|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 8, 2010 14:42:41 GMT 1
How can we really rely on what we already know to decide whether God is necessary or not to the creation of the universe when mathematics itself has shown to be incomplete and not wholly describable by what it can prove?
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 8, 2010 16:36:16 GMT 1
O dearie, and someone finally tries to bring Godels incompleteness theorem into it............
What's the point of that, are you going to try and claim that the existence or otherwise of god is a godel statement, in that it cannot be proved either true or false within the context of maths?
Sorry, maths joke, which could trap the unwary into thinking that they have found something significant, whereas of course godel only includes statements that make statements about boring old numbers.
Proof and godels theorem has nothing to do with it.
We are just talking boring ole theoretical physics as done by boring ole theoretical physicists, who happen to see no necessity for including god in their models, or any significant gap where such a hypothesis might reside.
If physics can come up with a consistent set of physical theories, that can describe both the evolution and the origin of the universe, then no place left in physics for god, unless you want to believe in a god that hides behind the equations.
As I keep saying, if you are going to allow that kind of hole, then you can hide anything there, from the christian type god, to a whole pantheon of invisible multicoloured unicorns. If you can have anything, you might just as well have nothing, when there is no evidence either way as to which version of the god or unicorn hypothesis you are supposed to pick.
I might add, don't try to bandy Godel about with someone who has actually read the original paper, and has some grasp of the actual proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 8, 2010 16:57:15 GMT 1
No, Speaker, what I was saying was we can only know things via what we know, however, there may well be true statements that cannot currently be verified by what we know. The existence of God might be one of them.
If you truly understand what Godel was on about why can't you understand the point I am trying to make?
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 8, 2010 20:18:56 GMT 1
Why do you think that saying that the god hypothesis is not necessary from a scientific point of view is bigotry? Seems you don't understand the meaning of bigot either? It could be bigotry for the following reasons: 1. There is no PROOF of God being unnecessary - just another hypothesis - like the God hypothesis itself 2. Why does a Serious science book invoke God? Is the invocation of God necessary? I would consider not, and that Hawking is being (quite unnecessarily) a controversialists in order to sell his book 3. The statement is (quite unnecessarily) pandering to the Atheist Lobby, dismissing (out-of -hand) centuries of Theology Bigotry? Perhaps, perhaps not. Creating a book-sell stir? Quite definitely. Really, I am slightly shocked at the vitriol being thrown at what is fairly standard scientific discourse. are you suggesting the GREATS of science have invoked God (or the absence of God) in their Laws/Theories Newton, Hooke, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein...etc were concerned with th measurable, not God. can you not see that Hawking invoking God is simply a cheap publicity stunt? Have people forgotten what happened to Darwin when he suggested life evolved, rather than each species being a separate creation? Now most people are happy with the idea that life evolved, and that at most god tinkered a bit, or puts the magic soul bit in at some point. Forgotten? It is a continuing controversy! But Darwin did not invoke God, either , did he? Why do you think Hawking has done so? But when cosmologists say a similar thing about the origin and evolution of the universe, suddenly people are up in arms again -- is this because science is gradually filling in the gaps where some like to hide their god? Let us be quite clear. No gaps have been filled by science. Many say that God's design is uncovered by science. Then they accuse scientists of being arrogant when they follow their theories to their conclusion, and state what they find! They do not. They pour fire on scientists that step outside their boundary and pontificate on metaphysics Really, if people just bothered to learn the difference between not necessary and disprove, then they might calm down a bit before throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and claiming that all science is nonsense.................. Maxwell showed that the Aether was 'not necessary' for the propagation of em waves. The aether was abandoned as redundant, not necessary, worthless, Superfluous, needless, immaterial, unessential, verbose, empty, out-of-operation, expendable, useless, groundless, unrequired, unwanted, plangent, no f*****g use-to-man-nor-beast, not-wanted-on-voyage, have-to-let-go-of-it, transferred to Job-seeker-allowance, dead in the water, come-in-no.1-your-time-is-up, f****d. Just as the arrogant Hawking is proposing for God Oh yes, we 'bother' with the casually bigoted use of words! |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 9, 2010 14:57:55 GMT 1
Which isn't what godel is talking about, therefore bringing in Godel is just trying to jazz up a fairly trivial statement -- that we don't know everything. As I keep saying, just because there is still a gap doesn't mean that we can say -- so, we can put god there.
