Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

[Jainarayan]

But he's not denying a God -- pantheistic, panentheistic or otherwise. He's not saying the universe couldn't have been "created" by God. He's just saying that the whole show could have come about by purely impersonal, natural mechanisms.


Is nobody reading what he actually said? HE DID NOT SAY THERE WAS NO GOD!!!!!!

I said this earlier...

He's not denying God, but he's not allowing for it. He's working with the mainstream Abrahamic concept of a pantheistic God. If one uses the concept of a panentheistic transcendental God, then I don't believe his theory is correct. If there is a panentheistic transcendental God, then the idea of "no before", which is his focus, doesn't work. Assuming a panentheistic transcendental God, there is a "before".

Edit: I don't know his motivation for his position, but I think his premise is too narrow in scope, assuming only one universe. So in thinking about it more, reversing my first comment in this post ("He's not denying God"), I think he is attempting to explain away a God.

 

[Jainarayan]

Existence out of time is not possible.

Time stops in a black hole, yet even Hawking admits now that information is not destroyed in a black hole. So does information then not exist outside of time?

 

[Copernicus]

He's not denying God, but he's not allowing for it. He's working with the mainstream Abrahamic concept of a pantheistic God. If one uses the concept of a panentheistic transcendental God, then I don't believe his theory is correct. If there is a panentheistic transcendental God, then the idea of "no before", which is his focus, doesn't work. Assuming a panentheistic transcendental God, there is a "before".

I still think that you have entirely missed Hawking's point. He is not trying to rule God out, but a reason for believing in that Abrahamic God. Your panentheistic alternative God does not come equipped with any particular reason to believe in it, so the the justification for believing in your God is exactly the same as for the Abrahamic God. That is, no justification at all. Unless you can supply one. Can you? Again, what does the gratuitous assumption of panentheism buy you? How is it better wrt this argument than just assuming the existence of the more traditional God?

Edit: I don't know his motivation for his position, but I think his premise is too narrow in scope, assuming only one universe. So in thinking about it more, reversing my first comment in this post ("He's not denying God"), I think he is attempting to explain away a God.

Actually, he believes in multiple universes. Isn't that what he said?

 

[PolyHedral]

I said this earlier...

He's not denying God, but he's not allowing for it. He's working with the mainstream Abrahamic concept of a pantheistic God. If one uses the concept of a panentheistic transcendental God, then I don't believe his theory is correct. If there is a panentheistic transcendental God, then the idea of "no before", which is his focus, doesn't work. Assuming a panentheistic transcendental God, there is a "before".

If you want to use the model of a panentheistic God, you must justify it.

Edit: I don't know his motivation for his position, but I think his premise is too narrow in scope, assuming only one universe. So in thinking about it more, reversing my first comment in this post ("He's not denying God"), I think he is attempting to explain away a God.

He assumes only one universe because there's no reason to think that more than one exists. (Multiple quantum "universes" don't count, because of the details of how quantum works.)

Time stops in a black hole, yet even Hawking admits now that information is not destroyed in a black hole. So does information then not exist outside of time?

Time stops in a idealistic, not-really-real black hole. In a real black hole, it merely gets supremely wibbly. (Although we can follow the wibblyness, we think we're not quite right because it's so wibbly.)

 

[no-body]

The way I've heard it explained is asking what came before everything is a nonsensical question that does not compute. I trust Stephen Hawkins judgement up to a point on his credentials but he is still only human he doesn't know everything and if he's going to say stuff like this I'd wish he would simplify it and explain it better to us stupids.

Also have you seen Stephen Hawkins lately? If there ever was a man that was going to be bitter about a God that could allow for such things it would be him.

 

[otokage007]

Time stops in a black hole, yet even Hawking admits now that information is not destroyed in a black hole. So does information then not exist outside of time?

If time stops in a black hole, matter must be paralized. If God is paralized, he can't create anything. God can't exist "before" the universe if there's no time. So God could not create the universe. At the most, he started existing with the universe.

 

[Copernicus]

He assumes only one universe because there's no reason to think that more than one exists. (Multiple quantum "universes" don't count, because of the details of how quantum works.)

I really have trouble understanding how to construe this. For example, here is what Washington Post reviewer, James Trefil, wrote (emphasis mine):

With that background, Hawking and Mlodinow get to the real meat of their book: the way theories about quantum mechanics and relativity came together to shape our understanding of how our universe (and possibly others) formed out of nothing. Our current best description of the physics of this event, they explain, is the so-called "M-theories," which predict that there is not a single universe (the one we live in) but a huge number of universes. In other words, not only is the Earth just one of several planets in our solar system and the Milky Way one of billions of galaxies, but our known universe itself is just one among uncounted billions of universes. It's a startling replay of the Copernican Revolution.

