Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 3:29 PM
32 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD (5 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,593 Year: 3,630/19,786 Month: 625/1,087 Week: 215/212 Day: 30/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Hawking Comes Clean
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 61 of 148 (580178)
09-08-2010 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Nij
09-07-2010 11:46 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
quote:
Not requiring a god does not imply that no god exists.

Agreed. But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement.
quote:
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.

Whether or not these statements are true depends on one's metaphysical view of the universe.

There's a big difference between the following two statements:
1) It is not necessary to invoke God in order to scientifically explain the functioning of the universe.
2) God's existence is not necessary for the functioning of the universe.

The first is a statement of methodological naturalism, accepted by nearly all practicing scientists and having no metaphysical implications. The second is a metaphysical claim about the universe.

If this distinction seems too subtle, consider the following two statements:
1) It is not necessary to invoke oxygen in order to do mathematics.
2) The existence of oxygen is not necessary for us to do mathematics.

The first statement is true; the second is false.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"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 57 by Nij, posted 09-07-2010 11:46 PM Nij has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AZPaul3, posted 09-08-2010 2:17 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 64 by Nij, posted 09-08-2010 4:32 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 66 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 4:41 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 67 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 7:38 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 82 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 8:47 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3813
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 62 of 148 (580181)
09-08-2010 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
09-08-2010 1:35 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
1) It is not necessary to invoke oxygen in order to do mathematics.
2) The existence of oxygen is not necessary for us to do mathematics.

A strawman ... and a loaded one at that.

Here, let's make it more generic and unload the stupid:

1) It is not necessary to invoke Paris Hilton in order to do mathematics.
2) The existence of Paris Hilton is not necessary for us to do mathematics.

That's better. Both statements are true and are equivalent.

Now:

1) It is not necessary to invoke Paris Hilton for the functioning of the universe.
2) Paris Hilton's existence is not necessary for the functioning of the universe.

Again, both are true and are equivalent.

Finally:

1) It is not necessary to invoke God for the functioning of the universe.
2) God's existence is not necessary for the functioning of the universe.

Wow. Both are equivalent and both are true!

Except for one small problem. Paris Hilton and God are equivalent.

Actually, that does explain a lot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 09-08-2010 1:35 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 63 of 148 (580183)
09-08-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by kbertsche
09-07-2010 9:27 PM


Re: Laws of physics: Two perspectives
The universe and its laws become self-created, uncaused, and complex.

No, the Universe appears self-consistent, logical, and simple.

The universe effectively becomes deified.

Possibly, but without the Judeo-Christian attributes of love, hate, jealousy, "holiness", desire to kill that which doesn't fit in with its plans, requirement for worship, necessity to sacrifice part of it own nature to satisify its own made up rules, over-concern with where men stick their dicks, etc, etc.

Now, about God being the more simple picture?

As the Apostle Paul said of those who reject God...

Ah, yes, Paul's great condemnation of scientists

Isn't it simpler to postulate that the automobile was self-caused?

Ah, so that's what you think we have done? Just postulated that the Universe is self-caused. Shit, and to think of all the years the community spent working on this, and all we needed to do was postulate it. If we'd known you were so easy to please, we could have spent all that time drinking. Actually, if memory serves, I think we spent most of it drinking anyway...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by kbertsche, posted 09-07-2010 9:27 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 2967 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 64 of 148 (580190)
09-08-2010 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
09-08-2010 1:35 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Agreed. But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement.
{snipped quote}
Whether or not these statements are true depends on one's metaphysical view of the universe.
There's a big difference between the following two statements: ...

Agreed. There is. My statement was probably errant, now that you point out the distinction in clear terms.



Now I'd like to pick on this:

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.

If the atheist position is that the universe and its laws are all that exist, and the theist position is that the universe and its laws exist in addition to God -- these are generalised positions because it's simpler to discuss that way -- then the atheist position is necessarily simpler: it uses fewer entities in its explanation of the universe.

To say that the inclusion of God in an explanation of the universe is simpler, when you already have the laws and properties known, seems quite contrary to the idea of "simpler" in all senses of the word.
For example, which of the sets {Newton's laws of motion} and {Newton's laws of motion, God} is simpler? Does one explain more about the functioning of the universe than the other?

