Stephen Hawkings' Grand Design

[MikeSar]

That’s kind of my point - in the cases of Stalin and Mao, it wasn’t their lack of belief in gods that ‘justified’ their atrocities, it was their ideology. The things they did believe. Just like the Inquisition justified its actions by its beliefs. It doesn’t really matter whether your ideology contains supernatural elements or not - if you think it’s more important than real human lives, then you’ll use it as a reason for all kinds of abuses.

(The quote included reference to the atrocities by Hernan Cortez in his conquest of the land of my parents, Mexico and where I grew up but returned to my homeland with my brothers and we all served in all our wars, since 1945, except the invasion of Trinidad and Panama, which were not “legal”, like our invasion of Iraq, where my nephew served,)
To equate Cortez with Stalin implies no change in the common level of government, is that what you meant? Surely not! To ignore all the progress in government in five centuries would require a level of awareness that seems, to me, beyond comprehension.
Did the principles and basic ideas of Christianity become accepted by all Christians living in the last 2,000 years? That too, would require a absolute unawareness of the history of religion and, even, the history of Christianity. Surely you heard of Augustinian Monk Martin Luther? How would you compare his mercy and compassion with that of our brother, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Are you familiar with the life of both of them? Did you learn nothing?

Did the Monk Luther have a basis for his claim for a need to reform? Have you heard of the Reformation and the 94 times Pope John Paul II, now Saint, begged for forgiveness for the Catholic Church? (“When a Pope Asks Forgiveness” by Luigi Accattoli, 1998)
Finally, one last question in the same category, would you shoot your dog the first time he, or she, “soiled” your living room?
In short, Catholics know that life is about Forgiving and Learning and Growing up. Only those of you that are Perfect Humans, sane or not, can validly point at the sins of others.
Remember, the Catholic Religion is all about forgiveness. A high church official said, long ago, that if Luther, the monk, had lived in the 20th Century, we would probably not remember him.
We are the Church and we have learnt a lot in 2,000 years, and yes, we have a lot more to learn. Keep up your pointed questions, they help us all clarify our thinking, and our progress, if any, May the Grace of God Shine on Us, both.

 

[Sair]

(The quote included reference to the atrocities by Hernan Cortez in his conquest of the land of my parents, Mexico and where I grew up but returned to my homeland with my brothers and we all served in all our wars, since 1945, except the invasion of Trinidad and Panama, which were not “legal”, like our invasion of Iraq, where my nephew served,)
To equate Cortez with Stalin implies no change in the common level of government, is that what you meant? Surely not! To ignore all the progress in government in five centuries would require a level of awareness that seems, to me, beyond comprehension.
Did the principles and basic ideas of Christianity become accepted by all Christians living in the last 2,000 years? That too, would require a absolute unawareness of the history of religion and, even, the history of Christianity. Surely you heard of Augustinian Monk Martin Luther? How would you compare his mercy and compassion with that of our brother, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Are you familiar with the life of both of them? Did you learn nothing?

I’m not quite sure where you got all this from in my post. I merely observed that when you put ideas before the needs of people, you’re more likely to disdain the welfare of people who don’t agree with you or pose a threat to your ideology. It’s certainly true that the dictators of the 20th century had the technology and the machinery of government to inflict greater harm than their early modern counterparts, but when we get down to nuts and bolts, they all shared a common desire for power over others and a belief that they were right to do anything they could to get it. That kind of thinking tends to make the life of anyone who stands in your way extremely precarious.

Martin Luther was, I suspect, motivated rather differently than Martin Luther King. The latter was clearly far more of a humanitarian. But in their different contexts, they also shared a sense of reforming zeal. Although if I recall correctly, Luther the monk was also a rabid anti-Semite.

Did the Monk Luther have a basis for his claim for a need to reform? Have you heard of the Reformation and the 94 times Pope John Paul II, now Saint, begged for forgiveness for the Catholic Church? (“When a Pope Asks Forgiveness” by Luigi Accattoli, 1998)

From what I’ve read, there certainly were plenty of abuses that went on amongst the ranks of the Church. But I believe Luther was seeking not only reform of practice, but reform of doctrine. Perhaps the latter was necessary as much as the former.

Finally, one last question in the same category, would you shoot your dog the first time he, or she, “soiled” your living room?

