A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

Because when the quote is read in its context, it doesn't imply what you claim. But that's not what ends up happening... it turns into a discussion about what somebody else meant. We're here to discuss what each other thinks, not what we think other people think. I don't think the Big Band smacks of divine intervention, and I don't think Hawking's thinks that either.There isn't really a better place at this point in time to put the disagreement.

I see the line that says "Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning..." Yes, I see that. What I don't is Hawking saying he likes the idea. What I don't see is Hawking disagreeing with the conclusion of many people that it "smacks of divine intervention." What I DO see is that Hawking has decided to change his mind about the big bang and has proposed a "universe without boundaries." It seems apparent to me that Hawking has embraced this idea precisely because he can get to his goal of a universe without a beginning and without divine intervention.By the way, did you not see this portion of the quote I provided: I have already read the first chapter of Hawking's book. What portion of it are you referring to?

You still have not bothered to read the quotes I provided in the summation in Message 314. If you had read the quotes, and I provide the page numbers where the quotes are found, you would not have said this. I'm not asking you to read Hawking's entire book, although that would be a good idea. Just start with the quotes I provided you, then go and read the book if you want.

If the big bang is defined as the beginning of time that started with a singularity, then yes indeed Hawking has rejected it. I'm shocked that so many people here have refused to read the quotes I provided in Message 314. It feels a little like i'm banging my head against the wall here. I will provide the specific quote here again. Note the words "changed my mind" and "no singularity at the beginning of the universe." How do these words escape your eyes?

Ah, I see. That's not what the Big Bang has to be. Even without a beginning of time that started with a singularity, you can still have a Big Bang. That's what the analogy of the North Pole is showing... with a smoothing out of the dimension that is time as you approach the big bang, you can get away from a special creation "point" in time without having to get rid of the Big Bang, which is the expansion immediately after where that point would have been.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I am quite satisfied with "smacks of." Hawking thinks it smacks of is strong enough to turn his back on his most important paper of his career, the one with Penrose supporting the big bang.My previous thread showed the big bang is both compatible with and supported of the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God. I also said if there was a big bang, there had to be a Big Banger. Hawking and I may not agree about many things but we certainly agree that the big bang smacks of divine intervention.

If you don't have a singularity and you don't have a beginning of time, then you don't have the big bang. Read Hawking's words. He changed his mind. It's pretty clear. What Hawking is proposing is a "universe without boundaries." It never caught on.

Yes you can: two branes collide and cause a big bang. The Big Bounce also has a big bang that doesn't have a beginning of time there. To paraphrase: "Many people don't like the big bang because they think it smacks of divine intervention (but I don't think it does)." An unbounded universe can still be finite...The surface of a globe is finite, yet unbounded. The North Pole analogy explains this too.

---

Don't forget the the singularity is not some "thing" that was proposed to have "existed"... it was just a consequence of the mathematics that explained the observations. A rejection of the singularity is not a rejection of something that was onece thought to exist.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Also, notice he doesn't say "Big Bang never happened"...
Hawkings thinks the Big Bang happened without a singularity - but he still thinks the Big Bang happened.
He has definitely not turned his back on it.Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state
(They repeatedly refer to the Big Bang...)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

It isn't. The big bang merely posits that the universe was much hotter and denser in the past and that the universe expanded from this hot, dense state. Hawking accepts that the universe was once much hotter and denser. Therefore, Hawking accepts the Big Bang. As have most physicists. The idea of a singularity comes out of the mathematics of relativity. Physicists have postulated that this can't be right for some time and that some marriage between relativity and quantum physics is required.I believe some wondered if the singularity was somehow real, but that view is marginal these days as far as I am aware. There are singularities throughout physics, not just at the big bang, and nobody believes these singularities are real - they are just artefacts of mathematics.

quote:

---

I am quite satisfied with "smacks of." Hawking thinks it smacks of is strong enough to turn his back on his most important paper of his career, the one with Penrose supporting the big bang.

---

But he didn't turn his back on it. Did you not read the quote in Message 223 saying otherwise ?Further you have not shown that Hawking was motivated by this concern. By my reading he was motivated more by the desire to find a theory in which our universe would necessarily come into existence without relying on apparently arbitrary boundary conditions. THis is certainly ambitious but it is a legitimate goal for a cosmologist, to seek to explain (in the full scientific sense of the word) as much as possible.
If you have quotes which show that his motivation was simply to avoid the Big Bang because it "smacked of divine creation" you will have to show them.And let us not forget that you yourself say that : "the singularity is a mathematical concept not a physical concept" (Message 163)
If you can believe the big Bang theory without believing in an actual singularity, why can't Hawking ?

quote:

---

My previous thread showed the big bang is both compatible with and supported of the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God.

---

No, it did not. In fact I do not see how you can honestly claim this when you were unable to answer some important objections raised in that thread.

This is your homework and not mine. But in the first chapter, Hawking summarizes historical views regarding origins for the universe. If you read that chapter and understand it, you'll have a better idea of what Hawking embraces and what he distances himself from. To you yes. I did see your quote, and I understand how someone would be led by that quote to believe that Hawking latched onto the big bang for the reasons you give.But you continue to mislead yourself by cherry picking sentences out of context. The quote is not Hawking's statement about his own beliefs, but instead about how some others have formed their beliefs. Has Hawking in fact proposed a universe in which there is no place for divine intervention? If not, then it would be pretty clear that your interpretation cannot be correct.

Yes, in the same way that the Sun moving across the sky smacks of geocentrism.

Your second qualification is wrong."There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question."
Page not found - NizkorI really doubt that there is a strong consensus amongst physicists and astronomers that the BB had a supernatural cause, and an even smaller contigency that can produce positive evidence to support this assertion.I don't think we are going out on a limb by saying that a supernatural origin for our universe is a controversial position within science. I think you know this as well. Therefore, your best route is to use quotes to help illustrate your argument, not form the basis of the argument. If you are going to use the fine tuning argument then a quote that succintly describes your position would be helpful, but you still need to present the evidence for your argument and be ready to defend it yourself.

Hi DesignTheorist,Hawking "turned his back" on the singularity, not on the Big Bang. The very quote you provided has Hawking saying that there's no singularity at the beginning of the universe, not that there's no Big Bang. Hawking is saying that the Big Bang didn't begin with a singularity, not that it didn't happen. For him or any physicist to conclude that the Big Bang didn't happen would require mountains of evidence to just evaporate.Maybe up until around the mid-twentieth century it was not uncommon for physicists to think of the singularity as real, but at least today it is a very uncommon view. I think most physicists pretty much "turned their back" on the singularity as real a long time ago.Like others I'm a bit sceptical that you've actually read Hawking's book. You come across as being completely unfamiliar with what Hawking actually believes. Instead of taking the clear meaning of his words you seem to be trying to force some other alien meaning upon them. Usually the people behaving in this puzzling manner are following the lead of some creationist website. Like maybe a creationist website similar to one that told you Eddington was an atheist.Note that we have descended into discussing what people meant instead of what the evidence says, and since misinterpreting the simple English of popular-press books by famous physicists with debilitating diseases is not a logical fallacy, we're not even on-topic.--Percy