Stephen Hawking's statement

[stephe1987]

It sounds like this was written to get pats on the back from his atheist colleagues and also cheers from those atheist college kids who left religion to rebel against their parents.

This is not anything profound or new. I’m not impressed that such an intelligent man would write something this silly. Well, he is only human after all; none of us is perfect.

 

[ElizabethPH]

It sounds like this was written to get pats on the back from his atheist colleagues and also cheers from those atheist college kids who left religion to rebel against their parents.

This is not anything profound or new. I’m not impressed that such an intelligent man would write something this silly. Well, he is only human after all; none of us is perfect.

I don’t see at all what is so intelligent about the guy then.

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks for the help, guys (especially 4horsemen for typing all that!)

Anyway, let me refine my question.

Is it possible that something other than God existed before the BB? Couldn’t gravity have existed?

I don’t know how. Gravity is a confluence of space curvature and things with mass. If space curvature did not exist until after the BB, and, if physical things with mass didn’t exist before the BB, then the wasn’t anything around for gravity to work on. Period. Gravity would have just been suspended out there, beyond the exterior of the universe, or, even where the universe was formed, not doing anything.

Who said that everything was created at the BB? Maybe gravity existed before?

If all that existed before the BB was spiritual matter, i.e., God, then there was nothing physical that existed. Therefore, no gravity either.

I have a feeling the answer lies in someone’s post that I didn’t read

Please look and read. Whatever might be there, in one of those posts, it would be shear conjecture.

God bless,
jd

 

[Leela]

There is a lot of evidence that Hawking is not a complete idiot. Before jumping to the conclusion that he has made some obvious error that any eight year old could detect, you should probably consider the more plausible possibility that you haven’t yet understood what Hawking is saying.

 

[4Horsemen]

Horsemen:

There’s the problem: even decent scientists cannot define “Time!” Time is not a thing, as much as some need, or, would like it to be. It is a measure - nothing more, and nothing less. A yard is a yard, nothing more, nothing less. It is the measure of that which is linear or planar.

Time is the measure of motion. Motion exists - providing there is some subject that we can ascribe the motion to. If we can’t, then we are merely imagining. We are imagining “what if there was something there that was moving.” We can make imaginary predictions. That’s all.

And this guy is supposed to be brilliant.

God bless,
jd

Greetings jd!

It’s good that you pointed out the very basic, down-to-earth postulate that time is a measure of motion. It’s so easy to get caught up in ethereal misunderstandings and think of time as a thing rather than a measurement.

Fr. Spitzer offers the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (as someone else mentioned) which predicts a boundary to past time in any universe. It’s my understanding from having read something else previously that it can be proven that the universe is finite in the past but that it could be infinite in the future. So, it’s not really understood whether or not the universe is a closed system or not. Then there is talk of multi-universes with different sets of laws and constants, which would seem impossible. A problem arises with the definition of “universe”. Is it that which contains ALL things, or just one universe in a complex of many? There are scientists who believe the latter, but no matter what they believe, they always come to the end of the road where they have to admit (not that they do) that something outside had to put everything in motion as Aquinas relates.

If you or others could shed more light on the idea of a closed system or open (the universe being infinite into the future, if I understand it correctly), I would appreciate it.

Many blessings,
4Horsemen

 

[4Horsemen]

4Horsemen;7054959:

I

Well put! but I’ll add the following.

In Fr. Spitzer’s book he also makes use, and it is an important point, of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, which shows that for all physically realistic models (and that covers a lot of territory) that time is finite, i.e. there has to be a beginning point in time. And as St. Augustine pointed, 1600 years ago, before the beginning there was no time. time came into being with creation. When asked what was God doing before Creation, he said (if I remember correctly) that God was preparing Hell for people who asked that question.

:clapping: Good one! God is always busy. Some think of Him as some far-off deity in the sky who is not involved in His creation. Believers know that He is involved in every detail of our lives, as He is our Parent.