Not necessary is not the same as disprove, as I keep saying.
Stop mixing up two different things, not necessary, and disproof. Doesn't make it bigotry either way.
Why not? It is a POPULAR science book anyway, and isn't the question of god a very natural one to consider when talking about the origin of the universe?
When theology has something to say that is scientific, then they can join in! From a scientific point of view, god is not necessary, whatever social, personal, psychological, or theological reasons there may be for people not liking that statement.
Even if it was, doesn't change the fact that most/many physicists/cosmologists would agree with him.
What would you prefer, the lack of necessity that doesn't dare to speak it's name?
Not amongst scientists, just some religious believers. Darwin didn't directly, but the conclusions were obvious, plus he didn't say much about the origin of the first living organism, that wasn't his argument.
He did in other writings, and never converted on his death bed as some creationists claim.
Utter nonsense. If not, why do you think so many people got so upset with Darwin..................
~nonsense! Why should science accept ANY boundary? If science sees no need for a god in explaining the universe, what is wrong with saying so, rather than trying to uphold this polite fiction that science will politely keep out of the god debate because it is beyond its boundaries.............
No he didn't. Maxwells equations make no specific reference to what em waves are moving in relation to, so not clear a priori whether Maxwells equations only apply in the aether rest frame (if such exists). Hence we had the Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved the existence of the aether.
They went looking, they didn't find it -- hence the hypothesis was dropped, finally, when Einstein worked out how to do without it AND still get a physics that made sense. That is the clincher, experiment, plus a physics that agrees with experiment and logically doesn't need such a hypothesisw, hence hypothesis dropped as being not necessary. I doubt if anyone got that heated about it.
Dearie me, you do seem to be getting rather heated about all this, accusing Hawking and the rest of us of all sorts, so probably a DAMN good thing he said what he did, maybe some of us should have said it louder and earlier.
I don't think Hawking needs extra publicity to sell his book, but even if he did, who cares? At least he didn't pose with scantily clad models in order to sell it, just wrote what he wanted to write, what's wrong with that. If you had anything to do with it, people would only write books that were dry and boring and guaranteed not to offend anyones religious sensibilities.....................
As Galileo would say -- still it moves (and god still isn't necessary).
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 9, 2010 15:14:14 GMT 1
Which isn't what godel is talking about, therefore bringing in Godel is just trying to jazz up a fairly trivial statement -- that we don't know everything. As I keep saying, just because there is still a gap doesn't mean that we can say -- so, we can put god there. What do you think Godel was talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 9, 2010 15:28:29 GMT 1
Godel was talking about statements about arithmetic (or within a particular axiomatic system), statements which are derivable from those axioms using the mechanistic rules for manipulating mathematical expressions, and statements which cannot be shown to be either true or false within the system,and where in fact you can add either a statement or its negation as a new axiom and still obtain a consistent expanded system.
Which is a world away from -- experiments in physics for which we don't have results yet...........
And the usual recourse of those who have run out of arguments, and are desperately seeking something esoteric from maths as some sort of conclusive 'proof' of their statements........
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 9, 2010 16:13:11 GMT 1
If Hawking can demonstrate where em and gravity come from (he cannot) then he cannot state with authority that God does not exist (or is not necessary, another way of saying the smae thing)
Simple
Just as Darwin did not venture to specualte on the origin of life, so physicists should not speculate on the origin of matter and energy. It is simply impossible for them to state how they originate. For Hawking to state that matter is created spontaneously from em and gravity is no different in principle to saying that matter is created by God.
There is no proof in either case
He is talking metaphysics, not physics and is outside his competence; he is NOT speaking as a responsible physcist.