Again, I’m not sure where this comes from in relation to my comments, but since you asked, absolutely not. I would not even shoot him if he repeatedly did so. I’d probably start letting him out more frequently, though! But if you’re suggesting that a dog performing his natural functions in what just happens to be the wrong place from our perspective is in any way similar to humans who repeatedly torture and kill other humans in the belief that they’re doing the right thing, then I think your point is lost in the extreme inappropriateness of the comparison.

In short, Catholics know that life is about Forgiving and Learning and Growing up. Only those of you that are Perfect Humans, sane or not, can validly point at the sins of others.

Catholics also understand that forgiveness can only be given where there is genuine desire to repair and not repeat the hurt that has been inflicted. To be fair, the church as a whole has come a long way towards doing that, given that her minions generally don’t still burn people at the stake after torturing confessions out of them, but that’s not really the point I was making. The fact is that any belief system can be taken to extremes. Anyone so convinced they are right and so convinced that their beliefs matter more than people can commit atrocities, be they Catholic or otherwise. Under such circumstances, forgiveness would demand nothing less than the abandonment of the fanatical belief and the acknowledgement of the harm committed.

Remember, the Catholic Religion is all about forgiveness. A high church official said, long ago, that if Luther, the monk, had lived in the 20th Century, we would probably not remember him.

Either that or he would be remembered as a lunatic, not a reformer.

We are the Church and we have learnt a lot in 2,000 years, and yes, we have a lot more to learn. Keep up your pointed questions, they help us all clarify our thinking, and our progress, if any, May the Grace of God Shine on Us, both.

Glad to be of some use, and may I say that the improved clarity of thinking works both ways…

 

[Protector]

– Catholics also understand that forgiveness can only be given where there is genuine desire to repair and not repeat the hurt that has been inflicted. To be fair, the church as a whole has come a long way towards doing that, given that her minions generally don’t still burn people at the stake after torturing confessions out of them, but that’s not really the point I was making. The fact is that any belief system can be taken to extremes. Anyone so convinced they are right and so convinced that their beliefs matter more than people can commit atrocities, be they Catholic or otherwise. Under such circumstances, forgiveness would demand nothing less than the abandonment of the fanatical belief and the acknowledgement of the harm committed…

Hello again Sair, I believe that John 16:2 shows us that what you are describing above was prophesied by Christ Himself:-

             "They will put you out of the synagogues: **yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth a service to God.**"  Douay-Rheims Holy Bible.

Protector.

 

[tonyrey]

What alternatives can you suggest?

If you dispense with ethics you are amoral. If you reduce what is right to what is necessary for survival you reduce ethics to expediency. Then you have no grounds for objecting to predation…

God could simply have ‘programmed’ life to progress in the direction of increased complexity, without the requirement of natural pressures such as predation and environmental change to drive such progression. This is surely not beyond his ability.

If there are no natural pressures natural development cannot occur.

Nothing is ruled out if one is prepared to accept a life which lacks richness, variety, adventure, excitement, challenge and a sense of fulfilment without opportunities for faith, hope, courage, patience, compassion, fortitude, forgiveness and unselfish love.

You contradict yourself - nothing is ruled out if one rules out the attributes of embracing life in the world? And aren’t things like compassion, patience and selflessness rendered all the more noble if you’re not doing them out of inherent self-interest in the quality of your afterlife?

Inherent self-interest is not a defect but an essential attribute of a reasonable person. If everyone sacrifices themselves no one benefits! If you believe that being virtuous is its own reward it is absurd not to be virtuous for fear of being self-interested…

You are assuming that all the attributes I listed are consistent with a world devoid of multiplicity, variety, competition, sentience, interference, failure, frustration, accidents and death…

Absolutely not. Only claiming that an omnipotent (there’s that word again, the one that means all-powerful, capable of anything) being could provide such experience without the need for catastrophic suffering.

It does not mean capable of anything but capable of anything that is** feasible with regard to the constraints of the system** that has been created - such as order, predictability, multiplicity, variety, competition and sentience. How would you eliminate all undesirable coincidences, accidents, mishaps and failures?