I read about the BGV Theorem. It seems to have been worked out after a revelation that Hawkings and Penrose’s third condition didn’t work out because something called “vacuum energy” caused an inflation which causes expansion to speed up and cause negative energy. (Not that I really understand, you need to do the math to REALLY understand, but it is fascinating to read about. Several years ago, I had read all of Isaac Asimov’s easy-reader type science books and got hooked. Learning should continue past university study IMO).

So, in any cases, as you mentioned, there had to be a boundary to past time. I’m still wondering about future time.

Many blessings,
4Horsemen

 

[4Horsemen]

Thanks for the help, guys (especially 4horsemen for typing all that!)

Anyway, let me refine my question.

Is it possible that something other than God existed before the BB? Couldn’t gravity have existed? Who said that everything was created at the BB? Maybe gravity existed before?

I have a feeling the answer lies in someone’s post that I didn’t read

I got a little carried away with the typing , but I just want to relate that some have suggested there might have been a pre-Big Bang era. But Father Spitzer emphasizes that “it still would have needed an ultimate beginning.” And if there were an ultimate beginning, “then at one point, the universe was nothing, and then it came into being.” It couldn’t cause itself. Nothing produces nothing.

I’m still into the early chapters, but scientists before Hawking demonstrated (proved?) the finitude of time. Father mentions the discoveries of mathematicians and physicists, including David Hilbert, the “father of finite mathematics” who explored the finitude of past time (implying an Intelligent Being).

Many blessings,
4 Horsemen

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It sounds like this was written to get pats on the back from his atheist colleagues and also cheers from those atheist college kids who left religion to rebel against their parents.

Yes. We all naturally want glory. If we reject the glory of God, we have to seek counterfeit or substitute versions of that glory else where.

 

[coolduude]

Yes, I know there are logical reasons why time must be finite.

I suppose the best answer to my question would be “we don’t know, but even if gravity existed before the Big Bang it had to have come from somewhere (no infinite regress).”

Right?

 

[grannymh]

Yes, I know there are logical reasons why time must be finite.

I suppose the best answer to my question would be “we don’t know, but even if gravity existed before the Big Bang it had to have come from somewhere (no infinite regress).”

Right?

Is matter finite? If so, then time would be finite because it is connected to matter.

The only thing which is not finite is the non-material.

 

[JDaniel]

Is matter finite? If so, then time would be finite because it is connected to matter.

The only thing which is not finite is the non-material.

Granny:

Time is related to motion, and mobile being is the subject of Aquinas’ general science of nature. But, motion is not itself a being, although it is real. Time is the measure of motion. It is how we measure it only. Time could be infinite, but, only if the universe is infinite. I can’t even conceive of how one would measure that which is infinite, using time. It would be impossible.

And, besides, the universe is merely finite.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Granny:

Time is related to motion, and mobile being is the subject of Aquinas’ general science of nature. But, motion is not itself a being, although it is real. Time is the measure of motion. It is how we measure it only. Time could be infinite, but, only if the universe is infinite. I can’t even conceive of how one would measure that which is infinite, using time. It would be impossible.

And, besides, the universe is merely finite.

God bless,
jd

The universe is merely finite but we are not finite…nor are we merely…

Back to motion. Need more info about Aquinas’ general science of nature or his philosophy of nature How does Hawking compare with him.

Motion of what? That would be matter or material or physical. Thus the non-material cannot be measured by time, therefore the non-material is outside of the boundaries of time.

Perhaps the trouble with Hawking’s theories is that he is separating his area of knowledge from the area of knowledge of the human person. It is my humble observation that the best way to come to knowledge of the non-material is to understand human nature itself.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[JDaniel]

Granny:

Time is related to motion, and mobile being is the subject of Aquinas’ general science of nature. But, time is not itself a being, although it is real. Time is the measure of motion.

Granny:

When I wrote the above, I was falling asleep. I incorrectly wrote “motion” where I should have written “time.” It is corrected above, bolded and colored red. Sorry.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The universe is merely finite but we are not finite…nor are we merely…

Back to motion. Need more info about Aquinas’ science of nature or his philosophy of nature How does Hawking compare with him?

