Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,987 Year: 19,023/19,786 Month: 1,443/1,705 Week: 249/446 Day: 47/98 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hawking Comes Clean
Stile
Member
Posts: 3848
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1 of 148 (578971)
09-03-2010 8:30 AM


''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.''
-Stephen Hawking

"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."
-Article

Sounds to me like Mr. Hawking has grown tired of trying to stay politically correct and pander to the religious in his public views on the beginnings of the universe.

This is all from his new book "The Grand Design".

Truth on his views?
Or simply advertising propaganda?

What do you think?

I think that, sure, it's just his say-so. But, when that "some guy" is, arguably, the smartest guy on the planet... it tends to carry a little weight


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Rahvin, posted 09-03-2010 12:00 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 09-03-2010 12:09 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 18 by mignat, posted 09-03-2010 2:14 PM Stile has responded
 Message 40 by kbertsche, posted 09-05-2010 10:19 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5829
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 2 of 148 (578978)
09-03-2010 8:42 AM


We just don't know... And that's okay.
First Cause arguments seem pointless because it's an infinite loop of semantics and where no evidence from either side can be given. The net result is a philosophical argument with smatterings of science.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 09-03-2010 10:35 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31519
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3 of 148 (578994)
09-03-2010 9:38 AM


It's pretty much what George LemaƮtre wrote to the Pope back in the late 1920s.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 09-03-2010 12:11 PM jar has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 4 of 148 (579009)
09-03-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2010 8:42 AM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
Hyro writes:

First Cause arguments seem pointless because it's an infinite loop of semantics and where no evidence from either side can be given.


I completely agree.

This kind of argument is no more convincing when it comes from Hawking than when it comes from a religious apologist.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2010 8:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 12:29 PM nwr has responded
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 8:18 AM nwr has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 5 of 148 (579034)
09-03-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
09-03-2010 8:30 AM


''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.''
-Stephen Hawking

"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."
-Article

Sounds to me like Mr. Hawking has grown tired of trying to stay politically correct and pander to the religious in his public views on the beginnings of the universe.

This is all from his new book "The Grand Design".

Truth on his views?
Or simply advertising propaganda?

What do you think?

I think that, sure, it's just his say-so. But, when that "some guy" is, arguably, the smartest guy on the planet... it tends to carry a little weight

I think that, as usual, it's just a matter of Occam's Razor. If an unfalsified model for the existence of the Universe exists without including a god, simple probability dictates that it is more likely that the Universe formed without divine intervention. If physics research does in fact show a path consistent with available evidence through which the Universe is the result of natural processes, there's simply no need to include a god-term.

It doesn't prove that no gods exist. But all things being equal, A is always more likely than A AND B.

He's being more clear now because his words, like those of Einstein and any number of physicists and other scientists, have ever been taken out of their intended context.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 09-03-2010 8:30 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-03-2010 1:17 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8101
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 6 of 148 (579036)
09-03-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
09-03-2010 8:30 AM


Truth on his views?
Or simply advertising propaganda?

What do you think?

As an atheist I have no problem with saying that Stephen is going overboard. I love the guy, but he is stating certainties that are at best speculations.

Stevey would be much better of by discussing human curiousity. We WANT to know how universes come about. If we decide to settle on an answer just because it makes us comfortable then we have thrown human curiosity out the window. What we have to do is assume that we can find the answer, and the only tool we have for determing when we have found the right answer is science. If the answer to how universes are created is never found because it was a supernatural act then so what. The very journey of trying to find that answer was a very enjoyable and worthwhile effort. Just think of how little we would now know if Hubble (or anyone after him) never reported his findings on galactic redshift.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 09-03-2010 8:30 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 12:33 PM Taq has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 7 of 148 (579037)
09-03-2010 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
09-03-2010 9:38 AM


Hi jar,

It's pretty much what Laplace said to Napoleon!

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 09-03-2010 9:38 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 09-03-2010 12:16 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31519
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 8 of 148 (579039)
09-03-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Granny Magda
09-03-2010 12:11 PM


Yup.