You are so paralysed by fear you would rapidly lose consciousness. I was almost trampled to death by a bull elephant in Africa and transfixed with shock for several minutes after he turned away…

Was your shock a positive experience?

If terror is positive yes.

I’ll start with wolves, hyenas, African wild dogs and killer whales. Oh, and chimpanzees that tear live monkeys to pieces in order to eat them. That’s not a quick death either.

I have already pointed out that anyone overcome by terror rapidly loses consciousness in a matter of minutes rather than the days, weeks or months of a lingering disease - until the victim is mercifully released by a predator.

And that’s not even beginning to count the multitudes of insect predators and parasites that make life short and terrifying or lingeringly miserable for their prey or their hosts.

The vast majority of animals are not diseased, deformed, in constant pain or fear of death. Your view of nature is quite unbalanced, negative and pessimistic.

 

[babylonsfalling]

breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4f8ccccd2e38de074f4c1305131c47e4.491&show_article=1

Does anybody know what Hawkings is talking about when he says there is no longer any need for the concept of God due to recent developments in physics? :confused

Atheists have be trying to use science to convince themselves of God’s non-existence for a really long time now so this is really nothing new. In the end they’ll use anything to help them dis-believe in God.
I remember this vid being used by some atheist as proof that God didn’t exist.
youtube.com/watch?v=PBOdH3Z_XVI&feature=player_embedded
If science were to conclusively prove that God DID exist, they’d probably start using ouija boards if they thought it help.

 

[Sair]

If you dispense with ethics you are amoral. If you reduce what is right to what is necessary for survival you reduce ethics to expediency. Then you have no grounds for objecting to predation…

Okay, let’s be clear on this - I don’t object to predation. I am simply pointing out that it does not speak to the idea of a benevolent creator. And from the point of view of metaphysical naturalism, natural processes are amoral in the sense that they are not the result of any conscious decision on the part of a thinking entity. You are the one who believes that they were planned and executed by just such a being, so it is up to you to find a justification for them on ethical grounds.

If there are no natural pressures natural development cannot occur.

Quite true, provided you rule out the intervention of any supernatural entity, as I do. You don’t.

Inherent self-interest is not a defect but an essential attribute of a reasonable person. If everyone sacrifices themselves no one benefits! If you believe that being virtuous is its own reward it is absurd not to be virtuous for fear of being self-interested…

Again, I am not objecting to self-interest. I just find it a little ironic that you and other believers speak of selflessness and sacrifice as noble ideals, but you also believe such actions will be rewarded in the afterlife, thus cancelling out the claim to selflessness. I’m certainly not claiming that there is no personal satisfaction to be found in altruism. Mutual benefit, in whatever form that takes, is one of the mainstays of human ethics.

It does not mean capable of anything but capable of anything that is** feasible with regard to the constraints of the system** that has been created - such as order, predictability, multiplicity, variety, competition and sentience. How would you eliminate all undesirable coincidences, accidents, mishaps and failures?

A perfect creator - as you claim your God is - would be capable of creating a perfect system. If the constraints of the existing system allow accidents and failures, it is up to you as a believer in said perfect creator to explain why he didn’t build a system with different constraints.

If terror is positive yes.

Terror can only be positive in relation to circumstances - if it leads you to avoid dangers, it has a positive outcome, but it seems eccentric to claim that the terror itself is a positive experience. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that a perfect, benevolent creator would allow for circumstances in which terror is positive?

I have already pointed out that anyone overcome by terror rapidly loses consciousness in a matter of minutes rather than the days, weeks or months of a lingering disease - until the victim is mercifully released by a predator.

And those minutes, I’d wager, would seem like the longest of your life.

The vast majority of animals are not diseased, deformed, in constant pain or fear of death. Your view of nature is quite unbalanced, negative and pessimistic.

The vast majority of species that have ever existed are now extinct. My view of nature is realistic. Its beauty and wonder is balanced by its brutality. I have been focusing on the harsh elements here in order to point out that it seems strange to claim all this as the work of a benevolent creator. Your statement above is a bit like saying that the two World Wars didn’t kill the majority of people on the planet, so they were actually not that bad.

 

[tonyrey]

If you dispense with ethics you are amoral. If you reduce what is right to what is necessary for survival you reduce ethics to expediency. Then you have no grounds for objecting to predation…

If you don’t object to it then why is it inconsistent with a benevolent creator?

