Hawking, God & the Universe

Fanny Cradock

I'm sure we all saw headlines like this at the beginning of the month. Ignoring the sensationalist reporting for a moment, I think it safe to say that we probably all find the debate fascinating.

Unbelievable? has recorded a show entitled Hawking, God & the Universe where Roger Penrose and Alister McGrath investigate the claims behind the headlines. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet but these shows are usually very interesting. Enjoy!

Part Two here

You can also download the podcast on iTunes

There is also an interesting compilation of some critical responses (and by critical responses I mean critiques) from people in the know found at the end of this blog

Zombrex

The some what predictable response in those links from theists suggests that even if M-theory was found to be accurate (and we are a long way off from that) that would do little for faith in God, as God would just be moved some where else.

An infinite multiverse would certain cause troulbe for any notions that God is necessary though.

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

An infinite multiverse would certain cause troulbe for any notions that God is necessary though.

Why?
I honestly don't see your point.

Ash.J.Williams

Seaneh wrote: »

Why?
I honestly don't see your point.

I guess God or Jesus would/should have mentioned it back in the day.

Seaneh

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I guess God or Jesus would/should have mentioned it back in the day.

They didn't mention a whole lot about this universe at all so why would they have bothered? It's not necessary.

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

Why?
I honestly don't see your point.

Because anything and everything that is possible will eventually happen.

So what do you need God for?

For example, we need God to make the conditions for life

Not any more since in a system where every universe is made you will always naturally make a universe capable of supporting life.

We need God to make humans moral

Nope, because in a system where every universe is made you will always naturally make a universe with humans with morals

etc etc.

So what is God necessary for?

The argument that I've seen in some of the links Fanny posted state that this multiverse system just existing is not intellectually satisfying, so we need God to explain why it is rather than not.

But that seems disingenious since God just is rather than isn't (if he exists) so the argument we need an explanation for why this infinite multiverse would exist rather than not exist seems redundant. If God can just exist why can't this multiverse.

So what ever way you see it God because unnecessary. That isn't the same as saying he doesn't exist, just that you lose all argument that he has to.

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

Because anything and everything that is possible will eventually happen.

So what do you need God for?

For example, we need God to make the conditions for life

Not any more since in a system where every universe is made you will always naturally make a universe capable of supporting life.

We need God to make humans moral

Nope, because in a system where every universe is made you will always naturally make a universe with humans with morals

etc etc.

So what is God necessary for?

The argument that I've seen in some of the links Fanny posted state that this multiverse system just existing is not intellectually satisfying, so we need God to explain why it is rather than not.

But that seems disingenious since God just is rather than isn't (if he exists) so the argument we need an explanation for why this infinite multiverse would exist rather than not exist seems redundant. If God can just exist why can't this multiverse.

So what ever way you see it God because unnecessary. That isn't the same as saying he doesn't exist, just that you lose all argument that he has to.

I have never argued that God "has" to exist though...

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

I have never argued that God "has" to exist though...

I never claimed you did? In fact I never claimed anything about you, you asked me a question about my logic for saying that this makes God unnecessary and I explained it

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

I never claimed you did? In fact I never claimed anything about you, you asked me a question

Sorry, of course, I realise that.
But not all Christians claim God "has" to exist. If Hawking is right it doesn't mean a whole lot other than the christian understanding of what God is changes. It doesn't mean God didn't create the multi-verse or whatever you want to call it. It just means we we wrong about how many Universe's there are (doesn't it also make the name universe inaccurate?).

Ash.J.Williams

Seaneh wrote: »

They didn't mention a whole lot about this universe at all so why would they have bothered? It's not necessary.

It's a fairly blatent ommission in fairness?

Seaneh

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It's a fairly blatent ommission in fairness?

Since when is God accountable to humans? Why does he have to tell us ANYTHING?

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

Sorry, of course, I realise that.
But not all Christians claim God "has" to exist. If Hawking is right it doesn't mean a whole lot other than the christian understanding of what God is changes. It doesn't mean God didn't create the multi-verse or whatever you want to call it. It just means we we wrong about how many Universe's there are (doesn't it also make the name universe inaccurate?).

That is the issue though isn't it. At what point does continued belief in God just get silly.

