Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hawking Comes Clean
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 46 of 148 (580000)
09-07-2010 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by kbertsche
09-05-2010 10:19 PM


Why is there "a law such as gravity?" Why is there something rather than nothing?
Essentially the same question. And a perfectly reasonable question. But the answer "god" makes very little sense now that we have a sensible question.
Are physical laws logical prior to the universe's existence (as his statement implies), or is their existence contingent on the universe?
They are the Universe - and so we return to your initial question.
quote:
The earth does not go round the sun because Newton's (or Einstein's) law makes it, or tells it to. The earth goes its own way, and the scientific laws are our generalized way of describing how it goes.
Again, wrong sense of "laws". Here what is meant is our understanding of the Universe: our theories. But in this context, by "law" we are refering to the Universe itself - its nature.
The biblical perspective would see them as something metaphysically much simpler; contingent minute-by-minute on God, their consistency a direct consequence of God's consistent character.
As MrJack has pointed out, you have a very strange sense of the word "simpler".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by kbertsche, posted 09-05-2010 10:19 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 47 of 148 (580011)
09-07-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Jack
09-07-2010 6:52 AM


Re: God is not simple, and explains nothing
Presumably, Hawking's metaphysical perspective would see the "laws of physics" as some sort of "inevitable," self-generating, self-sustaining, perhaps eternal, principles of the universe. The biblical perspective would see them as something metaphysically much simpler; contingent minute-by-minute on God, their consistency a direct consequence of God's consistent character.
(emphasis mine)
In what possible sense is supposing a superbeing exists behind the scenes proding the universe to make it work metaphysically simpler than supposing the mechanistic laws of the universe exist?
... and more importantly: does it add a shred of knowledge to our understanding and insight, which is the whole point of asking the question in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 09-07-2010 6:52 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 48 of 148 (580016)
09-07-2010 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by kbertsche
09-05-2010 10:19 PM


kbertsche writes:
The biblical perspective would see them as something metaphysically much simpler; contingent minute-by-minute on God, their consistency a direct consequence of God's consistent character.
This seems to say that you live in a fake world, with The Wizard of Oz as puppet master behind the scenes, pulling strings and levers in order to maintain the illusion that it is real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by kbertsche, posted 09-05-2010 10:19 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 49 of 148 (580050)
09-07-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
09-07-2010 6:45 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
The final line of the article you linked to:
Professor John Lennox writes:
Hawking's new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.
We should invite this John Lennox fellow to present his evidence here at EvC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2010 6:45 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2010 3:34 PM Straggler has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 50 of 148 (580078)
09-07-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
09-07-2010 6:45 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
cavediver writes:
John Lennox writes:
Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.
No, not in the way we are talking about "laws". Confusing I know, but the "laws" are the Universe.
No, there is a fundamental difference between the universe itself and the laws which describe its operation. The universe is a physical entity, with properties such as mass, energy, and dimension. The laws are descriptions, principles, or rules which possess none of these properties.
cavediver writes:
John Lennox writes:
He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.
Does he? Where?
In his quotes:
Hawking writes:
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.
...
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
and in the summary from the article linked in the OP:
Laura Roberts writes:
THE Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.
Hawking assumes that the universe is explained by God OR the laws of physics. This is a "God of the Gaps" perspective, which inherently sets God and the laws of physics against one another. This is not the worldview that Lennox, or MacKay, or I hold to, and does not represent the type of God we believe in. We see no conflict between God and the laws of physics.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2010 6:45 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2010 3:30 PM kbertsche has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 51 of 148 (580082)
09-07-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by kbertsche
09-07-2010 2:54 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
No, there is a fundamental difference between the universe itself and the laws which describe its operation.
I've just explained that Hawking is not talking about "laws" in the sense of "description" in this context. Care to explain why you are contradicting me, and reverting back to the definition of "law" that we're not using here?
John Lennox writes:
He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.
If I observe that an applied force of 10N accelerates a mass of 1kg at 10ms-2, am I to accept that the situation is equally explained by saying "godidit" as it is by discussing Newton II?
If I leave gods out of the explanation, am I thus declaring that gods do not exist?
Hawking assumes that the universe is explained by God OR the laws of physics... ...We see no conflict between God and the laws of physics.
I see no conflict either, and nor does Hawking - we simply do not need to even mention god or gods when conducting physics. The concept does not arise. My view on this was exactly the same throughout my time as a Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by kbertsche, posted 09-07-2010 2:54 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by kbertsche, posted 09-07-2010 9:57 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 52 of 148 (580083)
09-07-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Straggler
09-07-2010 12:22 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
We should invite this John Lennox fellow to present his evidence here at EvC.
He's been too busy, debating Dawkins and Hitchins. I think he prefers those lightweights to the ruthless bastards here
I am appalled at his statements on morality and archaeology as they are what you expect from naive twits, not decent oxbridge mathematicians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2010 12:22 PM Straggler has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 53 of 148 (580094)
09-07-2010 5:31 PM


Well thats it then...
Well that settles it then. Hawking says no God. Everyone please leave your desk as you found it and the last person out please turn off the lights.