And from the point of view of metaphysical naturalism, natural processes are amoral in the sense that they are not the result of any conscious decision on the part of a thinking entity.

You are the one who believes that they were planned and executed by just such a being, so it is up to you to find a justification for them on ethical grounds.

Why? The amorality of natural processes is not self-evidently inconsistent with a benevolent creator. In fact it is difficult to see how they could possible be moral!

If there are no natural pressures natural development cannot occur.

Quite true, provided you rule out the intervention of any supernatural entity, as I do. You don’t.

Even with a supernatural entity natural development cannot occur without natural pressures - unless there is a constant spate of miracles which would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly system.

Inherent self-interest is not a defect but an essential attribute of a reasonable person. If everyone sacrifices themselves no one benefits! If you believe that being virtuous is its own reward it is absurd not to be virtuous for fear of being self-interested…

Again, I am not objecting to self-interest. I just find it a little ironic that you and other believers speak of selflessness and sacrifice as noble ideals, but you also believe such actions will be rewarded in the afterlife, thus cancelling out the claim to selflessness.

Is it ironic that you believe in the value of unselfishness **and **the fact that it will make you more likeable? Or is being unselfish destined to make you unpopular and have no beneficial consequences for you whatsoever?

I’m certainly not claiming that there is no personal satisfaction to be found in altruism. Mutual benefit, in whatever form that takes, is one of the mainstays of human ethics.

Your reward is not merely a sense of personal satisfaction but also the positive effect on the attitude of others towards you. But according to you that entirely deprives altruism of its value!

It does not mean capable of anything but capable of anything that is feasible with regard to the constraints of the system that has been created - such as order, predictability, multiplicity, variety, competition and sentience. How would you eliminate all undesirable coincidences, accidents, mishaps and failures?

A perfect creator - as you claim your God is - would be capable of creating a perfect system.

A perfect physical system is a figment of your imagination - unless you can provide us with a feasible blueprint.

If the constraints of the existing system allow accidents and failures, it is up to you as a believer in said perfect creator to explain why he didn’t build a system with different constraints.

You are the one who claims** it is possible to create a universe devoid of defects**. The onus is on you to explain precisely how the job can be done. Otherwise it remains a gratuitous claim without a jot of evidence in its favour…

Terror can only be positive in relation to circumstances - if it leads you to avoid dangers, it has a positive outcome, but it seems eccentric to claim that the terror itself is a positive experience. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that a perfect, benevolent creator would allow for circumstances in which terror is positive?

Can you have a negative feeling or sensation? Surely it would have no effect on your body. Terror often has negative consequences - as when it kills you - but it is a positive state of mind and body. Does it strike you as odd that fear and pain are necessary self-defence mechanisms?

I have already pointed out that anyone overcome by terror rapidly loses consciousness in a matter of minutes rather than the days, weeks or months of a lingering disease - until the victim is mercifully released by a predator.

And those minutes, I’d wager, would seem like the longest of your life.

“seem” is the key word. If you had suffered severe pain for three years or longer you might well jump at the chance to die within a few minutes…

The vast majority of animals are not diseased, deformed, in constant pain or fear of death. Your view of nature is quite unbalanced, negative and pessimistic.

The vast majority of species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Does that mean their lives were entirely valueless?

My view of nature is realistic. Its beauty and wonder is balanced by its brutality.

If it is balanced what are you complaining about?!

I have been focusing on the harsh elements here in order to point out that it seems strange to claim all this as the work of a benevolent creator.

So you expect a free lunch regardless of the fact that it is impossible to have everything for nothing. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage… unless you can point out an exception.

