Hawkins

[JustWondering]

I love human nature. I thought the message of Jesus was to love your neighbors, spread peace, be tolerant, and win nonbelievers over with kindness. Yet after a story about Hawking was posted on Yahoo Christians immediately start bashing and insulting Hawking and anyone who does not agree with their beliefs. Ironic, don't you think?

 

[Reptillian]

I love human nature. I thought the message of Jesus was to love your neighbors, spread peace, be tolerant, and win nonbelievers over with kindness. Yet after a story about Hawkins was posted on Yahoo Christians immediately start bashing and insulting Hawkins and anyone who does not agree with their beliefs. Ironic, don't you think?

Who is Hawkins? Is he a mutant blend of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking?

 

[JustWondering]

Yes, or I mispelled his name.

 

[Quiddity]

It's stupid......They did the same with Anne Rice. But in her case it was a bit different because she didn't leave without taking a couple jabs at the Catholic Church. For many, that is enough to win her a nobel prize, but Hawkins didn't say anything wrong so far as I can tell.

 

[Skwim]

Who is Hawkins? Is he a mutant blend of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking?

​

 

[Quiddity]

Here is a link to it:

God did not create the universe, says Hawking - Yahoo! News

 

[JustWondering]

Who is Hawkins? Is he a mutant blend of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking?

Lol, a blend like that would create a super atheist.

 

[Skwim]

I love human nature. I thought the message of Jesus was to love your neighbors, spread peace, be tolerant, and win nonbelievers over with kindness. Yet after a story about Hawkins was posted on Yahoo Christians immediately start bashing and insulting Hawking and anyone who does not agree with their beliefs. Ironic, don't you think?

Not ironic at all, just business as usual. You shouldn't expect Christians to actually live the words they mouth. At the end of the day they can simply ask to be forgiven their intemperate bashing and insulting behavior and it's given.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'll have to read his book before I comment but I do not like the implications of his direct quote.

Hawking states in a quote in that article that the universe necessarily came from nothing, which is not a statement he or anyone else in physics can make at this point.

It isn't a physics statement, it's a metaphysical statement -- and a poor one.

We have no conception of what occured prior to the first Planck time of the universe as we now know it. I really must see what Hawking is basing that statement on. Sounds like bad metaphysics to me.

When will a majority of these physicists start getting the picture that deep theoretical physics is half metaphysics? It's like having a physics major play billiards and failing to realize that it's half motor skills.

 

[Quiddity]

I'll have to read his book before I comment but I do not like the implications of his direct quote.

Hawking states in a quote in that article that the universe necessarily came from nothing, which is not a statement he or anyone else in physics can make at this point.

It isn't a physics statement, it's a metaphysical statement -- and a poor one.

We have no conception of what occured prior to the first Planck time of the universe as we now know it. I really must see what Hawking is basing that statement on. Sounds like bad metaphysics to me.

When will a majority of these physicists start getting the picture that deep theoretical physics is half metaphysics? It's like having a physics major play billiards and failing to realize that it's half motor skills.

Most excellent observation!

I haven't dug deep enough to know with certainty that he meant what they said.

 

[Reptillian]

I'll have to read his book before I comment but I do not like the implications of his direct quote.

Hawking states in a quote in that article that the universe necessarily came from nothing, which is not a statement he or anyone else in physics can make at this point.

It isn't a physics statement, it's a metaphysical statement -- and a poor one.

We have no conception of what occured prior to the first Planck time of the universe as we now know it. I really must see what Hawking is basing that statement on. Sounds like bad metaphysics to me.

/rant

I agree with Hawking I think. If God exists, he must exist as a logical necessity, but we are uncertain that God exists. We know the universe exists, so it might as well exist as a logical necessity. If its possible to prove logically that God must exist, then we might as well replace the word God with the word universe and cut out the middle man. Hell, we may as well replace the word universe with logic and conclude that reason is all that exists. But then again, I'm a bit drunk and rambling...nice day outside...brub brub bub bub bub....

