By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - God Didn't Create Universe

Kasz216 on 03 September 2010
CrazyHorse said:
Kasz216 said:

I'm guessing it's not that Hawking missed the point, but the people like Manus and reporters who are representing the work are missing the point, but regardless the point has been clearly missed... which i'm guessing is a point you are missign as well.

The point being a very simple and basic one...

One could say that putting extremely flammable liquids in an area can cause a fire without man's intereference because of the nature of the liquid it would catch fire spontaniously on it's own.

Such a question ignores how the liquid was created and how it got there in the first place.

Or even by saying an electric cucu clock doesn't need people because the bird will pop out without human interaction.  

Due to gravity there is no need for god to cause the big bang out of the compression that first caused it... but what does that really mean?

It seems to me that Hawking is arguing (or at least proposing) that the creation of the universe is simply an unavoidable event which had to come into being and therefore was not necessarily created by some kind of intervention.

Now I won't pretend to be able to explain exactly how this can happen or even that it did but I don't understand how certain people seem to think that it is impossible for the universe to, for lack of a better expression, 'create itself'. If something had to be a prime mover, why not the laws of physics? The problem I have with the idea of a creator is that it doesn't help to resolve anything at all, it simply pushes back the first mover an extra step as we are then left with the issue of who created the creator? If we have to start somewhere, why not start with something we can observe and measure as opposed to some metaphysical entity of which there is no experience of?

The problem your making is... universe =/= reality.

It's no different then saying you don't need man to make the bird pop out of a cucu clock.  You're ignoring the clock's construction itself.

As for someone needing to create a creator.  Not sure that actually holds valid since it would be out of the realm of said laws as a whole.

It's really the same principle as Hawking's multiple universes... just not as old, and not as all encompassing.

if you believe into multiple universes, the first think you know is "different universes = different rules."  Who knows, in some universes maybe mass can be created and destroyed (well, it can but it's convereted into energy which likely can be created in mass but you know what i mean.)

When Hawking says their are different universes out there, he doesn't mean, out beyond our universe, he means concurrent with our universe.

As in, other universes could be sharing the exact same space with us.  It certaintly is an appealing answer to why some actions on a small enough scale seem to be "random".   Quantum phsyics aren't random, just intereacting with other universes and particles we can't see.  Of course whenever a knew theory is devised people try and claim it's the reason everything unknown happens.

I mean look at the littiney of things Quantum Physics is thought to have caused... a small few even think that's why we have "free will"... well more like random will.

None of that really explains anything though, simply only asks... what of these other universes... and if this universe is created so that it could be created from nothing via other universes...

what created those other universes?



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 03 September 2010
highwaystar101 said:

It's been known for a long time that Stephen Hawking supports the weak anthropic principle. In fact, he spent a good part of a chapter on it in a brief history of time. He's also expressed his view that the universe doesn't need God to exist before.


Oh most definitly, it's just the usual media distortion that's freaking people out.  Which is sad, since then most people who won't spend the time reading this stuff won't understand the actual story.
You can tell it from the headline... instead of saying

"Stephen Hawking says the big bang wasn't created by god."

it's portrayed as

"God didn't create the universe and doesn't exist."


Not exactly the same thing.

 

Another problem people make with scientists is treating them like they're probably right.

In reality the best way to treat scientists is... "They're probably less wrong then the last guy."

There is a lot in science that is considered settled... but little that is completely correct and is never changed.



Rath on 03 September 2010
Kasz216 said:

Theoretical evidence is qualified as such because it isn't really evidence.

Theortectical evidence is the equivlent of my PSP being gone and my using that as proof that someone stole my PSP.

It just seems like the most likely explination to me.  No real evidence... it's just... you know something is happening.  That's the theoretical evidence, and your reasoning why is the theory.  In this case multiple universes.

There has been lots of very strong theoretical evidence for all kinds of things that never really existed, things like Ether, global cooling (actual evidence there too even) etc.

You could use the same theoretical evidence used for different dimensions and instead apply that information as proof of many other different theories.