Ironically the two World Wars were caused by human beings. You should find a better example…

 

[MikeSar]

Just came across a passage from Pascal’s *Pensees *that might illuminate so far as Stephen Hawking is concerned.
Pascal draws a distinction between two types of thought, the intuitive and the analytic.
“Those who are accustomed to judge by feeling do not understand the process of reasoning, for they would understand at first sight and are not used to seek for principles. And others, on the contrary, who are accustomed to reason from principles, do not all understand matters of feeling, seeking principles and being unable to see at a glance.”
Someone like Mozart can see God at a glance (intuitively) in “Ave Verum Corpus.” Indeed, it is virtually impossible to explain Mozart’s vision in this hymn if it is not the vision of a loving and merciful God.
youtube.com/watch?v=I71u8fWcdS8&feature=related 4-5 minutes
Could Mozart fathom the kind of mathematical principles at which Hawking would be adept?
Unlikely!
But perhaps Hawking (and many scientists of his ilk) cannot grasp God at a glance because they are seeking a principle rather than feeling a God.
This would be if not the main reason, one of the ancillary reasons, that some scientists like Hawking will prefer an infinity of universes behind the Big Bang rather than an infinite God.

---

Making progress, making progress…
Why not jump to end and use the ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas?
Maritain or Gilson made the parallel between God and Man
in that God requires no steps to create creatures
and poets, scientists and artists may, in a moment of “inspiration” (whatever that is) go, without ANY intermediate steps go to a new idea, concept or being, whatever is withing your powers.
The limitation that we all, non-gods, have is that we have no way to discover a new principle that is both true and proven about something for which we have no evidence.
Einstein insisted Principles cannot, really, ever be proven because, he said,
one single exception would prove it wrong.
We have only one telescope that is less than a few years old that show something, not much, after the first Billion years, or so.
Yet, the phenomena that decides what happens next are the smallest -we cannot and will not ever see. Yes, I do know about the new telescope that will be launched soon.
If you, or I, were to try to create the equations in the first microseconds of the Bing Bang the fact is that we have no data and, by the way, neither does Hawking.
That he has equations that lead to our current state (ignoring that we are aware only of an infinitesimal part of the whole Universe) does not prove they correctly describe the past, of which we know a lot less than we care to admit. Humility is in Order!
I imagine Dr. Hawking, about who I know nearly nothing, seems to follow the path of poetic and musical genius that are sure their offspring are the greatest ever, which they may be.
In science, if you cannot prove it with data, it is only an speculation that may, or not, be right.​

One could extrapolate and say that since all Principles are based and proven with data collected with experiments limited in their range and our ability to measure,
All Principles are only as valid as the experimental data, amount and accuracy, used.
In short, in agreement with Einstein, (Absolute) Principles are little more than a summary of experimental data and those with some memory and humility, remember that in physics most principles have been affected by new findings.
Yet, he wants to conclude on the basis of that, that God has no functions left?
Give me a break!

 

[fellow_servant]

The argument is flawed if there is no God and there is only us then where is the universe is exapanding to e.g if you blow up a ballon it expands in the room what is the room of the universe.

 

[Sair]

If you don’t object to it then why is it inconsistent with a benevolent creator?

Because it is suffering built into the system as a necessary means for evolution. Whether I personally object to it or not is irrelevant, but you ought to - you are the one who claims a perfect, benevolent creator who intended and created catastrophic suffering.

Why? The amorality of natural processes is not self-evidently inconsistent with a benevolent creator. In fact it is difficult to see how they could possible be moral!

If they are the work of a moral being, they have an ethical component. If they are not the work of such a being, they have no ethical component. They are only amoral if they are unplanned.

Even with a supernatural entity natural development cannot occur without natural pressures - unless there is a constant spate of miracles which would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly system.

So you are a deist, then? Do you believe that God does not maintain the universe?

Is it ironic that you believe in the value of unselfishness **and **the fact that it will make you more likeable? Or is being unselfish destined to make you unpopular and have no beneficial consequences for you whatsoever?

Kind of depends on the context. Sometimes being unselfish leads others to take advantage of you. Then it’s no walk in the park. The ethical life, as far as I see it, depends upon finding the balance between self-interest and altruism.

Your reward is not merely a sense of personal satisfaction but also the positive effect on the attitude of others towards you. But according to you that entirely deprives altruism of its value!

Uh, no - that’s according to you. As far as I’m concerned, selflessness has its place, but I don’t see self-sacrifice as the ultimate expression of right conduct.

A perfect physical system is a figment of your imagination - unless you can provide us with a feasible blueprint.

If a perfect being is not a figment of your imagination, then you must be able to conceive of how such a being could create a universe, and if necessary, explain why a perfect creator would not or could not produce a perfect creation. The onus is not on me to explain these things, because I don’t believe them.

