Skip to comments.Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
Posted on 09/02/2010 6:21:27 AM PDT by tlb
click here to read article
Thanks for the ping!
Indeed. These guys are so “anti-God” they need to invest a “infinite number of universes” (with no evidence) to explain the fine tuning our Universe has....without ever contemplating that even if their bizarre theory of infinite universes is correct, maybe God made them all?
For them, the idea that rocks made themselves (and that, atheist swine, is what you believe) is not odd at all.
No matter. They shall know the truth one day, or so I believe.
I believe in most of Hawkings physics, but his unsubstantiatable statement regard the existence of a Creator is just laughable.
Because the same people say the universe must have had a beginning in straight-line time and couldn't have always existed.
It is not special pleading because it is a category error to ask where an uncaused first cause came from. A necessary being, by definition is not a contingent being. A necessary being is eternal and uncaused,
Now you may try to assign these attributes to the universe itself, but that leads to problems of explaining things like the illusion of cause & effect and why the universe has an apparent beginning, or if the series of past events never began to exist and there were an actually infinite number of past events, how we arrived at the present moment.
Possibly, same as the universe. No problem in science you run up against comes close to the non-scientific explanation of "God did it." Basically, you use the god of the gaps to specially plead your case.
If imaginary explanations are acceptable then nobody has room to criticize Hawking.
But you are missing the point. I'm not asking for an explanation of where god came from, I'm pointing out that "god did it" is not an explanation for first cause. People are objecting to Hawking because he can't say where gravity came from. But saying god made it isn't an answer either. It's just adding an extra step.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe is not eternal. The Universe is headed for heat-death. If it was eternal that would have happened already.
I can't help but notice that your statement is built on an unstated philosophical premise about science rather than a being statement of science itself, so it seems self-refuting to me.
Is the question of why there is something rather than nothing a philosophical question or a scientific question? Or both?
You say that the universe is possibly uncaused. Let me ask you this; did the universe have a beginning? If so, was the beginning caused or uncaused? If uncaused, why doesn't just any and everything come to exist uncaused?
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not absolute. We already know some conditions where it breaks down.
All of that is irrelevant to the question. YOU get to say “God is eternal” and that’s supposed to be the end of the debate. You don’t think anybody else gets to say “The universe is eternal” without debate so that’s special pleading.
The principle of cause and effect and whether or not the universe had a beginning or whether it is eternal, and whether the universe is caused or not is irrelevant to the debate?? What kind of 'debate' is this? What is the topic of this thread, anyway?
YOU get to say God is eternal and thats supposed to be the end of the debate. You dont think anybody else gets to say The universe is eternal without debate so thats special pleading.
YOU want to exclude God from the outset, before the debate even begins on the 'grounds' that God is "unscientific" (by which I presume you mean, "not a materialistic explanation") thus rigging the outcome. What kind of 'debate' is that? If it can be shown that it is impossible for the universe to serve as a sufficient reason for the existence of the universe because the universe is not eternal, then the universe cannot be a necessary, uncaused first cause. And as Sherlock Holmes put it, Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
That's why I asked you if the universe had a beginning and if so, was the beginning caused or uncaused, and if uncaused, why doesn't just any and everything come to exist uncaused?
You declined to attempt answer these questions, which of course is your prerogative, but your excercise of that prerogative cuts the legs out from your accusations of debate stoppers and special pleading.
If that’s true, why is it still called a law?
If that’s true, why is it still called a law?
Why not? As opposed to other things in science, they're analytical, usually best expressed with formulas. It doesn't mean they're absolute. Not all of Newton's laws work in every known case, neither do all of Einstein's. We know their limits, or at least we think we do. We don't understand gravity or time well enough to know their limits all that well.
I ask you what's the cause of God. You say he's eternal, outside of time. You desire an exception to the beginnings question in your case only. That is special pleading.
“If imaginary explanations are acceptable”?
Listen, bud, imagination is behind about half the explanations that Science has for the beginning of the universe, because the physical laws are unknowable at that pressure and temperature. Don’t even get me started about string theory and parallel universes, which are all the rage with those Scientists that you undoubtedly are in love with. Let me know if I’m going too fast for you.
So, imagination is behind the supposition that there is a natural and supernatural plane. The natural plane operates with cause and effect; the supernatural doesn’t—I don’t know why, ask God. So God doesn’t need a “cause” because he is not on the natural plane.
Postulating God as beginningless and uncaused is not an exception to the question of why something rather than nothing exists because atheism postulates the very same thing about the universe itself, a fact that I explicitly acknowledged to you in post #204. The difference between the two premises is not a different standard of beginninglessness and noncausation for theism, but rather that the atheistic premise is metaphysically impossible.
You give a pass for God's non-beginning, which is basically established by saying "Because I said so." Yet you demand answers for science beyond that. Special pleading.
By the same standard you use for an eternal or uncaused universe.
which is basically established by saying "Because I said so."
No, not because I say so but because it logically and ontologically necessary.
Yet you demand answers for science beyond that.
False dichotomy. God and science are not antithetical. God and materialist philosophy are opposed to one another but not God and science. If science can shed some light on the subject on whether or not the universe had a beginning, then more power to it. But thus far you have demonstrated that you are not interested in discussing whether or science can illuminate the issue of whether or not the universe had a beginning, and if so whether or not the beginning was caused.