Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

Doreen

I can now speak. Probably Hawking does not feel as much pressure as he did from the Vatican as perhaps it was when he first published his book, 'A breif History of Time'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

or more specifically, that time and space is contingent upon him

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So either gravity is somehow not the universe or we still have no resolved why there was gravity. It is an incomplete explanation.

And this as well begs the question. Why is it such that there is somewhere (or a nowhere) where random events are possible? Conditions, potentials are it seems to me a part of the universe.

I don't think it is defensible to say there is something because of these conditions and potentials as if these 'things' are not part of everything.

He did say 'create itself from nothing'. But note again the same issue even if he did not quite mean that. Gravity is the cause of the universe. This implies that there are two things: gravity and a universe. I think that is problematic. It deserves the same pointed question a theist gets when they explain the universe by positing a God: what caused that?

Quite likely, but he is making a public statement here and just like we make public statements here in sciforums. It seems appropriate to challenge his public statements couched in terms of certainty the same way such assertions would be challenged here. And since the public assertions are in the form of a book - which is more carefully created than our posts - only more so with him.

Sure. I think that is really all people are saying here. But, again, it is coming from his book, not something he said at a party or something. Hence he is acting as his own pop science press.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He has an incomplete model. To speak as if he knows what is not necessary is speculative.

You do understand that saying Jimmy was running in the hallway too does not justify Sally running in the hall. It should be obvious why he should not make assertions as if he has a complete model. If he said quarks or branes or some other scientifically posited entity was no necessary, he would need to show, for sure, that he knows this to be the case.

String theorists have not made a great case, as far as I can see, for their theories. However if another physicist says we know that strings are not necessary, we have a model without them. This model needs to be complete, even if that physicist can say that the String theorists are being speculative, he or she should still be held to standards that are not connected to what other people have or have not done.

 

Light is all that is needed for creation.:bugeye:

 

Has he specifically said anything to indicate his claim is beyond mere mathematical speculation? If the universe was created by a rubber duck, clearly that rubber duck would have to be included in the ultimate Theory of Everything. Doesn't mean we can't create speculative theories that explain the universe without references to rubber ducks in the meantime, in the absence of any demonstrated need for them.

 

Speculative theories require a level of open-mindedness. Problem I think existing right now, and which disturbs a few of us, including myself is that the statement ''God is not needed for creation'' is not open-minded. If speculative theories are allowed, then the correct terminology is ''God may not be needed for creation'' - but he never stated this.

 

Oh really, got a model for that?

 

And where does the light come from?

 

sure, but trying to draw it up within a reductionist paradigm is kind of like driving to America from Australia by a car

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

light is contained within all forms of matter as photons. In our environment our main light source is the sun. Photons from the sun add energy directly into the core of the surrounding objects.

 

So I'll make it simple for you: No, you don't have a model.

Seems you reject science 'cos you aren't very good at it.

 

Go back to school. Oh wait. Go to school. I doubt you picked up such nonsense on a first pass.

 

Look at this correctly: the term physics is new; the meaning of an action - a verb - is here made as the first verb [action] in recorded history, in alignment with the first thing created or emerging. Genesis is saying light emerged from a directive command program, and science later shows how the command was processed. But science could not have occured unless there was a directive program. Genesis is not negating science but affirming it as a knowledge base which recognises majestic processes at work.

Actually, Genesis says much about light.

1. It is a primodial product of the universe and predates the stars.

2. Light per se is not a result of heated energy particles.

3. Light is not the absence of darkness.

4. Light and darkness were once part of one entity ['AND HE SEPERATED THE LIGHT FROM THE DARKNESS'].

5. Light is one of the factors as anticipatory of forthcoming life [disregarded by Darwin].

6. Light can be measured to record time [Genesis introduced DAY & WEEK].

7. Light is ageless [precedent of stars].

8. Light there be light - is one of the greatest statements - when consdered before it emerged.

9. LET THERE BY LIGHT has manifold metaphoric meanings, used by great writers and poets.

This is the first seperation of the occult and medicine, a faculty of science. Here we see that this writings knows what science is, 1000's of years before the term was invented.

Unless the creator is infinite [not subject to change] - there can be no science or alternatives to the universe's emergence. All other premises end in a circular path, which is the wrong path. One does not have to agree to a creator by any religious premise - we simply have no scientific alternative to it. Those who deny the universe is finite, are escaping science via back doors - such scientists must be dismissed at the onset, unless their preamble is a finite universe [not a partially finite one], and nothing they say later must violate the preamble. This seperates true scientists from bogus ones.

I am certain indian writings predate the Hebrew - it is a far older nation. However, I doubt that alphabetical writings came from Indian. Alexandra's greatest achievement were not his wars, but his obsession to initiate the first translation of the Hebrew bible in 300 BCE. This is what created Christianity and Islam.

 

I've heard of the term 'assume' being used as devices, and then they have to be repeated with no other alternative factors to become a theory. But 'presume' is not a scientific premise, and used in your post with no credibility. It is based on both a partially infite/finite universe - for which there is no scientific basis. The writer is choosing whatever fits his conclusion.

 

actually all I said is that the reductionist model, while good for somethings, can't fit the bill (much like a car can't fit the bill for trans-pacific travel)

on the contrary, it appears that you falsely borrow from the authority of science to make wild assertions that lie well outside the parameters of its investigative capacity

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ah, typical woowoo speak. You claim science cannot see the supernatural realm.

But it's just an excuse.

An excuse made on a computer brought to you thanks to science. Not faith.

 

I included citationas in my post 103, this thread.

This is a red herring, at least in response to me. I have not, not once, criticized Hawking for having a theory without God, incomplete or otherwise. My point was the conclusion he is drawing from a hypothesis that even if true would not be a complete ToE.

 

actually I am claiming that science, or empiricism, works exclusively with the direct sense perception

actually its philosophy

its just when you start talking about the same technology that brought us the computer that is also going to bring us life, creation of the universe etc that it becomes a claim of (outlandish) faith

 

then please edjumicate me and explain how thermodynamics work. It goes from sun directly into the core exchanging heat into matter.