Can you have a negative feeling or sensation? Surely it would have no effect on your body. Terror often has negative consequences - as when it kills you - but it is a positive state of mind and body. Does it strike you as odd that fear and pain are necessary self-defence mechanisms?

No, it doesn’t strike me as odd, because I don’t think the universe was made by a benevolent creator. And you are misinterpreting the use I was making of ‘negative’ - I was speaking in a subjective sense, as in feelings that we, as subjective beings, would interpret as ‘bad’.

Does that mean their lives were entirely valueless?

In what sense did I intimate that I thought this? If your God created them to become extinct, why would he do such a thing? Have we been created to become extinct too?

If it is balanced what are you complaining about?!

The same thing I’ve been complaining about all along - the ability of believers to look at the world as it is and still posit a perfect, benevolent creator!

So you expect a free lunch regardless of the fact that it is impossible to have everything for nothing. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage… unless you can point out an exception.

I don’t expect a free lunch. But you expect a free pass for your God, despite the manifold imperfections in what you believe to be his creation.

Ironically the two World Wars were caused by human beings. You should find a better example…

Ironically, you claim human beings were created by a supposedly perfect God…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The argument is flawed if there is no God and there is only us then where is the universe is exapanding to e.g if you blow up a ballon it expands in the room what is the room of the universe.

The implications are logically severe and terminal in nature. If the universe began to exist, and the universe is all there is, then it follows necessarily that the universe not only came out of absolutely nothing, but is also expanding into absolutely nothing, and therefore the universe is quite literally in absolute nothingness, and therefore does not really exist because nothingness does not exist.

The only other option, other than speculating that our universe is expanding within a spatially infinite universe, is to say that the universe is not expanding into something that is physical.

 

[Sair]

The implications are logically severe and terminal in nature. If the universe began to exist, and the universe is all there is, then it follows necessarily that the universe not only came out of absolutely nothing, but is also expanding into absolutely nothing, and therefore the universe is quite literally in absolute nothingness, and therefore does not really exist because nothingness does not exist.

The only other option, other than speculating that our universe is expanding within a spatially infinite universe, is to say that the universe is not expanding into something that is physical.

Do you know that “absolutely nothing” can even exist? Surely there is some logical contradiction inherent in the phrase “nothing exists”. There are many physicists who posit the idea that “nothing” cannot exist, indeed is unstable and therefore must give rise to “something”. Even if the universe as we know it began to exist, it doesn’t follow that the universe, in terms of “everything that exists”, was somehow not before such time as we are able to detect its existence.

Does it follow that in order to be expanding, the universe must be expanding into something? Surely that notion is only a reflection of our anthropic limitations.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Do you know that “absolutely nothing” can even exist? Surely there is some logical contradiction inherent in the phrase “nothing exists”. There are many physicists who posit the idea that “nothing” cannot exist, indeed is unstable and therefore must give rise to “something”. Even if the universe as we know it began to exist, it doesn’t follow that the universe, in terms of “everything that exists”, was somehow not before such time as we are able to detect its existence.

At some point, if you are an honest seeker of knowledge, you will come to realize that there is fundamental difference between the nothing that strict academic peer review scientists talk about in reference to quantum physics, and the absolute nothing that is spoken about by meta-physicians and philosophers. Some scientists do philosophy instead, forgetting that the epistemological rules have changed. The words are being used in a different context, one in reference to the idea of an empty space (a pure vacuum) which was later found to be filled with energy which fluctuates; and the latter one is in reference to “non-existence”, non-reality (no space, no time, no energy, no particles, no-thing).

Playing with the context in which certain words are expressed, or taking them out of context, will not change that. Either you know this, or, you lack important knowledge of the contexts and distinctions in which and through which science operates. Science does not present metaphysical theories for peer review. The question of possibility and impossibility is not a question for science. If it touches on those questions it is only indirectly in reference to the natural powers of something or other, since they use logic to frame scientific questions and theories.

And yes, “nothing exists” is a logical impossibility. Therefore there is an absolute perfect reality which doesn’t change; this is to say it does not proceed from potentiality or change, and thus is not changing, and yet at the same time its nature is as such that it is the cause of change/potentiality. This is true of a spatial/temporal being which begins to exist, but it is also true of an infinite regression of change. This is the case because you cannot have an infinite regression of potentiality. At some point existence must ontologically precede potentiality/change absolutely. Note that i say here “Ontologically precede” as opposed to a temporal procession of physical beings.