The only significant difference I would mention is of course LemaƮtre's profession.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 09-03-2010 12:11 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1934 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 9 of 148 (579041)
09-03-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
09-03-2010 10:35 AM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
This kind of argument is no more convincing when it comes from Hawking than when it comes from a religious apologist.

Huh? We are talking of the guy who first (with Jim Hartle) managed to produce a semi-realistic model of a universe that is temporally finite yet without first cause. Hawking is stating the point that I have tried to explain countless times here that the Big Bang is not a point that is caused, not a point of creation. It will always leave the question of "why this and not something else", but gets us away from the need to think causally about existence. Causality is an internal part of existence, not something to which existence is tied.

We have models extrapolated from the most successful theories known to mankind. Their suggestions are not guaranteed to be correct, but they are infinitely more convincing than religious apologetics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 09-03-2010 10:35 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 09-03-2010 12:42 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1934 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 10 of 148 (579042)
09-03-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taq
09-03-2010 12:09 PM


I love the guy, but he is stating certainties that are at best speculations.

What? The "speculation" that physics suggests that the Universe exists independent of any divine prime mover? I spent 15 years as a Christian who regarded God as not necessary to the Universe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 09-03-2010 12:09 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 09-03-2010 12:42 PM cavediver has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 11 of 148 (579045)
09-03-2010 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by cavediver
09-03-2010 12:29 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
He is dabbling in metaphysics, but there is no basis for reaching any metaphysical conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 12:29 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 1:22 PM nwr has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8101
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 12 of 148 (579046)
09-03-2010 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by cavediver
09-03-2010 12:33 PM


quote:
What? The "speculation" that physics suggests that the Universe exists independent of any divine prime mover?

"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."

Althought this quote is second hand, I think it more than fair to point out that we don't even know what these inevitable laws are. I think we can both agree that supersymmetry is probably right, but I don't think we can state this with certainty. We know even less about how universes come about than we do about how universes develop in those very early time periods such as the era that witnessed supersymmetry (possibly).

While I would wholeheartedly agree that we have no reason to think that a deity was involved I also disagree with stating that we are certain that no deity was involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 12:33 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2010 12:51 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 17 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2010 1:27 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6692
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 13 of 148 (579048)
09-03-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taq
09-03-2010 12:42 PM


While I would wholeheartedly agree that we have no reason to think that a deity was involved I also disagree with stating that we are certain that no deity was involved.

Where does the quote say that?

quote:
"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."

You seem to be reading something into it that is not there.

quote:
did not need God

I am not sure what Hawking is actually saying but the provided quote does not say at all that there was definitely no deity involved. Al it is saying is that no deity was necessary.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 09-03-2010 12:42 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 154
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 14 of 148 (579057)
09-03-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rahvin
09-03-2010 12:00 PM


Rahvin writes:

But all things being equal, A is always more likely than A AND B.

This doesn't seem to be quite right. Or maybe it misses the point. A is given (the universe). Then, the question is: which is more likely: B or not B (God). I don't think simple probability can tell us that A AND NOT B is more likely than A AND B, without knowing something about B.


"In short, [he] was one of those people with lots of intelligence and no brains, and everyone knew it except those who soon found it out." - Joseph Heller, Catch-22

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rahvin, posted 09-03-2010 12:00 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Blue Jay, posted 09-03-2010 1:25 PM Aware Wolf has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Rahvin, posted 09-03-2010 2:59 PM Aware Wolf has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1934 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 15 of 148 (579059)
09-03-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
09-03-2010 12:42 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
He is dabbling in metaphysics

The causal structure of space-time in semi-classical quantum gravity is not "metaphysics".

If I observe that an applied force of 10N accelerates a mass of 1kg at 10ms-2, then I think I can state, without being accused of involving metaphysics, that I have no need for a "god" to explain this observation, nor indeed anything else outside Newtonian mechanics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 09-03-2010 12:42 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Stile, posted 09-03-2010 3:46 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 09-04-2010 3:29 PM cavediver has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019