As it happens, let us revise the original statement:
"The only thing it implies is exactly what it says: if a god does exist, it is not necessary to our explanation of the universe functioning as we normally do. If the god does not exist, then we wouldn't notice the difference in our explanations."

Which is more accurate and more in line with both our reasoning, I think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 09-08-2010 1:35 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 148 (580191)
09-08-2010 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by kbertsche
09-07-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Does Hawking really use the terms "laws of physics" (or "laws of nature") and "universe" as interchangeable?

No, like most intelligent people, he sees context as important. If he states

quote:
''Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.''
-Stephen Hawking

do you really think that by "law" he is merely talking about our current understanding? How stupid do you think he is? A correct paraphrase of what he said is "because of the nature of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".

Now, I would never actully speak in such terms. I would always deny any kind of "creation from nothing" to attempt to describe the situation accurately. Stephen doesn't give a shit - he's putting it this way as he knows it will kick up. He enjoys that.

I have a hard time believing that Hawking is this sloppy in his language.

Yet you find it very easy to think that he would say something as idiotic as "because of our understanding of gravity, the universe can create itself from nothing"...

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

Then you've never worked in or amongst those working in quantum gravity - or you have not been privy to their conversations. Did you not even study any quantum cosmology in your grad work? Go chat to Jim Hartle - he can't be too far from you - or Joe Polchinski.

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.

No, it is not You may still be at the stage of thinking of an electron as a little hard ball of matter which we model with equations. If so, I'd say you've nearly 100 years of catch up ahead of you...

I would answer that God did it, by upholding the law we know of as Newton II.

define "god", define "upholding". Explain how this changes the situation.

he claimed that God was not needed, implying that God does not exist.

Only if you are ignorant of the meaning of the word "implying".

But Hawking did mention God, and that's the problem.

yeah, 'cos Christians and creations NEVER mention the Big Bang do they


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by kbertsche, posted 09-12-2010 6:37 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 66 of 148 (580193)
09-08-2010 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
09-08-2010 1:35 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Agreed. But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement.

I'm sorry, you keep mentioning this word "god". What is a "god". Can you define this otherwise your entire claim makes no sense what-so-ever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 09-08-2010 1:35 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 67 of 148 (580205)
09-08-2010 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
09-08-2010 1:35 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
kbertsche writes:
But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement.

It seems to me that it just says that there is no role for a "god of the gaps".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 09-08-2010 1:35 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 68 of 148 (580207)
09-08-2010 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
09-07-2010 11:21 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
You make a lot of statements cloaked as a fact

In message 44? Really? Care to point them out to me?

The laws are not the universe, simply by virtue of you saying they are.

If I say "when we say, 'laws', what we mean in this context is..." then, yes, they are exactly what I say they are by virtue of me saying so - sort of a tautology, don't you think? Of course, I am also speaking for Hawking here, so you could argue that that was not what he meant. So perhaps you'd like to explain what you think he meant, and why...

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.

Yep. In exactly the same way that car mechanics know no more about cars than your average driver. And why doctors really have no clue compared to the general populace when it comes to heart sugery. And when it comes to piloting the Shuttle, Nasa has traditionally gone for bus drivers.

The "laws" of the universe appear to be intelligently crafted. They have consistency, they have order, they have contingencies

Indeed they do have consistency, order and contingencies. So much so that the more we delve the more constrained they appear. What room then for any level of "crafting"? It appears that they are the only way they can be. Doesn't leave much if any room for design.

What we see, what many people see is a type of order

I agree. We see so much order that it leaves no room for design, no room for choice. Sort of the opposite of what you are looking for really.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-08-2010 8:17 AM cavediver has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1708 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 69 of 148 (580214)
09-08-2010 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nwr
09-08-2010 12:33 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Well, let's see, I wrote that a theoretical physicist has no more intrinsic ability to look at the world around them, see the order, imagine what is chaos, and draw conclusions about the unseen. You of course responded by saying, "but cavediver is a theorectical physicist!"

