|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 6, 2010 19:12:34 GMT 1
Stephen Hawking has recently announced that (in his opinion) God did not create the universe.
Has anyone the right to make this statement, no matter how esteemed?
|
|
|
Post by kiteman on Sept 6, 2010 19:22:39 GMT 1
Yes.
The only way that "right" could be denied is if a god exists.
Evidence, anybody?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 6, 2010 19:58:23 GMT 1
Stephen Hawking has recently announced that (in his opinion) God did not create the universe. Has anyone the right to make this statement, no matter how esteemed? Of course he has the right But also, he is not speaking as a scientist, but as a controversialist in order to create a stir about, and sell, his new book In fact Hawking has no more idea about the creation of energy and matter than an Arab looking after his sheep in the desert. Although he is a brilliant scientist, he is also a mercenary - unprincipled in his search of big-wodge
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 7, 2010 8:11:28 GMT 1
Ah, so now we come to the nub of the issue. It's all just a publicity stunt!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 7, 2010 9:05:09 GMT 1
Ah, so now we come to the nub of the issue. It's all just a publicity stunt! Of course it is! Do you think it was necessary to a scientific book to invoke God? Of course it wasn't! But invoking God has raised the interest enormously A transparent disgrace really.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 7, 2010 9:15:50 GMT 1
I wonder if Stephen Hawking has now become more of a celeb. rather than a serious scientist!
|
|
|
Post by shaker2010 on Sept 7, 2010 12:51:20 GMT 1
Stephen Hawking has recently announced that (in his opinion) God did not create the universe. Actually, no - that's what the newspapers said he'd said, not what he actually did say, which was that it is unnecessary to invoke a god to explain the origin of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 7, 2010 12:56:02 GMT 1
Stephen Hawking has recently announced that (in his opinion) God did not create the universe. Actually, no - that's what the newspapers said he'd said, not what he actually did say, which was that it is unnecessary to invoke a god to explain the origin of the universe. In other words Hawking knows the answers. Complete bollocks of course Throw in the God bit to get publicity
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 7, 2010 13:40:20 GMT 1
Why is everyone being such idiots over this!
Firstly, it is hardly news to any scientist that the god hypothesis is no longer viewed as necessary by most scientists.
I think people that misunderstand this just don't know the meaning of necessary in this sense........
So, the simple question is -- can we explain stuff just using usual testable hypotheses of science and usual physical laws, or do we have to label some stuff as unknown and unknowable, or say -- magic comes in here, label it god as shorthand for outside the scope of our physics as we know it, or outside the scope of any possible physics.
So, there is a difference between saying -- the creation of the universe is potentially explainable without recourse to magic, we just don't know what it is yet, and there is no possible physics that can explain it all, or such a big hole that god can still fit in.
Of course, physics can never disprove god exists, because as long as you give god the power to act outside of physics, then she can always do whatever she wants, just cooking up the results to look like physics. So, she could have created the universe a millisecond ago, just made it look old.
Not being impossible is not the same as being probable. If we have a decent explanation without god, then introducing a god hypothesis (which god, Zeus anyone?) can no longer be justified on scientific or philosophical grounds, although of course people are free to continue to believe in one on other grounds.
The where did all the matter and energy come from merchants are TOTALLY out of date. The total energy of the universe could be zero (positive energy of matter and radiation canceled out by negative energy of curved spacetime). Hence zero net energy means the whole universe could have arisen out of nothing -- except arisen not really the right word, since no before since time itself is part of the universe that arose!
Happens all the time in quantum theory, stuff from nothing, and we can measure the effects, just not for an entire universe, because someone has calculated the probability of a new universe spontaneously occurring in your bowl of cornflakes (or anywhere else), and you'd have to wait a very long time to have a reasonable chance of seeing that happen!
So, where did all the energy come from is not an issue, since there was net zero energy. Why all matter , where did all the antimatter go is still slightly an issue, particle physicists trying to measure exact very very small effects that caused that, but such effects seen elsewhere, so not ruled out in principle, just difficult to measure because they are so small.
We really do have an awful lot sussed, and those who think Hawking is being arrogant should perhaps read his book and learn something before they are so keen to display their own lack of knowledge of current physics...................
It's not publicity seeking, it is what practically any cosmologist or theoretical physicist or my acquaintance would say, except some people tend to not say it, cos the religious can get a bit miffed (as these responses show), and those who disagree usually don't know enough modern physics (well anything from the last century really) for it to be worth arguing with them over it.
Although some have no problem with god not being a necessary hypothesis, since if you could prove the need for a god hypothesis using science, that would kind of remove the whole point of believe and faith as far as some people are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Sept 7, 2010 13:56:43 GMT 1
Actually, no - that's what the newspapers said he'd said, not what he actually did say, which was that it is unnecessary to invoke a god to explain the origin of the universe. In other words Hawking knows the answers. Complete bollocks of course Throw in the God bit to get publicity
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Sept 7, 2010 14:06:59 GMT 1
Why begrudge Hawking a bit of publicity? It is not easy to sell books on science these days.
Some religious people use the argument from first cause. What is wrong with pointing out that our universe may well have come into existence spontaneously?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 7, 2010 14:19:26 GMT 1
Why begrudge Hawking a bit of publicity? It is not easy to sell books on science these days. Some religious people use the argument from first cause. What is wrong with pointing out that our universe may well have come into existence spontaneously? Sheer sensationalism perhaps. Why bnot presnt it with topless girls?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 7, 2010 16:10:55 GMT 1
Argument from first cause -- since quantum theory has events without causes, why bother?
stuff I'd read before by Hawking said (I recall) that if models of the universe, where there was no first instant (The Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal) were right, if the universe as an uncaused quantum event are right, then if we have to accept something as it just is, then better the physical universe just is, self-contained and self-consistent, rather than invoking god (who then ends up mostly undefined for starters).
If you are going to do that, suggestions that we are instead a computer simulation being run by advanced beings, so should look for glitches in the programming when we probe new physics that has never been probed before (Martin Rees) are at least testable hypotheses about sort-of gods.
As fro Hawking, I suspect he just got a bit tired of people making assumptions based on his mind of god line, so decided to make his position clear. What then got onto front pages in the silly season -- I don't think that can be blamed on him, or just that he is after publicity. He is selling a book after all.
Instead, I think some people just resent a person that many people look to as a great mind, or a great physicist (probably one of the very few that the general public can name, frankly) actually coming out and saying what the rest of us already knew, and damn the archbishops -- our science doesn't support your god, whatever gaps you still think need god to fill them. It isn't news to the scientific community, whatever the Templeton prize may say................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 7, 2010 16:30:23 GMT 1
Isn't that rather splitting hairs?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 7, 2010 16:32:52 GMT 1
Well, Hawking knows the answers that science has produced thus far which isn't really the same as knowing THE answers.
|
|