I also read the book, and that is what I thought that Hawking and Mlodinow were saying. Did I misconstrue them?

 

[Copernicus]

If time stops in a black hole, matter must be paralized. If God is paralized, he can't create anything. God can't exist "before" the universe if there's no time. So God could not create the universe. At the most, he started existing with the universe.

More importantly, God is alleged to have interacted with our physical universe. To the extent that he influences events in our time reference, he is part of that time reference. The problem is that believers want an excuse for having it both ways.

 

[PolyHedral]

I really have trouble understanding how to construe this. For example, here is what Washington Post reviewer, James Trefil, wrote (emphasis mine):



I also read the book, and that is what I thought that Hawking and Mlodinow were saying. Did I misconstrue them?

No, I didn't know they actually believed in M-theory. However, my statement is still mostly correct, since M-theory is renowned for not being supported with physical evidence, only "Oooh, it makes the math work."

 

[Jainarayan]

I still think that you have entirely missed Hawking's point. He is not trying to rule God out, but a reason for believing in that Abrahamic God. Your panentheistic alternative God does not come equipped with any particular reason to believe in it, so the the justification for believing in your God is exactly the same as for the Abrahamic God. That is, no justification at all. Unless you can supply one. Can you? Again, what does the gratuitous assumption of panentheism buy you? How is it better wrt this argument than just assuming the existence of the more traditional God?

No, I haven't missed the point. He refers to a creator God, but there are many interpretations of a creator God; he's presuming only the most popular notion, and ruling that out. Almost 16% of the world's population does not believe in that type of God. In a nutshell, he did not do his homework.

And I don't think there is any need to ad hominem with "Your panentheistic alternative God ... your God ... Unless you can supply one. Can you?" It's not about me. Go back and read that I said I believe the scope of his premise is narrow. And that may be so by deliberate design, despite his disclaimer of not wanting to offend anyone's faith. A backhanded compliment if ever I heard one, running the risk of ******* off about 40% of the world's population. I'm not quite sure I understand why a theoretical physicist is publically broaching the subject of needing a creator God. God usually doesn't enter discussions of theoretical physics.

Actually, he believes in multiple universes. Isn't that what he said?

I don't recall he said that in this episode. I can only say for certain that Michio Kaku accepts multiple universes.

 

[Jainarayan]

If time stops in a black hole, matter must be paralized. If God is paralized, he can't create anything. God can't exist "before" the universe if there's no time. So God could not create the universe. At the most, he started existing with the universe.

You missed my comment that even Hawking admits information is not destroyed in a black hole, and black holes do emit radiation, despite time being non-existent in a black hole. God can certainly exist before and outside the universe. God is not matter.

 

[Super Universe]

So god originated from what exactly?

The big bang originated from what exactly?

 

[otokage007]

You missed my comment that even Hawking admits information is not destroyed in a black hole, and black holes do emit radiation, despite time being non-existent in a black hole. God can certainly exist before and outside the universe. God is not matter.

How do u know God is not matter? :/

 

[PolyHedral]

The big bang originated from what exactly?

It was already there by the time causality started meaning anything.

 

[idav]

It was already there by the time causality started meaning anything anything.

I think I hear an echo echo.

 

[Jainarayan]

How do u know God is not matter? :/

How do you know It is? Rather, what makes you think It is?

 

[PolyHedral]

I think I hear an echo echo.

(Oops.)

 

[Jainarayan]

If you want to use the model of a panentheistic God, you must justify it.

Again, he's narrowly focusing on what I now think is a personal or professional agenda.

He assumes only one universe because there's no reason to think that more than one exists. (Multiple quantum "universes" don't count, because of the details of how quantum works.)

Other theoretical physicists disagree with him about multiple universes. It seems his whole hypothesis, not even a scientific theory, is based on an assumption, not even a presumption.

If there was no "before", will there be an "after"? According to his hypothesis, there can be no big crunch, because this universe would constitute a "before" for the next universe. His hypothesis rules out a cyclic universe as well as this universe pinching off others. This is it... no mas. When this universe ends, either by the big rip or heat death, existence ceases.

And when we come right down to it, his inclusion of a "no-God-needed" really has nothing to do with what may or may not be the physics of creation. In thinking about it more, it seems to be a veiled statement that "there is no God", which may be his personal belief. Or it's a late-in-the-day attempt to grandstand.

 

[Super Universe]

It was already there by the time causality started meaning anything.

What evidence do you have that there was nothing before the big bang?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

What evidence do you have that there was nothing before the big bang?

The fact that "before the big bang" is like saying "north of the north pole".