Well, how about that. I suppose if you are willing to concede your ability to draw conclusions about a higher being to a physicist, then I guess you always are willing to concede your intelligence on such matters to a priest, a minister or a theologian as well. So if they tell you there must be a God, who are you to argue with them?

Fortunately for me, i have made no such concessions on my ability to make such judgments, so I am free to speculate. I am very sorry that you don't enjoy the same liberties.

You do know that cavediver was an evangelical Christian for much of his life, so do you suppose at that time he had the ability to know how wrong he was, or is it only now that he has this ability? Is he only smart about such matters now, that he has declared there is no God?

How many other things about life are you willing to defer your ability to reason about? Would you take marriage advice from Stephen Hawking? Fashion advice from Einstein. Pet grooming tips from Erwin Schrödinger?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 12:33 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 8:24 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 75 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 8:28 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1708 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 70 of 148 (580216)
09-08-2010 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by cavediver
09-08-2010 7:40 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Yep. In exactly the same way that car mechanics know no more about cars than your average driver. And why doctors really have no clue compared to the general populace when it comes to heart sugery. And when it comes to piloting the Shuttle, Nasa has traditionally gone for bus drivers.

When your pastor tells you that there is a God, I am glad to know that you will now be agreeing that he knows a heck of a lot more about this than you, so you will take his word for it. Congratulations of your re-conversion!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 7:40 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 8:27 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 71 of 148 (580217)
09-08-2010 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
09-03-2010 10:35 AM


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

Hyroglyphics writes:

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

If all would simply cite 1LoT and Biblical creationists would cite the Biblical record along with 1LoT, all could go, figure and assume that the Universe has eternally existed, that being compatible with observed LoT and that Jehovah, creator, has existed in the cosmos eternally according to the Biblical record.

If there was a first cause there is no valid theory or hypothetical premise until there is an explanation for it. Void of an explanable first clause, the universe should be assumed by both camps to be eternal.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
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 73 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 8:26 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 99 by shalamabobbi, posted 09-08-2010 3:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 110 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 6:04 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 72 of 148 (580219)
09-08-2010 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
09-08-2010 8:14 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
You do know that cavediver was an evangelical Christian for much of his life, so do you suppose at that time he had the ability to know how wrong he was

All I am describing here I came to realise many many years ago, deep in my time as an evangelical Christian. I was actually a member of a Vineyard fellowship at the time, if the name means anything to you. It had zero impact on my faith, for the simple reason that my faith was based on, err, well, faith.

It was the same time that I discovered that there was practically zero archaeological evidence backing up the pre-captivity OT, and that morality was perfectly explained by evolution. Again, effect on my faith? Not a jot. See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-08-2010 8:14 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 148 (580221)
09-08-2010 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
09-08-2010 8:18 AM


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

Void of an explanable first clause, the universe should be assumed by both camps to be eternal.

Is there a valid theory or any evidence is support of anything being eternal?

Anything eternal would be in a state of maximum entropy according to the laws of thermodynamics would it not?

Given that the universe does not appear to be in a state of maximum entropy I don't think we can reasonably assume that it has existed for an eternity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 8:18 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2010 8:28 AM Straggler has responded
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 8:37 AM Straggler has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 74 of 148 (580222)
09-08-2010 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Bolder-dash
09-08-2010 8:17 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
When your pastor tells you that there is a God, I am glad to know that you will now be agreeing that he knows a heck of a lot more about this than you, so you will take his word for it.

How can someone be an expert on something that doesn't exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-08-2010 8:17 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-08-2010 8:29 AM cavediver has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 75 of 148 (580223)
09-08-2010 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
09-08-2010 8:14 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
Bolder-dash writes:
Well, let's see, I wrote that a theoretical physicist has no more intrinsic ability to look at the world around them, see the order, imagine what is chaos, and draw conclusions about the unseen.

However, what you actually said to cavediver in Message 56 was:

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.

That bears little resemblance to what you now claim that you said.

The earlier statement (from Message 56) was an assertion about validity. Your newer claim is that it was an assertion about intrinsic ability.

If you cannot even correctly describe what you yourself said in an earlier post, then it is hard to see why anybody should ever pay attention to anything you say.


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-08-2010 8:14 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019