No you really have it completely wrong, what you had with your PSP was a hypothesis.

Theoretical physics is basically explanations of observed phonomena through mathematics and abstractions, it isn't just making something up and going 'it's a theory!'. Also just because some theoretical physics was wrong doesn't mean that the entire field is bogus, that's just not how science works.

 

Also global cooling wouldn't be under theoretical physics.



CrazyHorse on 03 September 2010
Kasz216 said:
CrazyHorse said:

It seems to me that Hawking is arguing (or at least proposing) that the creation of the universe is simply an unavoidable event which had to come into being and therefore was not necessarily created by some kind of intervention.

Now I won't pretend to be able to explain exactly how this can happen or even that it did but I don't understand how certain people seem to think that it is impossible for the universe to, for lack of a better expression, 'create itself'. If something had to be a prime mover, why not the laws of physics? The problem I have with the idea of a creator is that it doesn't help to resolve anything at all, it simply pushes back the first mover an extra step as we are then left with the issue of who created the creator? If we have to start somewhere, why not start with something we can observe and measure as opposed to some metaphysical entity of which there is no experience of?

The problem your making is... universe =/= reality.

It's no different then saying you don't need man to make the bird pop out of a cucu clock.  You're ignoring the clock's construction itself.

As for someone needing to create a creator.  Not sure that actually holds valid since it would be out of the realm of said laws as a whole.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure excatly what you mean by your first sentance. Are you trying to suggest that the universe is not all there is to reality and as such a lack of experience of God in the universe does not mean he does not exist? If so i fail to see how we should propose beliefs on such logic. That we do not have any experience of God in this universe does not mean he does not exist but it absolutely in no way suggest he does.

I find the other two statements to be a very hypocritical view point expressed by many people. If the universe, which we can study and to an extent understand can not create itself from the laws which govern it (and I argee it's a difficult thing to argue) then why should some creator, which we have never experienced be afforded that luxury?

I'm afraid I find your answer very unsatisfactory as again it seems to plead a special case for God which for some reason does not apply to the universe itself. If the universe came from nothing and was not created by necessity from its own laws then its creation must by definition have been outside the realm of said laws and so, in your own words, it itself would not require a creator?



Kasz216 on 03 September 2010
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
 

Theoretical evidence is qualified as such because it isn't really evidence.

Theortectical evidence is the equivlent of my PSP being gone and my using that as proof that someone stole my PSP.

It just seems like the most likely explination to me.  No real evidence... it's just... you know something is happening.  That's the theoretical evidence, and your reasoning why is the theory.  In this case multiple universes.

There has been lots of very strong theoretical evidence for all kinds of things that never really existed, things like Ether, global cooling (actual evidence there too even) etc.

You could use the same theoretical evidence used for different dimensions and instead apply that information as proof of many other different theories.

No you really have it completely wrong, what you had with your PSP was a hypothesis.

Theoretical physics is basically explanations of observed phonomena through mathematics and abstractions, it isn't just making something up and going 'it's a theory!'. Also just because some theoretical physics was wrong doesn't mean that the entire field is bogus, that's just not how science works.

 

Also global cooling wouldn't be under theoretical physics.


I didn't say the field is bogus.  I said it isn't proof.  The theoretical physics that suggests different universes... also suggests many other possibilties.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 03 September 2010
CrazyHorse said:
Kasz216 said:
CrazyHorse said:

It seems to me that Hawking is arguing (or at least proposing) that the creation of the universe is simply an unavoidable event which had to come into being and therefore was not necessarily created by some kind of intervention.

Now I won't pretend to be able to explain exactly how this can happen or even that it did but I don't understand how certain people seem to think that it is impossible for the universe to, for lack of a better expression, 'create itself'. If something had to be a prime mover, why not the laws of physics? The problem I have with the idea of a creator is that it doesn't help to resolve anything at all, it simply pushes back the first mover an extra step as we are then left with the issue of who created the creator? If we have to start somewhere, why not start with something we can observe and measure as opposed to some metaphysical entity of which there is no experience of?