St. Thomas’ science of nature is fairly tightly based on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Posterior Analytics, On Generation and Corruption, On the Heavens, On the Soul, and others. It starts with what we see and how we know things, which is largely from Motion. So, it is the study of mobile being.

Motion of what? That would be matter or material or physical. Thus the non-material cannot be measured by time, therefore the non-material is outside of the boundaries of time.

Mobile being. Mobile being is every natural thing. You can see by the titles of some of Aristotle’s works what subjects Aquinas covers. When we look at something, what is the first thing that draws our attentions. The movement of those things. So, he starts with mobile beings, investigates their mobility, and proceeds to growth, then to coming-to-be, etc.

Perhaps the trouble with Hawking’s theories is that he is separating his area of knowledge from the area of knowledge of the human person. It is my humble observation that the best way to come to knowledge of the non-material is to understand human nature itself.

The trouble with Hawking is that he is no doubt a better physicist than he is a book writer.

God bless,
jd

 

[Touchstone]

The trouble with Hawking is that he is no doubt a better physicist than he is a book writer.

God bless,
jd

This I can agree with wholeheartedly.

-TS

 

[coolduude]

Granny:

Time is related to motion, and mobile being is the subject of Aquinas’ general science of nature. But, motion is not itself a being, although it is real. Time is the measure of motion. It is how we measure it only. Time could be infinite, but, only if the universe is infinite. I can’t even conceive of how one would measure that which is infinite, using time. It would be impossible.

And, besides, the universe is merely finite.

God bless,
jd

Can you explain this more, please?

Also, why does the BB have to be the ultimate beginning? I’m just kinda asking the same questions from earlier

 

[buffalo]

Fr. Barron comments on Stephen Hawking & more tired atheism

 

[utah_rose]

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.

They don’t want to admit that. For some of them, Science is their God. They need to look at some of the Christian and Catholic scientists like Louis Pasteur–he could have claimed that science was the answer, and it was he alone that thought of this idea.

Or, what about the discovery of penicillin? Some of these people are so arrogant it scares me. If they continue their beliefs(I mean the atheistic scientists now) they will create all kinds of horrible mutations, worse than any horror movie you could watch.

Perhaps this is what was happening when God decided to turn the flood unto earth.

Hope we will not be the guinea pigs. I’m sure that God is angry enough now with abortion embryonic cell experimentation and cloning.

 

[4Horsemen]

Fr. Barron comments on Stephen Hawking & more tired atheism

Very good video especially differentiating science from philosophy. Fr. Barron explains well the idea of “contingency” and exposes Hawking’s statement that the universe came from nothing but then he adds the idea of gravity as a beginning. Mr. Hawking can’t have it both ways. Father mentions that false science leads to “scientism” in which nothing can be known unless science explains it. All in all, Father did a good job of debunking Hawking’s ideas, especially as he tries to step into the metaphysical aspects of origin.

 

[4Horsemen]

The better thing to do would be to buy Fr. Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God rather than Hawking’s Grand Design. Fr. Spitzer goes through all the latest theories, proposals, scenarios and ideas about a universe with no beginning as well as a universe with a beginning including the Big Bang.

There are scenarios in which the Big Bang is still the beginning of the universe but not “singular.” He relates about “bouncing universes” and other proposals, including Linde’s “eternal inflation” scenario. Also, there are ideas that the Big Bang is not the beginning but instead a gateway or “portal” to a previous era.

Father Spitzer discusses each theorem or idea and its relevance to a beginning of time and its boundary. As mentioned earlier, time is a measurement, so a universe with infinite time cannot be understood and could not be defined by laws of motion. It seems apparent that part of the proof or evidence for a created universe, one with a beginniing, lies in the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that the entropy of our universe just after the Big Bang was extremely low. The point is “that if the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe, but a transition (e.g., a bounce) from an earlier era of the universe that had no beginning, then it becomes even harder to explain the low entropy just after the big bang.”

That may (or may not) answer the OP.