Hawking still making news.. haunting creationism.

[leroy]

Not if there is evidence supporting it.

To say that "nothing" created the universe is logically absurd.

To say that magic created the universe is at worst "hard to grasp" but it is not logically incoherent.

 

[wellwisher]

I think Hawkins got it wrong. In the depths of the singularity the fabric of space-time, to use an analogy, breaks down into separated threads of space and of time. This allows one to move in space without the constraint of time and move in time without the constraints of space. The nature of time changes since it is no linger constrained by a coordinated connection to space.

If you move in space without the constraints of time this allows you to be anywhere in zero time. This makes you omnipresent. If you move in time without space restrictions you can know the history of the universe at any given time. This is called omniscience. These are two classical attributes of God.

 

[Woberts]

To say that "nothing" created the universe is logically absurd.

To say that magic created the universe is at worst "hard to grasp" but it is not logically incoherent.

When there is evidence that nothing created the universe, but no evidence whatsoever for the existence of magic or god(s), it's pretty easy to see which one is the most logical.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never considered gods to be a necessary hypothesis....even before I ever heard of Hawking. I must be some kind of super jeenyus!

 

[blü 2]

Er, a transcendent deity is beyond time so that's not a good argument. But physicists are not theologians. (One can be both, but that's rarer these days.)

Anyone can be a theologian.

It's a wonderful game because there are no rules, no objective test for truth or falsity so you can never be wrong, magic is taken for granted, evidence is whatever comes into your head or out of whichever book takes your fancy, and the rest is up to you.

 

[leroy]

When there is evidence that nothing created the universe, but no evidence whatsoever for the existence of magic or god(s), it's pretty easy to see which one is the most logical.

"Nothing" is incoherent, to say that "nothing" did something is like saying that a bachelor kissed his wife.


But I will give you the opportunity to support your claim, where is the evidence that indicates that "nothing " created the universe.

 

[David T]

Looks like Steven Hawking's last book "Brief Answers to Big Questions," is gaining some media attention of late.

He writes about the existence of God...

Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

I am confused was he arguing against creationism or the existence of god? I mean is his understanding of that topic determined by his personal experts on the topic which clearly are creationists? Lol now thats pitiful if thats true. Ken ham as your bible expert is hilareously stupid. oh please. Total strawman nonsense, horrible science.

Talk about real scientists like this one i stead of some inane dufus.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Looks like Steven Hawking's last book "Brief Answers to Big Questions," is gaining some media attention of late.

He writes about the existence of God...

Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

Pros:
This is not anything new, and it is known that time is probably (almost certainly) something that exists as part of the universe not separate from the universe. The big bang is one major theory that depends upon redshifts and the spread of the stars. It is known that space is spreading out. From this we can deduce that it may have once been a single intense point of energy. Then we can apply (as Steven Hawking has done) Mathematics and our understanding of Physics to deduce that this point must have been very hot.

Cons:
It does not answer the relevant existential questions: It does not explain what existence means. It still does not answer the question of why anything should exist at all. For that you need other theories which is why other theories keep appearing, such as Quantum Informational Structural Realism ([1303.6007] On the Possibility of Quantum Informational Structural Realism) So, while we can strongly theorize the Big Bang and that time only exists in the physical universe, it still does not answer whether there is a sentience outside of time, something which does not 'Think' like we do but simply knows.

Big Bang theory does hint that there is an overall single relationship between all things and hence is monotheistic in nature. It does not rule out the existence of minor deities, however it does suggest that all things in the physical universe operate under a common set of physical laws. It does not answer the question of whether our existence may be more significant than the physical universe.

 

[pearl]

so you can never be wrong,

Hawking has at last proved his theory right or wrong.

 

[Tomas Kindahl]

This is not a good argument either as it merely uses "magic" to avoid issues.

It is a good argument, it claims God is a mathematical principle which is valid independent of time. No magic is involved, only Platonism, that claims that mathematics is eternally and multiversally valid and exists beyond any individual universe.

 

[Tomas Kindahl]

Looks like Steven Hawking's last book ...

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

"If it cannot be disproved, then it is an illicit statement" -- that's the logical positivist view, but it is only valid in a natural science context, not a sociologists, nor a psychologists, nor a theologists. In the realist world view (such as Plato, Max Tegmark and probably Roger Penrose) maths exists, really, and it exists outside time and space. Just put God outside universe — problem solved. Or describe a multiversal process where a huge intelligence projects itself from one universe to another. There are a huge number of ways to construct a counter-argument to Dawkins, but I use to like Dawkins despite I don't share his Atheism — sometimes he has good visions, but I wouldn't call those visions Atheist, and sometimes he have really good criticism to give against religion.

 

[Sunstone]

To say that "nothing" created the universe is logically absurd.

I'm not sure to what extent logic applies to the quantum world, which is what Hawking is discussing here. Logic is founded on how things operate in the macro world.

Also, as I understanding it, "nothing" on the quantum level is actually quite complex.

 

[blü 2]

Hawking has at last proved his theory right or wrong.

But as I recall it wasn't theological. Was it?

 

[Ponder This]

Looks like Steven Hawking's last book "Brief Answers to Big Questions," is gaining some media attention of late.

He writes about the existence of God...

Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

Hmm, I not sure what the problem here is, but it seems to me at first glance that saying that time 'began' with the big bang actually fits with the understanding of a 'timeless' Creator as opposed to supporting the proposition that no such Creator could exist. So I'm either failing to understand the issue here, or this objection to Creationism is an Epic Failure.

 

[Shad]

Well to say that the universe came from nothing is worst than magic.

Never said it did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To say that "nothing" created the universe is logically absurd.

To say that magic created the universe is at worst "hard to grasp" but it is not logically incoherent.

Why? You are probably looking at the universe Newtonianly and we know that there are conditions where Newtonian physics does not work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Nothing" is incoherent, to say that "nothing" did something is like saying that a bachelor kissed his wife.


But I will give you the opportunity to support your claim, where is the evidence that indicates that "nothing " created the universe.

Baby steps. You do realize that "empty space" is not empty, don't you? There are countless virtual particles in "empty space".

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not if there is evidence supporting it.

Energy and matter are interchangeable as was demonsrated by Einstein. I suspect energy has always been available.

 

[Shad]

So you saying that without time, everything is static somehow disproves God, that is incorrect.

No I just shot down an argument for God.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Er, a transcendent deity is beyond time so that's not a good argument. But physicists are not theologians. (One can be both, but that's rarer these days.)

If a dieity is beyond time then how does it interact?