He is using his status as a physicist to tell us his opinion, not science.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 9, 2010 16:24:55 GMT 1
In fact, many physicists (Speaker included) are forced out of sheer bafflement to seriously entertain the idea that the universe, our universe, was somehow chosen by fate to be totally unique in initiating time and space. How self-centred is that view? According to such a position the chances of us being here are so vanishingly small we can't really exist! They try to get round the problem by saying our universe just 'happened' out of literally nothing and therefore no cause was necessary. It strikes me that idea is much more absurd than the idea of a God; at least with a Creator we have a causal event and meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 16:34:23 GMT 1
[quote author=abacus9900 board=talk thread=32 post=1019 time=1284045895 our universe, was somehow chosen by fate to be totally unique in initiating time and space. How self-centred is that view? According to such a position the chances of us being here are so vanishingly small we can't really exist! [/quote]
Isn't there some theory that suggests that, in an infinite system, the probability that we must exist is must be 1?
[happy to be corrected here if I've got the wrong end of the stick]
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 9, 2010 18:13:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 9, 2010 18:20:20 GMT 1
In fact, many physicists (Speaker included) are forced out of sheer bafflement to seriously entertain the idea that the universe, our universe, was somehow chosen by fate to be totally unique in initiating time and space. How self-centred is that view? According to such a position the chances of us being here are so vanishingly small we can't really exist! They try to get round the problem by saying our universe just 'happened' out of literally nothing and therefore no cause was necessary. It strikes me that idea is much more absurd than the idea of a God; at least with a Creator we have a causal event and meaning. I agree entirely. Some (such as Hawking) speak as though they have the key to the origin of the Universe. Quite ridiculous Quite arrogant In fact there are many physicists who freely and truthfully admit they just do not understand what is going on, in black holes for example, where apparently the laws of physics as we know them break down. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 9, 2010 18:25:53 GMT 1
If Hawking can demonstrate where em and gravity come from (he cannot) then he cannot state with authority that God does not exist (or is not necessary, another way of saying the smae thing) Simple Very simplistic (non) arguments. Learn the difference between prove and disprove, and not necessary........ As far as I know, Hawking didn't say he could prove god didn't exist, just as no physicist would ever say they could prove that there wasn't an invisible and intangible purple unicorn poised over your left shoulder. But if you insist on potentially believing in everything that cannot be shown not to exist, then perhaps you can answer why so many people only use that as some sort of support for their belief in nice things (like a nice god and an afterlife), rather than nasty things (a vindictive anti-god), or just the downright weird (invisible blue goblins all called Wilbur). |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 9, 2010 18:30:19 GMT 1
Just as Darwin did not venture to specualte on the origin of life, so physicists should not speculate on the origin of matter and energy. It is simply impossible for them to state how they originate. For Hawking to state that matter is created spontaneously from em and gravity is no different in principle to saying that matter is created by God.. [snip] Why do you insist on trying to put cosmologists and theoretical physicists out of a job, just because they have the audacity to say -- our physics has no need for your god? No matter how many times you claim they cannot state how they originated (actually, physics provides possible, testable explanations, not proven true explanations, learn the difference!), yet it still follows logically from know physics. Hawking doesn't state that nonsense about em and gravity, would help if you knew the first thing about physics, science etc before bringing on the spanish inquisition........ I'm off too find a comfy chair............... With belief in a creator, you have meaning, provided you can keep the belief going. don't mistake the hope for the actuality. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 9, 2010 18:48:35 GMT 1
Just as Darwin did not venture to specualte on the origin of life, so physicists should not speculate on the origin of matter and energy. It is simply impossible for them to state how they originate. For Hawking to state that matter is created spontaneously from em and gravity is no different in principle to saying that matter is created by God.. Utter twaddle! Why do you insist on trying to put cosmologists and theoretical physicists out of a job, just because they have the audacity to say -- our physics has no need for your god? Now you are getting excited! Calm down! Am I trying to put physicists out of a job! Of course not. Do you think all physicists share your views? Of course not. 'Our' physics - just who is this 'our'? Are all physicists atheist like you? Are they bollocks As I say there are many views amongst physicist and you are of the Taliban Tendency it seems. [No matter how many times you claim they cannot state how they originated (actually, physics provides possible, testable explanations, not proven true explanations, learn the difference!), yet it still follows logically from know physics. Yes, I can accept that it follows logically, in the sense of 'spontaneous generation of matter' as Hawking puts it Just as the God hypothesis has it that God spontaneously creates matter No difference really God is necessary |
|