The problem your making is... universe =/= reality.

It's no different then saying you don't need man to make the bird pop out of a cucu clock.  You're ignoring the clock's construction itself.

As for someone needing to create a creator.  Not sure that actually holds valid since it would be out of the realm of said laws as a whole.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure excatly what you mean by your first sentance. Are you trying to suggest that the universe is not all there is to reality and as such a lack of experience of God in the universe does not mean he does not exist? If so i fail to see how we should propose beliefs on such logic. That we do not have any experience of God in this universe does not mean he does not exist but it absolutely in no way suggest he does.

I find the other two statements to be a very hypocritical view point expressed by many people. If the universe, which we can study and to an extent understand can not create itself from the laws which govern it (and I argee it's a difficult thing to argue) then why should some creator, which we have never experienced be afforded that luxury?

I'm afraid I find your answer very unsatisfactory as again it seems to plead a special case for God which for some reason does not apply to the universe itself. If the universe came from nothing and was not created by necessity from its own laws then its creation must by definition have been outside the realm of said laws and so, in your own words, it itself would not require a creator?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Hawking itself does suggest it has an extradimensional creator.  Just not a thinking one.

If I were you... I'd just wait for the book...



d21lewis on 03 September 2010

Hawing and God created the universe together.  Then God took all of the credit.



Kasz216 on 03 September 2010

By the way... this is the greatest thing Stephen Hawking has ever done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O31qRH3O6c



Rath on 03 September 2010
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
 

Theoretical evidence is qualified as such because it isn't really evidence.

Theortectical evidence is the equivlent of my PSP being gone and my using that as proof that someone stole my PSP.

It just seems like the most likely explination to me.  No real evidence... it's just... you know something is happening.  That's the theoretical evidence, and your reasoning why is the theory.  In this case multiple universes.

There has been lots of very strong theoretical evidence for all kinds of things that never really existed, things like Ether, global cooling (actual evidence there too even) etc.

You could use the same theoretical evidence used for different dimensions and instead apply that information as proof of many other different theories.

No you really have it completely wrong, what you had with your PSP was a hypothesis.

Theoretical physics is basically explanations of observed phonomena through mathematics and abstractions, it isn't just making something up and going 'it's a theory!'. Also just because some theoretical physics was wrong doesn't mean that the entire field is bogus, that's just not how science works.

 

Also global cooling wouldn't be under theoretical physics.


I didn't say the field is bogus.  I said it isn't proof.  The theoretical physics that suggests different universes... also suggests many other possibilties.


Well your PSP analogy implied that you thought it was simply things being made up.



Kasz216 on 03 September 2010
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
 

Theoretical evidence is qualified as such because it isn't really evidence.

Theortectical evidence is the equivlent of my PSP being gone and my using that as proof that someone stole my PSP.

It just seems like the most likely explination to me.  No real evidence... it's just... you know something is happening.  That's the theoretical evidence, and your reasoning why is the theory.  In this case multiple universes.

There has been lots of very strong theoretical evidence for all kinds of things that never really existed, things like Ether, global cooling (actual evidence there too even) etc.

You could use the same theoretical evidence used for different dimensions and instead apply that information as proof of many other different theories.

No you really have it completely wrong, what you had with your PSP was a hypothesis.

Theoretical physics is basically explanations of observed phonomena through mathematics and abstractions, it isn't just making something up and going 'it's a theory!'. Also just because some theoretical physics was wrong doesn't mean that the entire field is bogus, that's just not how science works.

 

Also global cooling wouldn't be under theoretical physics.


I didn't say the field is bogus.  I said it isn't proof.  The theoretical physics that suggests different universes... also suggests many other possibilties.


Well your PSP analogy implied that you thought it was simply things being made up.

It sort of is.  You go through all the possible scenarios and you choose what you think is the most likely based on the numbers.

It's purely educational guessing.  It's more right then average... however it's still more often wrong then right.

Everything in science and general, life is.