Does it follow that in order to be expanding, the universe must be expanding into something? Surely that notion is only a reflection of our anthropic limitations.

Its a question of something expanding into absolutely nothing; nothing being a word which signifies the absence or reality. This is a logical contradiction. However to speak of an expansion through a hierarchical reality that is distinct from the essential nature of physical world, at least solves the problem of idea of expanding into nothing. It is better to say that the universe is not expanding into anything we can understand as physical.

 

[Protector]

The argument is flawed if there is no God and there is only us then where is the universe is exapanding to e.g if you blow up a ballon it expands in the room what is the room of the universe.

My thoughts exactly “fellow servant”. Actually, from my youth I vowed never to contemplate that question too deeply, because I believed it would quickly lead to insanity. I mean, everything we know of on Earth is contained within something else, whether visible or not. I am in a house, my house in in a town, the town…etc.etc., but when my thoughts go beyond these Earthly confines, I feel a strange sensation beginning to pulse through me and a little voice saying, “Leave it at that”
Protector.

 

[Sair]

At some point, if you are an honest seeker of knowledge, you will come to realize that there is fundamental difference between the nothing that strict academic peer review scientists talk about in reference to quantum physics, and the absolute nothing that is spoken about by meta-physicians and philosophers. Some scientists do philosophy instead, forgetting that the epistemological rules have changed. The words are being used in a different context, one in reference to the idea of an empty space (a pure vacuum) which was later found to be filled with energy which fluctuates; and the latter one is in reference to “non-existence”, non-reality (no space, no time, no energy, no particles, no-thing).

Playing with the context in which certain words are expressed, or taking them out of context, will not change that. Either you know this, or, you lack important knowledge of the contexts and distinctions in which and through which science operates. Science does not present metaphysical theories for peer review. The question of possibility and impossibility is not a question for science. If it touches on those questions it is only indirectly in reference to the natural powers of something or other, since they use logic to frame scientific questions and theories.

I have no problem with the distinction between the nothing posited by physicists and the nothing posited by philosophers. I’m just not sure how philosophers imagine that their nothing refers to any meaningful state - a state of not-being literally means nothing. Those who posit creation ex nihilo, or who ask, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” from what I gather, are generally referring to the philosphers’ nothing, not the physicists’ nothing.

And yes, “nothing exists” is a logical impossibility. Therefore there is an absolute perfect reality which doesn’t change; this is to say it does not proceed from potentiality or change, and thus is not changing, and yet at the same time its nature is as such that it is the cause of change/potentiality. This is true of a spatial/temporal being which begins to exist, but it is also true of an infinite regression of change. This is the case because you cannot have an infinite regression of potentiality. At some point existence must ontologically precede potentiality/change absolutely. Note that i say here “Ontologically precede” as opposed to a temporal procession of physical beings.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

An agent cannot be unchanging and yet the cause of change -

It depends on the nature of the cause. Certainly, I agree that the first cause cannot be a being with physical/spatial limitations, since such agents require change. This in no way changes that the fact that the first cause is necessarily distinct from that which is in the process of change; this is to say that it is not a thing which is changing, since it is the cause of change, and potentiality cannot come out of nothing by itself.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

And what of energy, which according to physics, cannot be created or destroyed?

This is a scientific statement, not a metaphysical statement.

Energy is still an act of becoming, its being evolves; it moves from potential to actual, from past to present. It proceeds in to more reality.

Potentiality cannot come out of nothing by itself.

 

[Sair]

This is a scientific statement, not a metaphysical statement.

Energy is still an act of becoming, its being evolves; it moves from potential to actual, from past to present. It proceeds in to more reality.

Potentiality cannot come out of nothing by itself.

In what respect can it be said that the philosophers’ ‘nothing’ ever obtained? Because potentiality is ever-present in the physicists’ nothing. Quantum events occur randomly, apparently without cause. The move from potentiality to actuality doesn’t appear to require any causal (name removed by moderator)ut from an agent external to the extant potentiality.