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 54 of 148 (580130)
09-07-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Jack
09-07-2010 6:52 AM


Laws of physics: Two perspectives
Mr Jack writes:
kbertsche writes:
Presumably, Hawking's metaphysical perspective would see the "laws of physics" as some sort of "inevitable," self-generating, self-sustaining, perhaps eternal, principles of the universe. The biblical perspective would see them as something metaphysically much simpler; contingent minute-by-minute on God, their consistency a direct consequence of God's consistent character.
In what possible sense is supposing a superbeing exists behind the scenes proding the universe to make it work metaphysically simpler than supposing the mechanistic laws of the universe exist?
But that's not what I claimed. I claimed that the laws of physics are metaphysically simpler in a biblical perspective than in an atheistic perspective. In the biblical worldview, the universe and its laws are creations of an eternal, infinite, uncaused, complex God. In an atheistic worldview, God does not exist and His attributes must be ascribed to the universe and its laws. The universe and its laws become self-created, uncaused, and complex. The universe effectively becomes deified.
As the Apostle Paul said of those who reject God:
Apostle Paul writes:
Rom. 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator ...
Consider an automobile. Why postulate a human designer and builder, which is much more complex than the automobile itself? Isn't it simpler to postulate that the automobile was self-caused? By a naive application of Occam's razor, this postulate would seem better. But this ignores the fact that the automobile is metaphysically very different under the two perspectives. An automobile which is able to generate itself is metaphysically much more complex than an automobile which is just an inanimate creation of someone else.
The biblical, theistic picture of the universe is not simply the atheistic picture with God added to the picture. This may describe Deism, but not biblical theism. Theistic and atheistic worldviews have very different conceptions of the complexity of the universe and its laws.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 09-07-2010 6:52 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 3:40 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 134 by Dr Jack, posted 09-09-2010 3:00 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 135 by jar, posted 09-09-2010 3:31 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 55 of 148 (580136)
09-07-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by cavediver
09-07-2010 3:30 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
cavediver writes:
kbertsche writes:
No, there is a fundamental difference between the universe itself and the laws which describe its operation.
I've just explained that Hawking is not talking about "laws" in the sense of "description" in this context. Care to explain why you are contradicting me, and reverting back to the definition of "law" that we're not using here?
Does Hawking really use the terms "laws of physics" (or "laws of nature") and "universe" as interchangeable? He really does not distinguish between the physical entity and the laws which govern/describe it? If this is what you think he means, can you please provide some support for such a definition or standard usage of the term "laws of physics" or "laws of nature," either by Hawking or by someone else? I have a hard time believing that Hawking is this sloppy in his language.
Perhaps some small subgroup of theoretical cosmologists actually does use the terms in this way. But I've never heard such usage. Not in grad school, not at any of the national labs where I've worked, not among the particle physicists or cosmologists who I work with now, not in wikipedia.
But I'll admit that most scientists would be a bit uncomfortable with the perspective that the laws are only descriptive. Most scientists want to view the laws as something more fundamental, more basic, more integral to the fabric of the universe. I am fairly sure that this is Hawking's perspective. But this is a metaphysical perspective, not a scientific one.
cavediver writes:
John Lennox writes:
He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.
If I observe that an applied force of 10N accelerates a mass of 1kg at 10ms-2, am I to accept that the situation is equally explained by saying "godidit" as it is by discussing Newton II?
Not quite; these are two different types of explanations. Science is mechanistic where theology is more teleological. It's not God OR the laws of physics; it's God AND the laws of physics. I would answer that God did it, by upholding the law we know of as Newton II.
cavediver writes:
If I leave gods out of the explanation, am I thus declaring that gods do not exist?
No. But Hawking's claims went further; he claimed that God was not needed, implying that God does not exist.
cavediver writes:
kbertsche writes:
Hawking assumes that the universe is explained by God OR the laws of physics... ...We see no conflict between God and the laws of physics.
I see no conflict either, and nor does Hawking - we simply do not need to even mention god or gods when conducting physics. The concept does not arise. My view on this was exactly the same throughout my time as a Christian.
I completely agree that we do not need to mention God when doing physics. But Hawking did mention God, and that's the problem.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2010 3:30 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Nij, posted 09-07-2010 11:46 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 4:33 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 56 of 148 (580155)
09-07-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
09-07-2010 6:45 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
You make a lot of statements cloaked as a fact, when they are nothing of the sort. Actually NOTHING that you can surmise about the universe is a fact, it is simply your opinion of it.
The laws are not the universe, simply by virtue of you saying they are. There also is no "right" question about the universe and wrong question. You are sitting in a room, on a place in the earth, the same as everyone else is, pondering what you think seems to be true. You can think about what you feels makes up the universe, and what you feel is reality, but it is no more valid, and carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks.
The "laws" of the universe appear to be intelligently crafted. They have consistency, they have order, they have contingencies with other laws that allow require precise conditions-in a word there is order, not chaos. Chaos is the opposite of laws, the opposite of consistency, the opposite of predictability. To say that things are consistent, that they are predictable, that they have some form of order to many people's minds displays a purpose, an organization, a construction. I don't know how one comes to the philosophical perspective that you do, that one can just say 'they just are what they are" and that this somehow dismisses the necessity to explain how or why things came to be as they are.
