God did not create the universe, says Hawking (2 Viewers)

[RightinNYC]

I've always wondered, if God created the universe, then what created God and what existed before God?

Likewise, if the big bang created the universe, then what created the big bang and what existed or came before it? The flaw in Einstein's general theory of relativity is that while it can explain almost everything in the universe right up to a singularity in the moments before the big bang, it doesn't explain what the big bang was, what caused it or what existed before it or where gravity comes from.

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Moot]

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To infinity and beyoooond.

Silly question: if it's "turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down", then are there turtles all the way up to infinity as well, or are we sitting on the top turtle? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL

 

[RightinNYC]

To infinity and beyoooond.

Silly question: if it's "turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down", then are there turtles all the way up to infinity as well, or are we sitting on the top turtle? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL

If you look up, do you see sky or turtle taint? there's your answer. :2razz:

 

[scourge99]

I've always wondered, if God created the universe, then what created God and what existed before God?

Likewise, if the big bang created the universe, then what created the big bang and what existed or came before it? The flaw in Einstein's general theory of relativity is that while it can explain almost everything in the universe right up to a singularity in the moments before the big bang, it doesn't explain what the big bang was, what caused it or what existed before it or where gravity comes from.

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually there is much work being done as to why a Big Bang would occur.

With all due respect, your opinion that its an infinite regress (turtles all the way down) is as baseless as it is intellectually lazy. A lack of knowledge does not equate to an infinite regress.

 

[RightinNYC]

Actually there is much work being done as to why a Big Bang would occur.

With all due respect, your opinion that its an infinite regress (turtles all the way down) is as baseless as it is intellectually lazy. A lack of knowledge does not equate to an infinite regress.

I already explained my thoughts on this - even if we find out that X caused the Big Bang, what caused X? Even if we figure out that Y caused X, what caused Y? etc. The point that I'm getting at is that Hawking's "discovery" doesn't really do anything to move the ball in our attempts to figure out our origins. The turtle anecdote is not offered as an argument for how the universe actually works, but as an analogy for the way this question is being addressed - always needing to go one step further.

When I raised this point, you offered no real rebuttal and then concluded with "I don't know.... lets try to find out." I'm not sure how you go from being unable to offer an answer to characterizing my questions as baseless and intellectually lazy.

 

[scourge99]

scourge99/TheNextEra -

I don't have any problem with Science and Faith. I've read the Bible more than once and I haven't found anything that has been scientifically disproven.

Well lots of people read the Bible and interpret it in MANY differing and sometimes conflicting ways. Until you present your interpretation I cannot evaluate whether your interpretation conforms to science (the study of nature).

Nor do I have a problem with evolution, though defining terms is important. I think it is clear that species can and do change and adapt to their environment. Change can also be forced upon a species as in selective breeding for characteristics or the insertion of genetic coding. Of course, the latter requires "intelligent design", though since we're only human, "semi-intelligent design". I don't believe in what I will call "radical evolution" as in the spontaneous conversion of functional limbs and tail into wings and flight control surfaces. I don't believe that has been proven, but if it IS proven, I still don't see that the Bible says it can't happen. The Bible says God created and nothing changes.

The Genesis tale appears to give a very bad account of the creation of the world and what order animals were created in. The tale is in direct conflict with evolutionary evidence derived from such disciplines as genetics, geology, and paleontology.

Day-Age creationism is almost as goofy as Young Earth creationism : Pharyngula

But, once again you can interpret the Bible as loosely as one wants to make it say almost ANYTHING you want. Its sometimes referred to as the "big book of multiple choice" for a reason.

What I find immensely humorous however, is the non-believer who calls a religious believer close minded.

Has someone done that in this thread? I would think it silly for someone to claim to know the personal thoughts of another. I think it would be even sillier to try to prove that to others in a debate.

A religious believer accepts that there is both natural and super-natural.

1) Define what "supernatural" is.
2) how can humans differentiate between (a) "supernatural" (b) a natural event (c) an unlikely but natural event (d) a natural event whose cause has yet to be known or discovered.