If metaphysics doesn’t treat with physical, observable, detectable, measurable realities to some extent, it’s pretty much just building castles in the air. The whole point of Hawking’s thesis is that it is possible, at least theoretically, to explain the existence and conditions of the universe from within physical reality itself - it’s not necessary to posit an external agent as a means of explaining why the universe exists. In that respect, God is surplus to requirements.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In what respect can it be said that the philosophers’ ‘nothing’ ever obtained?

Potentiality cannot come out of nothing. If there has always been change, then you are in effect saying that the potentiality for change came out of nothing, since potentiality extends infinitely in to the past with no true cause. Potentiality cannot bring itself to actuality. It requires reality in-order to make it actual because it has no act of reality; and out of nothing comes nothing. Potentiality cannot come from or be ultimately caused by the nature of that which is changing since that which is changing is itself subject to potentiality, and requires potentiality in-order to change. It is meaningless to speak of energy without change. so it does us no good simply to say that the thing was always real, because it is still an act of becoming, an actuality of more potential reality; it is an evolving thing as opposed to a complete and perfect expression of being which is associated with a first cause. Regardless of an enduring essence, If all change is an expression potential, you cannot say that an actual thing - which is itself an expression of potential - is the cause of potentiality.

Because potentiality is ever-present in the physicists’ nothing. Quantum events occur randomly, apparently without cause.

Random, means no “physical cause”. This however cannot be used as metaphysical proof that things, or potentiality, can come out of nothing by itself through its own power. Such would be an absolute contradiction.

Scientific statements are not metaphysical statements.

The move from potentiality to actuality doesn’t appear to require any causal (name removed by moderator)ut from an agent external to the extant potentiality.

It evidently doesn’t require a physical cause, but since out of nothing comes nothing, the event in question still requires a cause. It just can’t be a physical one.

Scientific statements are not metaphysical statements.

If metaphysics doesn’t treat with physical, observable, detectable, measurable realities to some extent, it’s pretty much just building castles in the air.

This is a straw-man. Nobody said that metaphysics doesn’t deal with observable reality. It deals with reality in its generality ( change/potentiality, essence, the act of being), while science deals with particulars (the natural powers of measurable beings). The knowledge of things in their particularity requires the scientific method. The knowledge of things in their generality does not.

The whole point of Hawking’s thesis is that it is possible, at least theoretically, to explain the existence and conditions of the universe from within physical reality itself - it’s not necessary to posit an external agent as a means of explaining why the universe exists. In that respect, God is surplus to requirements.

Once the potentiality of the universe has been actualised, it continues to act according to its essential nature. I do not deny this. There is evidently such a thing as the laws of physics, and they apply as long as the universe endures. But the laws of physics is not essentially the same as the laws of logic. Again, real science is inductive and subject to scientific measurements and does not present metaphysical a-prior theories about what is possible or impossible. It makes theories about the powers or attributes of the physical objects known through our immediate experiences, and uses pre-scientific methods of knowledge (applied logic) in order to interpret and mould the data into a coherent model. Science by the epistemological limitation of its own methods makes it impossible to observe or make evident to us the idea that no other natures besides physical nature exists, and more importantly, neither can it make evident that a thing has come out of nothing by itself, since nothing cannot be measured. Thus it is meaningless to say that science can show us how the universe came out of absolutely nothing (no time, space, or energy; no-thing), because nothing is not a physical object that can be tested. Thus when Stephen Hawkings says that the universe can explain its own existence in absolute terms, he is either being irrational, deluded, or deceptive.

However; what science can and has made evident, much in the favour of the theist, is that the potential universe didn’t come into being by the power of an “existing” physical mechanistic changing cause. But since out of nothing comes nothing, it still requires a cause nonetheless.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**If metaphysics doesn’t treat with physical, observable, detectable, measurable realities to some extent, it’s pretty much just building castles in the air. The whole point of Hawking’s thesis is that it is possible, at least theoretically, to explain the existence and conditions of the universe from within physical reality itself - it’s not necessary to posit an external agent as a means of explaining why the universe exists. In that respect, God is surplus to requirements. **

Castles in the air? What is Hawking doing but building castles in the air?

Everything he says these days is pure, unadulterated speculation. How can you “observe, detect, or measure” an uncaused universe?