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree with Hawking I think. If God exists, he must exist as a logical necessity, but we are uncertain that God exists. We know the universe exists, so it might as well exist as a logical necessity. If its possible to prove logically that God must exist, then we might as well replace the word God with the word universe and cut out the middle man. Hell, we may as well replace the word universe with logic and conclude that reason is all that exists. But then again, I'm a bit drunk and rambling...nice day outside...brub brub bub bub bub....

I don't disagree that it's possible -- even plausible... perhaps even most likely -- that the universe is ontologically necessary.

However, ontologically necessary things don't begin to exist from nothing, as Hawking stated.

Perhaps he's "dumbing it down" for the public? I don't know. I hate it when physicists misrepresent the metaphysics behind theoretical physicists for exactly that reason. The field I'm going into is practically mostly the metaphysics behind physics. So I have a real beef with it.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't disagree that it's possible -- even plausible... perhaps even most likely -- that the universe is ontologically necessary.

However, ontologically necessary things don't begin to exist from nothing, as Hawking stated.

Perhaps he's "dumbing it down" for the public? I don't know. I hate it when physicists misrepresent the metaphysics behind theoretical physicists for exactly that reason. The field I'm going into is practically mostly the metaphysics behind physics. So I have a real beef with it.

I’ve argued before that scientist and the scientific community is grossly infiltrated with an epistemology that is naturalized. That is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God. Books are written on this and as long as they write these books under their philosophical faculty, it’s merely their opinion and nothing more.

Religious people get lynched for even attempting to do anything like that.

 

[Meow Mix]

I’ve argued before that scientist and the scientific community is grossly infiltrated with an epistemology that is naturalized. That is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God. Books are written on this and as long as they write these books under their philosophical faculty, it’s merely their opinion and nothing more.

Religious people get lynched for even attempting to do anything like that.

I'll agree that some may have a biased epistemology but I certainly don't think that's the norm. Many scientists are theists; even amongst physicists (which is the group of scientists with the highest organic rates of atheism in science).

The problem is that someone must first postulate a testable hypothesis that would lend justification for a god before science can test it. Many facets of theism are unempirical, placing them firmly outside the realm of science. Though science is half metaphysics, those metaphysics are concerning the empirical aspects -- it never touches completely unempirical prospects.

For instance we have all kinds of metaphysics about the wave-function, but ultimately they're metaphysics over something empirical -- the wave-function, or the appearance of a wave-function.

It does appear to me that the universe looks just as it would if there were not a god, but that's a personal, subjective qualia and not an epistemic mode I actively engage in. I'm open to justifications for theism -- why else would I bother conversing with theists?

 

[*Paul*]

I love human nature. I thought the message of Jesus was to love your neighbors, spread peace, be tolerant, and win nonbelievers over with kindness. Yet after a story about Hawking was posted on Yahoo Christians immediately start bashing and insulting Hawking and anyone who does not agree with their beliefs. Ironic, don't you think?

We should love our neighbour but that does not mean that they should not be corrected, real love would correct a fatal error rather than let a lie spread.

We are not instructed to spread peace, be tolerant or win non believers over with kindness that is a misconception although kindness we should show naturally.

However I would consider it a kindness to the rest of the world for somone to expose the errors that are being taught by Dawkins.

That being said personal attacks are not needed and only work against us.

 

[Reptillian]

I don't disagree that it's possible -- even plausible... perhaps even most likely -- that the universe is ontologically necessary.

However, ontologically necessary things don't begin to exist from nothing, as Hawking stated.

Perhaps he's "dumbing it down" for the public? I don't know. I hate it when physicists misrepresent the metaphysics behind theoretical physicists for exactly that reason. The field I'm going into is practically mostly the metaphysics behind physics. So I have a real beef with it.