The "supernatural" is indistinguishable from the natural. Everything can be claimed to be supernatural or natural. The difference, however, is that science (the study of nature) indicates that events that occur in the world are the product of predictable, recurring, and repeatable process and events.

The atheist does not allow for even the possibility of the super-natural.

Lacking a coherent definition for "supernatural" no one else can even address this question.

Here is an example. The 10 plagues brought on Egypt to force the release of the Hebrew slaves was for a very long time, thought by the non-believe community to be myth. Archeological discoveries however now seem to point to the Santorini eruption as having occurred at the same time as the exodus and suddenly there are scientific explanations for all of the plagues and their sequence.

Please reference scientific research or peer reviewed documents.

But lets say that Egypt did experience plagues. How is that proof of your God? If I write in my religious book that my God caused terrorists to strike the world trade center and that a major hurricane destroyed New Orleans, does that now mean my proposed God is real?

But the same scientific community who can now accept the Biblical account of the exodus as fact because they have a scientific explanation for the miracles,

An active volcano erupting that might have caused plagues to occur for Egyptians is now proof that the Bible is true? Please explain.

[Scientists] will call healing the blind or raising the dead myth.

So because there might be some accurate history in the Bible (which is not disputed) then everything in the Bible is accurate and correct? Even the things we cannot verify?

Are you willing to accept the religious claims of other holy-books if they meet this same criteria?

Why, because they don't have a scientific explanation for why or how it happened.

Because there is no evidence. Only opinion, conjecture, and unverifiable tales.

Who knows, maybe it will be explainable by science some day. But maybe it won't.

Maybe... maybe not.

And so science takes the position that because science can't explain it, then it can't exist.

This is absolutely false and is due to an ignorance of science.

Please present the scientific research for ANYTHING claiming to disprove the existence of something because it has not been proven. There is none. The scientific method CANNOT disprove something simply because it can't explain it. The scientific method can SUPPORT a claim with data or can discredit a claim with contradicting data.

It would do you well to READ what the scientific method and how it works before making further mistakes:
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a really novel idea. If you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, Angels or Demons, fine. You've stated your belief that it they are all myths.

Strawman. Heaven, hell, demons, angels, pixies, fairies, unicorns, and all manner of things could exist. Its just that there is no evidence or reason to justify belief in their existence.

Since you can't prove their non-existence, why don't you just leave it at that those who happen to believe in something you can't disprove?

You can't prove God doesn't exist - Iron Chariots Wiki

It is not uncommon to hear statements like, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," from apologists when they are challenged to support the claim that God exists. Such statements are an attempt to shift the burden of proof, a kind of logical fallacy.

Statements like this — which is a special case of the more general claim, "You can't prove a negative" — are based on the premise that belief in God is justified until sufficient evidence is presented to refute such existence. While this response may be considered sound under a world view which accepts the premise, this is simply a form of compartmentalization. If we were to apply that premise to all claims, we'd be unable to develop any useful picture of reality, since every claim would then have to be accepted as true (until it is disproved — a burden which is especially difficult when dealing with supernatural claims).

To put it more bluntly, no sane human being would seriously claim that because we have not disproved the existence of leprechauns or unicorns, they must therefore exist (or must be assumed to exist).

More tellingly, though, apologists typically only apply this premise to questions that address their particular religion — and nothing else. The same Christian, for example, who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an attempt to shift the burden of proof if it was attempted by, say, a Hindu: "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization is a form of special pleading.

A somewhat famous counter-argument was posed by Bertrand Russell when he said the following:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

 

[RightinNYC]

That is not how science works. You are not to disprove, but to prove. The onus rests on whoever makes a claim. Once more I post the following cartoon:

This might not be a good example because I live in NY instead of the midwest, but in my experience, religious people don't give a **** whether other people believe in God. It's usually the atheists who are most concerned with proving that God doesn't exist. Other than street folk, I've never once had a religious person try to convince me that God exists. I've had plenty of people try to convince me of the opposite.

