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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hawking Comes Clean
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 85 of 148 (580248)
09-08-2010 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
09-08-2010 8:47 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Ok, I'll try to explain what Kbertsche means by this since I think I understand what he means. Maybe it'll help make it clearer.
He believes (and so do I) that the universe is consistent is because God is consistent and upholds it in a consistent fashion. This is why we can deduce laws from ou observations.
So, if you are able to make ice it is because such laws exist, and they exist because God upholds them.
Now, you will see that this assertion on our part is metaphysical. And in fact we can't really prove it. And in fact, it also adds nothing to our understanding of these laws. This is why he can believe this to be the case, and also accept methodological naturalism.
Now compare it with what Hawking said. He didn't say you don't need to refer God to explain how gravity could have made the universe (from nothing, whatever that means). He said God is actually not needed. This becomes a metaphysical claim because it comes in contradiction with our claim.
We say: God consistently upholds gravity, so it remains constant and can create the universe.
He says: Gravity by itself remains constant, and could/has created the universe.
So he's not saying God doesn't exist, but he still goes a step further than usual: he says even if God does exist, he is not involved in upholding this universe, this universe can run itself on it's own. That is the ''metaphysical'' part.
Ok I hope this was clearer hh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 8:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 10:56 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 88 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 11:18 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 87 of 148 (580252)
09-08-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by cavediver
09-08-2010 10:56 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
I think you are intelligent enough to understand what I mean when I say this. When I speak of 'God', I define him as the christian God which is revealed in the Bible. You probably know enough of christianity to have a good picture of what I'm talking about.
I would be hardpressed to find a definition of uphold, as I think it's a pretty understandable expression. When I first encountered the concept that ''God was upholding his creation'' i perfectly understood what was meant, even if it wasn't in my native language.
I have no doubt you equally understand what I mean, so I see no point of playing on words and trying to obscur them when in fact they are quite straightforward in my opinion.
And constant means that it doesn't change, with respect to what it was the instant before. In other words, the same definition you use when you say that natural laws are constant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 10:56 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 12:37 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 89 of 148 (580259)
09-08-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
09-08-2010 11:18 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
It's because it is a very slight nuance. It's the difference between saying:
you don't need to invoke God to explain/understand how gravity works
and
Gravity does not need God to work
The first is simply methodological naturalism applied. The second is metaphysical.
However I want to note that I'm just trying to explain what KB is saying that Hawkins said. I didn't really read the article except for the quotes in the OP, so I can't affirm if Hawkins meant the former or the latter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 11:18 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 11:34 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 91 of 148 (580264)
09-08-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
09-08-2010 11:34 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Of course not. A statement isn't relatively metaphysical depending on who says it. If a statement makes a claim about the fundamental nature of being and the world, it is metaphysical.
I think maybe you have a wrong view of what metaphysical means. Maybe you should read the wiki article about it a bit ? Metaphysics - Wikipedia
If Hawkins really meant what KB says he meant, then it falls into the category of metaphysical claim. Doesn't matter if he believes in God or not, doesn't matter from your POV if you believe in God or not, doesn't matter from my POV if I believe in God or not. It's still a metaphysical claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 11:34 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 12:13 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 102 of 148 (580310)
09-08-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
09-08-2010 12:13 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Of course a statement can be metaphysical or not. It all depends on the pov of the speaker and the listener.
No, a statement will be considered metaphysical or not based on what message it contains. What it is saying and what it is trying to explain.
a statement can't be metaphysical for one person and not for another.
If I say ''God sustains the laws of physics'', which is a metaphysical statement, how can this not be metaphysical for anyone, regardless of their worldview ? If you say, ''the laws of physic do not need God to operate consistently'', how is this not a metaphysical statement both for you and for me, and for anyone else ?
A statement can be evaluated on it's own value, you don't need to know who claimed it to identify this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 12:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 3:57 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 105 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 5:08 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 104 of 148 (580318)
09-08-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by jar
09-08-2010 3:57 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
If the term God has absolutely no meaning, then the statement is not metaphysical, just silly.
The term God (or any term used in a sentence) rarely has no meaning. It can, however have a bizzard or silly meaning. But then it just means the statement is a silly metaphysical statement.