What is your physics specialization? Foundational cosmology? I didn't pursue my PhD after my masters because I couldn't decide on a specialization. I thought particle physics would be for me, but general relativity was infinitely more interesting. I've always liked seeing the connections between ideas and the overall picture...even biophysics has its topics of interest. Anyway, perhaps you've had more cosmology/general relativity than me and can clarify, what do physicists mean when we talk about the age and size of the universe? Is that a quantity that all observers will agree upon regardless of their reference frame? If so, wouldn't that age and size serve as an absolute clock or an absolute measuring rod? To me its no suprise that the assumptions leading to the Robertson-Walker metric would lead to an origin or a "special point" of the universe in time...we assume spacial homology and spacial isotropy but assume a unique "forward" direction in time. Its like assuming a unique "up" direction on the surface of the earth and then being suprised that we have a spacial center in 3-D space. Personally, I think the big bang theory has a major overhaul in store during this century anyway...so I'm not too worried about the beginning of the universe being in conflict with its ontological necessity.

 

[Quiddity]

I'll agree that some may have a biased epistemology but I certainly don't think that's the norm. Many scientists are theists; even amongst physicists (which is the group of scientists with the highest organic rates of atheism in science).

The problem is that someone must first postulate a testable hypothesis that would lend justification for a god before science can test it. Many facets of theism are unempirical, placing them firmly outside the realm of science. Though science is half metaphysics, those metaphysics are concerning the empirical aspects -- it never touches completely unempirical prospects.

For instance we have all kinds of metaphysics about the wave-function, but ultimately they're metaphysics over something empirical -- the wave-function, or the appearance of a wave-function.

It does appear to me that the universe looks just as it would if there were not a god, but that's a personal, subjective qualia and not an epistemic mode I actively engage in. I'm open to justifications for theism -- why else would I bother conversing with theists?

You don't like Jersey Shore or Sports?

I can respect that approach immensely. However, I can't say that's been my overwhelming experience with non-theist (note this is my experience only). For many, it goes far beyond demanding evidence; but instead they have [and/or create] de-baptisms, Spaghetti Monsters, and a number of silly caricatures/symbology as a "response" to their persecution as non-theist. Don't get me wrong, I think it's real, but I can't for the life of me understand why they go as deep as they do. Even a mere cross in a public place is met with disgust and intolerance (from the tolerant).

Anyways, that was a refreshing response.

 

[PolyHedral]

s that a quantity that all observers will agree upon regardless of their reference frame?

Presumably not, since not all observers will see time flowing at the same rate. And the direction of time is shown by thermodynamics, rather than anything to do with relativity.

For many, it goes far beyond demanding evidence; but instead they have [and/or create] de-baptisms, Spaghetti Monsters, and a number of silly caricatures/symbology as a "response" to their persecution as non-theist.

These aren't a response to persecution; They are pointing out that the Abrahamic God is not the only hypothesis that fits the available data.

 

[Quiddity]

These aren't a response to persecution; They are pointing out that the Abrahamic God is not the only hypothesis that fits the available data.

Is that all they are doing? :sarcastic

Are you seriously trying to correct my experiences?

 

[Reptillian]

Presumably not, since not all observers will see time flowing at the same rate. And the direction of time is shown by thermodynamics, rather than anything to do with relativity.


These aren't a response to persecution; They are pointing out that the Abrahamic God is not the only hypothesis that fits the available data.

I guess my point is that if all observers don't agree on the age and size of the universe then why do we talk about how old the universe is anyway? If I can turn my head to the side, or walk down the street at 75% the speed of light and make the universe looks twice as old, why bother talking about its age at all?

If I remember the stuff I learned my general relativity class correctly, one of the assumptions leading to the geometry of the big bang theory is that there is a unique forward and backward direction in time that can be assigned to each point in the universe. I agree that our sense of time's arrow is related to thermodynamics, but thermodynamics is influenced by the objective thing that we call time in relativity.