 

[scourge99]

I already explained my thoughts on this - even if we find out that X caused the Big Bang, what caused X? Even if we figure out that Y caused X, what caused Y? etc.

And perhaps Z is the endpoint. Or perhaps Z leads to B and B to C and C is the endpoint. Or perhaps it goes on infinitely or perhaps not. Perhaps "infinite" and "causation" becomes a meaningless questions (such as in "times" before the big bang when there was not time).

Your logic appears to be the following (if not then please correct it):

1) science has discovered answers to previous questions for our origins.
2) questions thus far answered by science create more questions.
3) science has discovered another answer for a previous question and along with it more questions.
4) therefore, there MUST be an infinite regress of scientific questions and answers.

The point that I'm getting at is that Hawking's "discovery" doesn't really do anything to move the ball in our attempts to figure out our origins.

Actually it does move the ball. It moves the ball from X to Y. No, its not the golden "theory of everything" (at least from my understanding M-theory is not such a theory).

The turtle anecdote is not offered as an argument for how the universe actually works, but as an analogy for the way this question is being addressed - always needing to go one step further.

When I raised this point, you offered no real rebuttal and then concluded with "I don't know.... lets try to find out." I'm not sure how you go from being unable to offer an answer to characterizing my questions as baseless and intellectually lazy.

Because your anecdote implies the logic I stated above, which is invalid (conclusion is not true based on the premises).

 

[scourge99]

This might not be a good example because I live in NY instead of the midwest, but in my experience, religious people don't give a **** whether other people believe in God. It's usually the atheists who are most concerned with proving that God doesn't exist. Other than street folk, I've never once had a religious person try to convince me that God exists. I've had plenty of people try to convince me of the opposite.

Did these attempts to convince you occur on a debate forum or in everyday life?

 

[Shayah]

I already explained my thoughts on this - even if we find out that X caused the Big Bang, what caused X? Even if we figure out that Y caused X, what caused Y? etc. The point that I'm getting at is that Hawking's "discovery" doesn't really do anything to move the ball in our attempts to figure out our origins.

There is no Physics/Cosmology "discovery" here whatsoever.

Hawking's opinion on Creation is basically personal speculation.

If Hawking had actually discovered an irrefutable cause for X, it would be quite unnecessary for him to shill like this for book sales. Such a "turning-point" discovery would certainly be the featured headline of every major newspaper in the world.

 

[scourge99]

If Hawking had actually discovered an irrefutable cause

"Irrefutable" and "science" do not go to together. NO theory to this day is "irrefutable".

In Stephen J Gould's words:
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world....In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

There is no Physics/Cosmology "discovery" here whatsoever.

Hawking's opinion on Creation is basically personal speculation.

If Hawking had actually discovered an irrefutable cause for X, it would be quite unnecessary for him to shill like this for book sales.

Does Hawking claim to have discovered an irrefutable cause of X?

Does Hawking claim to have discovered something new?

It appear that the only misrepresentation going on is by Hawkin's detractors and the sensationalist media.

 

[Tashah]

It appear that the only misrepresentation going on is by Hawkin's detractors and the sensationalist media.

I - and most people - dearly love Stephen.

But to deny this for what it is is tantamount to denying the patently obvious.

Hawking is engaged in "hawking" (no pun intended)

 

[scourge99]

Scourage, Dan, Ikari, please describe another dimension for me please?

Dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theories such as string theory and M-theory predict that physical space in general has in fact 10 and 11 dimensions, respectively. The extra dimensions are spatial. We perceive only three spatial dimensions, and no physical experiments have confirmed the reality of additional dimensions. A possible explanation that has been suggested is that space acts as if it were "curled up" in the extra dimensions on a subatomic scale, possibly at the quark/string level of scale or below.

The problem I see in conventional physics today, is this moving in the direction of things unbelievably complex, and improvable. Such as M-Theory, Multiverse, String theory, etc...

