophy, but the point being is how the cause ended in the effect.

If I recall the common denominator between then all is recognizing Weak/Strong Nuclear forces, Electromagnetism, and Gravity, all of which combined points to the Spacetime continuum and the plane of existence… General Relativity.

It is therefore, logical, that String Theorum being a reconciliation between Relativity and Quantum mechanics, would acknowledge the continumm relation with the beginning cause, and to say that nothing existed in the beginning is conflicting with relativity theory.
 
I think hes a very bitter man - after all he has ALS and can only move his eyes and relies heavily on others just to exist - I feel sorry for him - and wonder how I would feel or any of you would feel in the same position.

Hes a very intelligent man but his ALS plays on his faith as it would in most people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top