God created the Earth, oh wait now he didn't, God created the universe, oh wait now he didn't, God created the multi-verse (which itself is problematic if the multi verse wasn't created but always existed)

We need God to explain X, oh wait now we don't. We need God to explain Y, oh wait now we don't.

It is simply an exercise of moving God to where we don't already have a scientific explanation, and when we get an explanation moving him off some where else again.

I think to a lot of people that just gets silly. An easier explanation is that God isn't real. That seems to be the position Hawkins is taking.

Ash.J.Williams

Seaneh wrote: »

Since when is God accountable to humans? Why does he have to tell us ANYTHING?

It would have been nice?

lmaopml

Thanks Fanny for putting those together...will enjoy sitting down later to look at em !

Zombrex

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It would have been nice?

As would E = mc2 on the first page of the Bible :P

raah!

Seaneh wrote: »

Why?
I honestly don't see your point.

Many people think that religious people believe in God because they feel it explains so much in scientific terms.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the issue though isn't it. At what point does continued belief in God just get silly.

At around much the same point as Hawkings does I'm inclined to suppose. Consider:

God created the Earth, oh wait now he didn't, God created the universe, oh wait now he didn't, God created the multi-verse (which itself is problematic if the multi verse wasn't created but always existed)

God created the heavens and the earth (or so the story goes). At which point does that dovetail with this sequence of yours? Why not at the very furthest point of it - given that the Bible isn't as specific as you (or your straw-apologists)

I think to a lot of people that just gets silly. An easier explanation is that God isn't real. That seems to be the position Hawkins is taking.

The easiest (and most accurate) position for you and Hawkings to take is "I don't know". At the end of the furtherest reaches you can reach is ... mystery.

sensibleken

Seaneh wrote: »

They didn't mention a whole lot about this universe at all so why would they have bothered? It's not necessary.

Its very neccesary, he could have saved his followers making an ass of themselves persecuting galileo and many others. He could have said 'lads when the oil runs out theres an asteroid my da put in the kyper belt full of the stuff'.

Ash.J.Williams

antiskeptic wrote: »

The easiest (and most accurate) position for you and Hawkings to take is "I don't know". At the end of the furtherest reaches you can reach is ... mystery.

I would agree with that!

liamw

antiskeptic wrote: »

The easiest (and most accurate) position for you and Hawkings to take is "I don't know". At the end of the furtherest reaches you can reach is ... mystery.

..and you don't know either

sensibleken

In the words of Operation Ivy 'all i know is that i dont know nothin'

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

God created the heavens and the earth (or so the story goes). At which point does that dovetail with this sequence of yours? Why not at the very furthest point of it - given that the Bible isn't as specific as you (or your straw-apologists)

But the Bible has no concept of the solar system, universe etc.

It has the concepts of ancient mankind who knew very little of the universe around them. So it could be argued the Bible already got it wrong.

But of course one can always stretch things. The "heavens" means the universe, the "light" means the Sun etc.

But then at some point that gets silly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The easiest (and most accurate) position for you and Hawkings to take is "I don't know". At the end of the furtherest reaches you can reach is ... mystery.

You do. And then theists insert "God did it" into that mystery :P

Ash.J.Williams

I cannot understand how the Sumerian views of the universe were ignored.

sensibleken

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I cannot understand how the Sumerian views of the universe were ignored.

Ash, you of all people should know the dangers of reading sumerian texts

Ash.J.Williams

sensibleken wrote: »

Ash, you of all people should know the dangers of reading sumerian texts

Ha ha very true, remember what happened last time!

jobee

Seaneh wrote: »

Since when is God accountable to humans? Why does he have to tell us ANYTHING?

Why do humans think God wants them praying to him everyday.

If I were God I'd just want them to get on with it and leave me alone.

We are a load of wimps.

Fanny Cradock

jobee wrote: »

Why do humans think God wants them paying to him everyday.

If I were God I'd just want them to get on with it and leave me alone.

We are a load of wimps.

That makes sense only if you assume that prayer is of benefit to God. That he needs our words and our worship in some way. But a more detailed discussion is better suited to another thread. Fell free to start one.