Someone said the math behind M-theory was "elegant". No it's not, it's incredibly complex, and only a handful of people on the planet even understand it, so don't give me that line.

Hiccup, can you please give me the velocity and position of an empty tin cylinder (weighing 1 lb) when it hits the ground launched at 50 mph at a 33 degree angle from the ground,?

Perhaps next we can add calculations for wind speed, atmospheric pressure, the rotation of the object, etc. Next add calculations for relativity.

The point is that many things in this world are complex. Sometimes unbelievably complex. Luckily complexity has no bearing on truth. Simply because you do not understand how to calculate the above stated equation does not make its result any less true or any less accurate to reality. The same is true for physics.

However, if you are interested in these things and wish to confirm them or understand them better rather than relying on the "dumbed-down" versions given to the general public (for you and I), then there are courses and text books available.

Essentially, and the point I was making earlier, is that, the science of theoretical physics is moving in directions that paint it into the same corner that they paint the "believer" into.

What corner is that exactly?

Please note that "theoretical physics" is a specific branch of physics.
Theoretical physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someone said one of those other dimensions is tangled so tight that we can't see it, or experience it. Well, exactly how do they know?

I'm not familiar with that. You'd have to do the leg-work yourself and find out.

It should be noted that M-theory and string theory have yet to be confirmed with physical experiments.

Physical theories become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and no (or few) incorrect ones. The theory should have, at least as a secondary objective, a certain economy and elegance (compare to mathematical beauty), a notion sometimes called "Occam's razor" after the 13th-century English philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham), in which the simpler of two theories that describe the same matter just as adequately is preferred. (But conceptual simplicity may mean mathematical complexity.) They are also more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenomena. Testing the consequences of a theory is part of the scientific method.

How does a fish describe everything outside of the ocean or the lake? To the fish, the discovery of the world outside the lake would seem mind boggling, and the fish might even say it was the discovery of another dimension, but was it really?


Ponder that one..


Tim-

I'm not inclined to interpret crude and vague analogies. Perhaps you can just state your argument directly rather than wrapping it in an analogy?

 

[scourge99]

I - and most people - dearly love Stephen.

But to deny this for what it is is tantamount to denying the patently obvious.

Hawking is engaged in "hawking" (no pun intended)

Does Hawking claim to have discovered an irrefutable cause of X?

Does Hawking claim to have discovered something new?

What exactly am I denying about Hawking? Please be specific.

 

[Moot]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - Carl Sagen

We don't know what we don't know - Moot

 

[scourge99]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - Carl Sagen

There is no evidence for fairies therefore fairies (or the Christian God) exist?

We don't know what we don't know - Moot

We don't know everything there is to know in the universe therefore fairies (or the Christian God) exist?

 

[Apocalypse]

There is no evidence for fairies therefore fairies (or the Christian God) exist?

You can't prove that fairies do not exist, and there are people who believe that fairies do exist.
Same can be said for a deity and people who believe in such deity's existence.

Point is it's really a matter of opinion, and Hawking has stated his opinion.
Apparently some folks don't like him stating what he believes in, but the Church doesn't rule this world anymore and they can't burn him at the stake.

 

[Hicup]

Dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I'm aware of what everyone else thinks. I was asking you, Scourage to describe another dimension. Wiki couldn't do it, and neither can you. That's why I asked it.

Hiccup, can you please give me the velocity and position of an empty tin cylinder (weighing 1 lb) when it hits the ground launched at 50 mph at a 33 degree angle from the ground,?

Perhaps next we can add calculations for wind speed, atmospheric pressure, the rotation of the object, etc. Next add calculations for relativity.

So I'm being tested now? This is your answer?

The point is that many things in this world are complex. Sometimes unbelievably complex. Luckily complexity has no bearing on truth. Simply because you do not understand how to calculate the above stated equation does not make its result any less true or any less accurate to reality. The same is true for physics.

I couldn't calculate it precisely, and neither could you or anyone else, however, I could get close, close enough is generally accepted as being on the right track. By the way, what makes you think I don't understand these things?