BUT...that was not what was said.
What was said is "No god needed."
Totally not a metaphysical statement.
Then you didn't really read what I said, or you didn't try to understand what I was meaning.
If ''No god needed'' is interpreted as Kbertsche interprets what Hawkins meant, then it is a metaphysical statement.
Anyway I don't get what's wrong with a theoretical physicist saying a metaphysical statement. It's really not the most surprising thing in the world in my opinion. There seems to be a resistance with this idea as if you were allergic to metaphysical claims, when in fact everyone who has a worldview (and indeed, everybody has a worldview), either it be atheist-agnostic-theist, absolutely will have to make some degree of metaphysical claims, even if it is to claim that nothing supernatural exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 3:57 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 5:55 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 114 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 6:40 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 106 of 148 (580326)
09-08-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by nwr
09-08-2010 5:08 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
It will be seen by some as metaphorical, provided that they give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is meaningful.
Metaphorical ??
It goes without saying that the statement has to be meaningful ...
But even if I tell you that ''Xyroflexians use specially made Roteflaziozos to make objects fall to the ground'', and you know I actually some kind of mental image of what both those thigns are, even if you think it is complete bullocks you still have to view my claim as metaphysical.
It doesn't depend on your own worldview or point of view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 5:08 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 5:52 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 109 of 148 (580332)
09-08-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by nwr
09-08-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
For those who see "God" as a metaphor, it couldn't be anything else.
Even those who view God as a metaphor will understand that the one making the statement isn't stating it as a metaphor.
That's to be doubted.
How can you doubt that a statement has to be meaningful in order to be properly evaluated/identified (as metaphysical or anything else) ?
I don't even have to view it as a claim.
WTF. This makes no sense at all
Meaning is subjective. In a conversation, a speaker and a listener are not guaranteed to take it the same way.
This shows only the shortcomings of the speaker and listener, nothing to do with the nature of the claim per se.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 5:52 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 111 of 148 (580334)
09-08-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
09-08-2010 5:55 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
It's because saying such a role is objectively unnecessary is a metaphysical statement. That's all. Who's to know if God stopped to exist, that the universal laws wouldn't cease to exist ?
Answering: ''No, the universe could run consistently on it's own without God'' is just as metaphysical as saying ''Yes, the universe needs a consistent God in order to function''. Both are outside the realm of science
Science will, however, tell you that you don't need to postulate God in order to understand the universe and it's laws. This is methodological naturalism, but it is different from the above statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 5:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 6:33 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 112 of 148 (580335)
09-08-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by nwr
09-08-2010 6:04 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
And there goes colliding branes out the window I guess.
How can you even judge which one is more probable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 6:04 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 7:41 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 125 by cavediver, posted 09-09-2010 3:32 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 115 of 148 (580346)
09-08-2010 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by jar
09-08-2010 6:40 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Ok, then either I didn't understand you or you didn't make it clear up to this point.
Then as I said earlier, I can't say if his interpretation is correct. I know not enough of the current book, nor Hawkins to know what interpretation of this claim would be correct. probably you neither.
However, as i said, it's normal that at some point theoretical physicists like him will make this sort of metaphysical claim. They have a worldview like anybody else and there is no problem of making some metaphysical claims in a book you write. It's not like it was a scientific paper.
For all we know, the Hawkins could very well have intended this statement to be metaphysical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 6:40 PM jar has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 117 of 148 (580360)
09-08-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by nwr
09-08-2010 7:41 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
The only implication would be that could have been something before the colliding branes. And something before that, and something before that.
This is supposing the 'first caused' was itself caused. Which isn't necessarily the case
I am content to wait for actual evidence.
So does this mean you consider the 'no first cause' position as the default position ? Why so ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 7:41 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 09-08-2010 9:04 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 119 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 9:13 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 121 of 148 (580370)
09-08-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by onifre
09-08-2010 9:04 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
Red Herring
We were talking about colliding branes. or first cause vs no cause

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 09-08-2010 9:04 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by onifre, posted 09-08-2010 9:33 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 122 of 148 (580371)
09-08-2010 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by nwr
09-08-2010 9:13 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
Then your opinion has change since this:
There probably wasn't a first cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 9:13 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 9:41 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024