Onesimus

No rational arguments will ever prove the existence of God, they may open the door for people to choose to walk in-but-when they walk through that door it must always be the door of faith and they must have a passion for truth. Suffice it to say also that when that when they do finally walk through the door of faith it was never the rational argument that brought them there.

jobee

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That makes sense only if you assume that prayer is of benefit to God. That he needs our words and our worship in some way. But a more detailed discussion is better suited to another thread. Fell free to start one.

---

Why do humans think God wants them praying to him everyday.

If I were God I'd just want them to get on with it and leave me alone.

We are a load of wimps.

Onesimus

jobee wrote: »

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That makes sense only if you assume that prayer is of benefit to God. That he needs our words and our worship in some way. But a more detailed discussion is better suited to another thread. Fell free to start one.

---

Why do humans think God wants them praying to him everyday.

If I were God I'd just want them to get on with it and leave me alone.

We are a load of wimps.

But you are not God, '' For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.'' (Isaiah 55:8 )

Yes we are wimps, for our weakness is his strength. But only when we acknowledge our weakness will we allow him to dwell in us and heal our souls.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm sure we all saw headlines like this at the beginning of the month. Ignoring the sensationalist reporting for a moment, I think it safe to say that we probably all find the debate fascinating.

Unbelievable? has recorded a show entitled Hawking, God & the Universe where Roger Penrose and Alister McGrath investigate the claims behind the headlines. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet but these shows are usually very interesting. Enjoy!

You can also download the podcast on iTunes

There is also an interesting compilation of some critical responses (and by critical responses I mean critiques) from people in the know found at the end of this blog

I bought the book and wasn't terribly impressed. There's not much there that isn't already in the other, far better, books from him: "The universe in a nutshell." and "A brief history of time." Penrose's new book is better for novel and interesting theory. I think the problem with a lot of pop-physics books is the authors are always afraid to rigorously describe physics due to the maths that might need to be invoked.

While I am not a fan of the multi-verse conjecture, I should point out that a form of it does exist in quantum mechanics, and is very well established by experiment. Basically, the time-evolution of a quantum system (i.e. How it changes) is not defined by a single "path", but rather a collection of all possible paths. These paths all interfere with each-other to produce a probability for what we will observe. This is well-established http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9xM2_MrC2k&feature=related and, at the very very least, has forced us to re-think the way things are at their most fundamental level.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

I bought the book and wasn't terribly impressed. There's not much there that isn't already in the other, far better, books from him: "The universe in a nutshell." and "A brief history of time." Penrose's new book is better for novel and interesting theory. I think the problem with a lot of pop-physics books is the authors are always afraid to rigorously describe physics due to the maths that might need to be invoked.

Agree with you Morbert, I thought it was a little disappointing as regards new ideas, and the standards he had in previous books/documentaries with less of a controversial title..

While I am not a fan of the multi-verse conjecture, I should point out that a form of it does exist in quantum mechanics, and is very well established by experiment. Basically, the time-evolution of a quantum system (i.e. How it changes) is not defined by a single "path", but rather a collection of all possible paths. These paths all interfere with each-other to produce a probability for what we will observe. This is well-established http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9xM2_MrC2k&feature=related and, at the very very least, has forced us to re-think the way things are at their most fundamental level.

Yep, the maths of the quantum world are far more weird and chaotic than the lovely smooth mathematics of Einstein...To marry both would be fabulous, but not only that to get it 'right' would be even more fabulous...

String theory, with all it's assumptions on particle physics, and following from it the 'multiverse' theory, seem to add up at the moment as regards the 'mathematics' moreso than observation will allow, but give a picture of the universe/multiverse that seems so.... well,....'theoretical' and by consequence of the multiverse and our nature so very 'unobservable', not testable, the search is on for particles....and the pain in the arse is that it will probably end up being 'undeniable' by it's enthusiasts, in an 'unobservable', but mathematical way, because the maths is lovely!...but still we need to find evidence before it's taken seriously, hence the millions spent on the LHC.....It's very irritating to say the least :DD but very exciting too..

