Stephen Hawking's statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coolduude

Guest
I was just re-reading his statement, and it made less sense to me the second time around than the first time I read it.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing,” the excerpt says. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to … set the Universe going.”
Click to expand...
Huh? :confused:

Is there anyone here who can debunk this/discredit it?

Are there any atheists who want to defend it?

Coolduude
 
Things magically create themselves all the time do they?

(No snappy God comebacks please.)
 
I only saw the second half but from what I could tell, Fr. Spitzer had to try and make his points against 2 opponents not including Stephen Hawking who I understand was on earlier. So I venture to guess that he had only a slice of the amount of time that should have been alloted to him. He managed to bring up the issue of transcendence and metaphysical proofs (mentioning Plato) but briefly. The professor from CalTech and Deepak Chopra (his book on Muhammed is coming out shortly) did most of the talking. However, even Larry King brought up the idea of being out in space and seeing all of creation including our little blue world and wondering about its beginning.

I wish I could have recorded it, but, hopefully, much of it will be on the internet.
 
AndrewA said:
Things magically create themselves all the time do they?

(No snappy God comebacks please.)
Click to expand...
Didn’t Leonard Mlodinow say that there have been many tests conducted that show how something can come from nothing?
 
4Horsemen said:
I only saw the second half but from what I could tell, Fr. Spitzer had to try and make his points against 2 opponents not including Stephen Hawking who I understand was on earlier. So I venture to guess that he had only a slice of the amount of time that should have been alloted to him. He managed to bring up the issue of transcendence and metaphysical proofs (mentioning Plato) but briefly. The professor from CalTech and Deepak Chopra (his book on Muhammed is coming out shortly) did most of the talking. However, even Larry King brought up the idea of being out in space and seeing all of creation including our little blue world and wondering about its beginning.

I wish I could have recorded it, but, hopefully, much of it will be on the internet.
Click to expand...
Three opponents not including Stephen Hawking.

Father Spitzer’s reference to going from the particular to the universal is key in analyzing science.
 
He’s an incredibly intelligent man, but his statement is so profoundly dumb. Notice how he doesn’t detail the beginning of gravity. He of all people should know that from nothing comes nothing
 
With my limited knowledge of quantum mechanics -

At the quantum level matter can appear spontaneously while the total energy of the system is still conserved. In principle this could apply to all the matter in the universe in the Big Bang.

This speculation has been around for decades but the flaw is that it doesn’t explain where physics came from in the first place - essentially it just says “and here a miracle happens” without explaining how or why. Various other speculations (multi-verses, etc.) can be used to support the idea, but all they do is move the problem around.

Unless Hawking has discovered something earth shattering, I think he’s just using this old idea as a sound bite to sell his new book. It wouldn’t be the first time that he’s muddied the waters between speculation and proven theories – other scientists were less than impressed with some of the stuff in his other popular books. Let’s face it, a definitive scientific proof for or against the existence of God would be front page news for months on end. :rolleyes:
 
Here’s an interesting read. Also, I’d be very suspicious of what Hawkings has to say about metaphysical questions. For instance, he brought up the facile objection to arguments about God that “we’d just be deferring the question to ‘who created God?’”
 
inocente said:
With my limited knowledge of quantum mechanics -

At the quantum level matter can appear spontaneously while the total energy of the system is still conserved. In principle this could apply to all the matter in the universe in the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Could going from the particular (quantum mechanics) to the universal (creation out of nothing) be the major flaw in Hawking’s scientific reasoning?
 
grannymh said:
Could going from the particular (quantum mechanics) to the universal (creation out of nothing) be the major flaw in Hawking’s scientific reasoning?
Click to expand...
I don’t think his reasoning is flawed, rather he’s over-extending an idea.

The usual way of thinking in physics is that the universe is absolutely everything physical. There’s evidence that the total amount of energy in the entire universe is, and always has been, exactly zero, and starting from a quantum event is allowed by the laws of physics.

So the idea is tenable but assumes some kind of preexisting backdrop to contain the laws of physics and the quantum fluctuation (noting the usual problems with language when talking about eternities and whatnot) and there seems to be no way to test that, even in principle, for ever and ever Amen.

Soulewolf is reading the book, so I’m waiting to see what he says. I suspect Hawking is saying nothing new, because if he was he would surely have published a paper with all the math, and be up for a Nobel Prize.

(I’m not a real physicist and may be wrong about the above. I didn’t spot any threads about the book on physics forums, so they don’t seem overly impressed either.)
 
JohnDamian said:
What is gravity when there are no particles?

🤷
Click to expand...
And not only that, where did the laws of physics come from? Hawkings and his collegues can argue their point all they want, but it only proves all the more – when you really think about it – that there must be a First Mover.
 
inocente said:
I don’t think his reasoning is flawed, rather he’s over-extending an idea.
Click to expand...
What I am trying to get into words is that over-extending an idea is key when the “universal” is beyond the basic reasonable evidence. For example. The samples of evidence may be low for legitimate reasons. Nonetheless, the “universal” may not be totally accurate because the unexamined factors could have greater influence than the original pieces of evidence.

Now, please tell me what I just said. 😉
The usual way of thinking in physics is that the universe is absolutely everything physical. There’s evidence that the total amount of energy in the entire universe is, and always has been, exactly zero, and starting from a quantum event is allowed by the laws of physics.

So the idea is tenable but assumes some kind of preexisting backdrop to contain the laws of physics and the quantum fluctuation (noting the usual problems with language when talking about eternities and whatnot) and there seems to be no way to test that, even in principle, for ever and ever Amen.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t common sense come into play?
Soulewolf is reading the book, so I’m waiting to see what he says. I suspect Hawking is saying nothing new, because if he was he would surely have published a paper with all the math, and be up for a Nobel Prize.

(I’m not a real physicist and may be wrong about the above. I didn’t spot any threads about the book on physics forums, so they don’t seem overly impressed either.)
Click to expand...
For my personal purpose, I am more interested in the methods used.

Blessings,
granny

The search for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
I think Hawkins needs to brush up on his Parmenides he is 2500 years out of date…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top