However, if you are interested in these things and wish to confirm them or understand them better rather than relying on the "dumbed-down" versions given to the general public (for you and I), then there are courses and text books available.

I know, I've read most of them. But speaking as a layman, the dumbed down is the goal of science essentially. Science, and specifically astro-physics, cosmology, QED, QM, and the various other labors-of-love don't like complex math. We prefer the dumbed down variety.

What corner is that exactly?

Where the believer reside..

Please note that "theoretical physics" is a specific branch of physics.
Theoretical physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, I'll take it under advisement.

I'm not familiar with that. You'd have to do the leg-work yourself and find out.

It should be noted that M-theory and string theory have yet to be confirmed with physical experiments.

Hehe, yes I know, however there are currently teams at the LHC that have a way to "test" String Theory to the extent that, if the experiment delivers a positive result, String Theory will not have been proved, but it will continue as an accepted theory that requires more research. However, if the results are negative, then ST will have to revise some of its tenents.

I'm not inclined to interpret crude and vague analogies. Perhaps you can just state your argument directly rather than wrapping it in an analogy?

Although, "crude", at least layman can comprehend what an extra dimension might be, and why we can't perceive it. I agree my analogy wasn't an example of a extra dimension, in as much as it was an example of how things can exist in the physical, and not be comprehendable to the observer; in this case the poor little fishy's..


Tim-

 

[Hicup]

Scourage, I just Googled one of the tests I was referring too on ST, it can be found here if you're interested: Physicists Develop Test for 'String Theory'

Tim-

 

[BDBoop]

I don't see why people get so offended when the man expresses his opinion. If a christian physicist comes out and expresses his idea of god, hes a good fellow. If an atheist physicist comes out and expresses his opinions concerning atheism, he's going to hell and he's a bad bad man.

Late to the thread, did somebody already ask you where in the thread you saw "he's going to hell and he's a bad man"?

 

[danarhea]

This might not be a good example because I live in NY instead of the midwest, but in my experience, religious people don't give a **** whether other people believe in God. It's usually the atheists who are most concerned with proving that God doesn't exist. Other than street folk, I've never once had a religious person try to convince me that God exists. I've had plenty of people try to convince me of the opposite.

I disagree with you. In science, those who claim God must prove God, which is why I believe that cartoon fits. And I posted that cartoon in response to another poster saying that God exists and nobody can disprove it. I see this frequently among the religious. Again, that is not the way that the scientific method works. Now, if the claim that God exists is made on faith, that I can buy. "I believe in God because of my faith" is honest. "I believe in God because you can't prove otherwise" is the kind of statement made by those who would make good carnival hucksters.

 

[Tashah]

Again, that is not the way that the scientific method works.

I refer you to the thread title...

"God did not create the universe, says Hawking"

Is this the way the scientific method works?

 

[danarhea]

I refer you to the thread title...

"God did not create the universe, says Hawking"

Is this the way the scientific method works?

I don't believe so. Hawking should have said that there is no credible scientific evidence at this time proving that God exists, so you have a good point. IMHO, Hawking is losing it, evidenced by saying this, then following it with a statement of spontaneous creation from a singularity, which violates the law of causation. Which goes to show that even the biggest and brightest minds are not infallible.

 

[danarhea]

I refer you to the thread title...

"God did not create the universe, says Hawking"

Is this the way the scientific method works?

I don't believe so. Hawking should have said that there is no credible scientific evidence at this time proving that God exists, so you have a good point. IMHO, Hawking is losing it, evidenced by saying this, then following it with a statement of spontaneous creation from a singularity, which violates the law of causation. Which goes to show that even the biggest and brightest minds are not infallible.

 

[scourge99]

I refer you to the thread title...

"God did not create the universe, says Hawking"

Is this the way the scientific method works?

Congratulations on succumbing to hysteria and cherry picking by the media.

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe - Telegraph

The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.

In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

...

"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

I know you are smart enough to distinguish opinion from fact and theory without a disclaimer being pre-fixed to each statement.