Scotty, beam me up! Love this stuff!

jobee

Onesimus wrote: »

jobee wrote: »

But you are not God, '' For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.'' (Isaiah 55:8 )

Yes we are wimps, for our weakness is his strength. But only when we acknowledge our weakness will we allow him to dwell in us and heal our souls.

edited to remove trolling (again)

kelly1

A video from Fr. Robert Spitzer (philosopher) on this subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1cy3iCrxic

His website is http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

I bought the book and wasn't terribly impressed. There's not much there that isn't already in the other, far better, books from him: "The universe in a nutshell." and "A brief history of time." Penrose's new book is better for novel and interesting theory. I think the problem with a lot of pop-physics books is the authors are always afraid to rigorously describe physics due to the maths that might need to be invoked.

It was really interesting to hear what Penrose had to say about M-Theory. He largely scathing of the theory and he even states that M-Theory doesn't exist as a theory. Of course, Penrose has his own ideas to promote - which I'm sure you are familiar with after reading his book.

Morbert

kelly1 wrote: »

A video from Fr. Robert Spitzer (philosopher) on this subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1cy3iCrxic

His website is http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/

Stephen Hawking's book is not great, but addressing it with metaphysics will just make things worse. General Relativity does predict a 'beginning' of the universe, but to describe what kind of phenomenon this 'beginning' is, we need a theory of quantum gravity. The gravitational field in relativity is time and space. It is only the surface of some deeper underlying quantum structure of the universe, and quantum gravity would tell us how they emerge. This structure (whether it turns out to be M-theory or Penrose's CCC universe) is timeless, and doesn't need a cause any more than God would need a cause.

A meta-physicist can still ask why is there a universe rather than nothing. A meta-physicist can also ask why is there a God rather than nothing. Meta-physicists can ask lots of questions that don't necessarily have answers.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It was really interesting to hear what Penrose had to say about M-Theory. He largely scathing of the theory and he even states that M-Theory doesn't exist as a theory. Of course, Penrose has his own ideas to promote - which I'm sure you are familiar with after reading his book.

Yeah, M-theory doesn't really exist yet. The primary motivation behind its development is the ease in which General Relativity can be consistently derived from String theory (which, in turn, doesn't fully exist yet either). I am not against String Theory, as the contributions it has made towards mathematics is valuable, but it certainly isn't established despite the enthusiasm behind it.

jobee

Onesimus wrote: »

jobee wrote: »

But you are not God, '' For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.'' (Isaiah 55:8 )

Yes we are wimps, for our weakness is his strength. But only when we acknowledge our weakness will we allow him to dwell in us and heal our souls.

/QUOTE]
Then show me God, add some substance to your argument.

Fanny Cradock

jobee wrote: »

But you are not God, '' For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.'' (Isaiah 55:8 )

Yes we are wimps, for our weakness is his strength. But only when we acknowledge our weakness will we allow him to dwell in us and heal our souls.

/QUOTE]
Then show me God, add some substance to your argument.

This is off topic, Jobee.

jobee

Seaneh wrote: »

I have never argued that God "has" to exist though...[

/QUOTE]
The Council of Europe has argued that God does not exist.

Council of Europe: Ban Creationism since it may become "Threat to Human Rights" and Democracy
Ominously paints a "war on the theory of evolution" by religious extremists "closely allied to extreme right-wing political

By John-Henry Westen

STRASBOURG, November 1, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE) has adopted a resolution to ban creationism from receiving any discussion in schools outside of religion classes. "The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies," said the resolution adopted on October 4 by the Parliament made up of 626 members elected from each European Member State.

"If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe," said the resolution.



http://www.tldm.org/News11/CouncilOfEuropeBanCreationism.htm

Fanny Cradock

Last warning, Jobee. Next time you take a holiday. It should not be difficult to stay on topic.

jobee

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This is off topic, Jobee.

So God is off topic on a religious site, strange.

Fanny Cradock

I assume you are being deliberately obtuse. You have ignored several warnings to keep your post on topic but it seems you aren't interested in learning. Enjoy your break.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

The some what predictable response in those links from theists suggests that even if M-theory was found to be accurate (and we are a long way off from that) that would do little for faith in God, as God would just be moved some where else.

An infinite multiverse would certain cause troulbe for any notions that God is necessary though.