To my mind that is a mental cop-out. It is an admission that trying to place understanding of the whole being of our cosmos is not worth one's time, so we just ignore the order, we ignore the consistency we ignore the organization of laws, by saying it is the wrong question. Its not the wrong question! Its the question intellectually curious men seek, to understand why all of the world around us displays a type of order that is not chaos.
The most logical explanation, to my mind, is that someone or something has arranged for these series of laws. I know this because my mind can imagine both chaos and order, and it can differentiate from the two, and in the experience of my mind order comes from arrangement, from control, from direction, whilst chaos comes from a lack of arrangement, a lack of control, a lack of input.
What we see, what many people see is a type of order, and the most logical explanation for order is input, arrangement: call it what your mind is willing to, a force, a super-natural input, a creator, a God...it all depends on how much one is willing to open or close their eyes to the world we see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2010 6:45 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Omnivorous, posted 09-08-2010 12:15 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 59 by bluegenes, posted 09-08-2010 12:25 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 60 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 12:33 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 7:40 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 57 of 148 (580160)
09-07-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by kbertsche
09-07-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Not requiring a god does not imply that no god exists. The only thing it implies is exactly what it says: if a god does exist, it is not necessary to the universe functioning as normal. If the god does not exist, then we wouldn't notice the difference.
There is a marked difference between "necessary" and "exists".
So, nec( = necessary, pos( = possible, not( = negation of. I would use the standard box and diamond and tipped-over L, but they don't work.
  1. nec(A) ==> not(pos(not(A): A exists/is true in all possible worlds. This can be demonstrated by assuming A does not exist nd then using RAA to derive a contradiction to show that A cannot not exist/be true.
  2. nec(not(A) ==> not(pos(not(not(A): there is no world in which A exists/is true. This can be demonstrated by assuming A exists and then using RAA to derive a contradiction to show that A cannot exist/be true.
  3. not(nec(A) ==> not(not(pos(A) ==> pos(A).
  4. not(nec(not(A) ==> not(not(pos(not(not(A) ==> pos(not(not(A).
From the third syllogism, there is possible world in which A exists/is true.
From the fourth syllogism, there is a possible world in which not(not(A), therefore there is a possible world in which A exists/is true.
So, if it is not necessary that something does not exist, it is possible that it does. Which follows from the definition, but the above demonstrates it logically.
Hence, Hawkings is not and cannot imply that God does not exist simply by saying that God is not necessary. He would have to state that God necesarily does not exist to imply that God does not exist, and by that stage you're getting into gnostic atheism and a whole lot of ugly theology.
{abe: how does one insert symbols? I tried copy-pasting the logical necessity box; didn't work.}
{abe: does that notation above make any sense whatsoever? I did try.}
Edited by Nij, : As per ABEs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by kbertsche, posted 09-07-2010 9:57 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 09-08-2010 1:35 AM Nij has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 58 of 148 (580165)
09-08-2010 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
09-07-2010 11:21 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Bolder-dash to cavediver writes:
You can think about what you feels makes up the universe, and what you feel is reality, but it is no more valid, and carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks.
I think I see where you went wrong.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-07-2010 11:21 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 59 of 148 (580167)
09-08-2010 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
09-07-2010 11:21 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
What we see, what many people see is a type of order, and the most logical explanation for order is input, arrangement: call it what your mind is willing to, a force, a super-natural input, a creator, a God.....
The "supernatural" isn't about order and laws, it's about being able to break the apparent laws (which are human constructions based on observation). The supernatural implies the unpredictability of miracles and magic, not order.
If the computer screen you're looking at suddenly changes into a bottle of wine, that would be a sign of the supernatural. But it remaining as a computer screen until it breaks down or is destroyed is in keeping with natural law as we observe it.
Theists like to have it both ways. Apparent miracles will be taken as a sign of god, and so will the apparent absence of miracles, things going according to natural laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-07-2010 11:21 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 60 of 148 (580169)
09-08-2010 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
09-07-2010 11:21 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Bolder-dash writes:
You are sitting in a room, on a place in the earth, the same as everyone else is, pondering what you think seems to be true. You can think about what you feels makes up the universe, and what you feel is reality, but it is no more valid, and carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks.
Since cavediver actually is a theoretical physicist, what he says does carry a bit more weight than, for example, what you say on the subject.
Bolder-dash writes:
The "laws" of the universe appear to be intelligently crafted.
If you study some of the history of science, you will see that they were crafted by intelligent human scientists. So, yes, I would say that they are intelligently crafted.
Bolder-dash writes:
I don't know how one comes to the philosophical perspective that you do, that one can just say 'they just are what they are" and that this somehow dismisses the necessity to explain how or why things came to be as they are.
The world is just as it is. If you don't agree, then I suppose you would be saying that the world isn't just as it is, and that would be a very strange thing to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-07-2010 11:21 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-08-2010 8:14 AM nwr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024