The Grand Design ~ Hawking on Gravity and Creation, and William Lane Craig on More.

Religio-Political Talk ^ | 9-5-2010 | Papa Giorgio

[SeanG200]

Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying the following:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing"

[....]

"…he is already postulating the existence of gravity and the laws that will lead to the creation and evolution of the universe. Shouldn’t we ask about the origin of gravity and all features of the universe? Many of us scientists and thinkers doubt that full explanations of everything can be complete and self-contained, with no need for a metaphysical principle like God."

While I have not read the book, nor plan to, it seems that Dr. Hawking is defining gravity as something other that a function of the mechanics of the cosmos. Perhaps he’s placing gravity outside of the dimensions like theists place God outside the universe?....

[SeanG200]

My Brain Hurts!

[dr_lew]

... Stand up, look back on all those equations, some perhaps more hopeful than others, raise one's finger commandingly, and give the order "Fly!" Not one of those equations will put on wings, take off, or fly. Yet the universe "flies."

- John Archibald Wheeler, GRAVITATION, pg. 1208

[maine-iac7]

Methinks he’s been thinking too hard lately?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8642558.stm

[NotThere]

I don’t know - would I consult a Minister on the laws of physics? No more than I would consult Stephen Hawking on religion. It’s all idle speculation.

[Secret Agent Man]

As scientists get all bent out of shape when religious folks cross ‘into their domain’, let me say to Stephen, “Stick to your empirical data, Stephen, and leave the religion to people who know what they are talking about.”

There are no self-creating causes either. So a universe that just comes about on its own isn’t science that’s someone’s faith belief.

[Lou Budvis]

How could a law concerning the relationship between matter exist before matter itself existed?

[Beowulf9]

But how does the Hawk squawk?

[UCANSEE2]

Here we go, once again, with another article (thanks for posting it, btw), which tries to claim HAWKING said there is no GOD, when all he said is that GOD can’t be used as ‘an’ answer in Science.

[LiteKeeper]

If he were still alive, would you consult Newton? Are you aware he wrote more on theology than physics?

[UCANSEE2]

How could a law concerning the relationship between matter exist before matter itself existed?

Good question. Not one that they want you to concern yourself with.

Apparently, for some reason ( a DIVERSION MAYBE) we are supposed to HATE Hawkings because he said....

(I stopped right there, because I know Stephen can't talk.)

[tx_eggman]

I love Stephen Hawking threads .... because I get to post my favorite Lego of all time

I'm probably goin' to hell for it.

[The_Reader_David]

Hawking's null-initial condition model of the Big Bang is simply a theological Rorschach test: the atheist looks at it and declares it proves a first cause is unnecessary; the theist looks at it and sees a mathematical model for what a universe created ex nihilo would look like from within.

All that has happened is that Hawking took the Rorschach test he unwittingly set forth and has been revealed as an atheist.

Yawn!

[dps.inspect]

Hawking has been chasing the rabbit far too long... it has long since run down into its hole, while hawking imagines he is still giving chase... poor guy... if he would only give it up...

[fso301]

he is already postulating the existence of gravity and the laws that will lead to the creation and evolution of the universe. Shouldn’t we ask about the origin of gravity and all features of the universe?

I suspect what he is getting at is a theory that's been around for a few years that nothingness is an inherently unstable state. According to the theory, something can spontaneously emerge from nothing.

[DWar]

Because he chooses to believe in the superiority of empiricism to explain reality, the secular-scientist accepts the world-view of naturalism. He uses an inductive argument based on individual, scientifically demonstrated, “immutable” laws of nature and makes them to collectively become an idea he calls “Natural Law.” It is his belief that this “Natural Law” is the impersonal, governing agent, which brings order to the universe and makes the knowledge of reality possible. Because any violation of this “Natural Law” would destroy his entire world-view, he constructs a definition for the concept of miracles that automatically precludes their possibility. He dismisses the historical evidence of the occurrence of miracles, as being so inferior to the scientific evidence that they are impossible, that he claims the historical evidence is unworthy of any reasonable consideration in this matter. In the event one might still harbor a remnant of the faith once delivered to the saints, he then enlists the discipline of higher criticism to cast doubt upon the historical record of Scripture.

The Christian chooses to believe in the sovereignty of God to explain reality. He uses a deductive argument that begins with the God Who had the ability, desire and purpose for creating the physical universe. He believes in the necessity for universal order, but seeks to understand it as existing within the will and purpose of the Creator. Because all of reality exists within the will and purpose of God, when He decides that it serves His purpose, He may cause events to occur that ordinarily do not do so, without this occurrence abrogating the concept of universal order. The historical record of the many miracles found in Scripture adds validation to this belief.

For the secular scientist the greatest reality is “Natural Law” and all things exist within and are subject to it. For thw Christian the greatest reality is God and all things wxist within and are subject to Him.

[Pelham]

“There are no self-creating causes either.”

You’re right. Goedel’s Theorem.

[circlecity]

"theory that's been around for a few years that nothingness is an inherently unstable state."

It would be very amusing to see how such theorists attempt to define "nothingness".

[munin]

Here we go, once again, with another article (thanks for posting it, btw), which tries to claim HAWKING said there is no GOD, when all he said is that GOD can’t be used as ‘an’ answer in Science

I agree with you, not many of the commentators here grasp what HAWKINS actually said

[Nosterrex]

Hawkings has tried to explain the existence of the universe for years. He is the one that holds to the idea of an infinite number of parallel universes to explain our universe. Of course, there is no proof of such parallel universes, but Hawkings only needs proof when talking about God. There was a time when nothing existed, including gravity. Gravity does not exist without matter or mass. You cannot have attraction with something to attract. Hawkings is making a statement of faith. What we do know is that the universe does act or behave as many have thought. This is where we get dark matter and energy. It is an attempt to explain why the universe behaves as it does. So far, it is more a matter of theoretical mathematics when it comes to dark energy. As of today, we have no proof that dark matter actual exists although scientists are looking for it.

[fso301]

It would be very amusing to see how such theorists attempt to define "nothingness"

My understanding is that it means nothing... period... no matter, no energy, no physical laws. How then nothingness could be described as inherently unstable in the absence of physical laws to define it as being unstable is what I suspect you are musing about.