Not really. If an infinite multiverse is true, and within it we have every single possible universe, then it logically follows that within this multiverse there will be a universe where God is necessary. Wouldn't you agree? If you do agree, then why can't the universe we inhabit be that universe? Who is to say that it isn't? If you don't agree then there is no such thing as a multiverse wherein every possible universe exists.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not really. If an infinite multiverse is true, and within it we have every single possible universe, then it logically follows that within this multiverse there will be a universe where God is necessary.

Yeah but it won't exist since God is necessary for it to exist.

I mean even in an infinite universe you aren't going to get something that cannot, logically, exist.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but it won't exist since God is necessary for it to exist.

I mean even in an infinite universe you aren't going to get something that cannot, logically, exist.

So only universes that we in our isolated and unconnected universe can logically conceive of are allowed to exist in the multivese? If the multivese is true then why should it be contingent upon what we conceive it should be?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So only universes that we in our isolated and unconnected universe can logically conceive of are allowed to exist in the multivese?

Er, perhaps I'm not following. How can a universe that requires God to exist exist if God doesn't, even if you have an infinite number of possible universes?

It would seem that the "requires God" bit would make it impossible to exist with God. You are defining your universe as being not possible and then complaining that I'm not open minded enough to imagine it could exist

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, perhaps I'm not following. How can a universe that requires God to exist exist if God doesn't, even if you have an infinite number of possible universes?

Why not? Why should the multivese be contingent upon what we perceive to be logically contradictions? Why can't a universe exist in this ensemble that is logically contradictory to us?

Wicknight wrote: »

It would seem that the "requires God" bit would make it impossible to exist with God. You are defining your universe as being not possible and then complaining that I'm not open minded enough to imagine it could exist

No I'm not. I'm asking you why should the multivese be limited to what we can conceive it to be? If we can have a universe where World War II never happened and one where there is no such thing as religion and one where these is no such thing as science and one where there is no God then why can't we have one where there is a God? Why is that one not allowed? And the reason being is because we in our insignificant spec of a universe can't conceive of it?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why not?

Because you defined it as such. If it can exist without God then why does it require God exactly?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why should the multivese be contingent upon what we perceive to be logically contradictions?

Do you understand what a logical contradiction is. It is more a problem with your definition than the multiverse.

If this theoretical universe exists and God doesn't exist then this universe doesn't require God and you are wrong in how you have defined it.

The multiverse isn't contingent upon this, you are.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No I'm not. I'm asking you why should the multivese be limited to what we can conceive it to be?

It isn't.

You though are contingent on describing it as it is. A universe that exists with no God does not require God, as such you have defined it wrong.

To say it does require God is simply bad descriptiveness on your part.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If we can have a universe where World War II never happened and one where there is no such thing as religion and one where these is no such thing as science and one where there is no God then why can't we have one where there is a God?

Wouldn't that make God contingent on the multiverse (ie doesn't exist outside of his own universe).

Would you be happy with such a definition?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Because you defined it as such. If it can exist without God then why does it require God exactly?



Do you understand what a logical contradiction is. It is more a problem with your definition than the multiverse.

If this theoretical universe exists and God doesn't exist then this universe doesn't require God and you are wrong in how you have defined it.

The multiverse isn't contingent upon this, you are.


It isn't.

You though are contingent on describing it as it is. A universe that exists with no God does not require God, as such you have defined it wrong.

To say it does require God is simply bad descriptiveness on your part.



Wouldn't that make God contingent on the multiverse (ie doesn't exist outside of his own universe).

Would you be happy with such a definition?

I think we are getting bogged down in semantics at this stage.

If there is a multivese then how did it begin? If it had no beginning then that means that it must have existed infinitely in the past. But if it has existed infinitely in the past then the number of events which lead to our universe coming into existence is also infinite in the past, which means that our universe could never be arrived at now because there would be an infinite number of past events that need to have happened in order to get to where we are now, and if there is an infinite number of events that must have preceded our universe then our universe could not exist now, in other words we can never come to now in our universe if the multivese had no beginning, which means that (if it does exist) then it must have had a beginning, because we are here and now. But if the multivese does have a beginning then how did it get going?

Turtwig

Morbert wrote: »

Penrose's new book is better for novel and interesting theory.

Road's to Reality? Second that, it's absolutely brilliant.:D