Hawking, God & the Universe

Fanny Cradock · 24-09-2010 01:44PM #1

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 · 24-09-2010 02:04PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:14PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:18PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:21PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:21PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:25PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:27PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:30PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:31PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:39PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:41PM

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 · 24-09-2010 02:41PM

Seaneh wrote: »

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

It would have been nice?

lmaopml · 24-09-2010 02:49PM

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

!

Zombrex · 24-09-2010 02:59PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It would have been nice?

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

raah! · 24-09-2010 03:01PM

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 · 24-09-2010 03:07PM

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 · 24-09-2010 03:18PM

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 · 24-09-2010 03:28PM

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 · 24-09-2010 03:30PM

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 · 24-09-2010 03:31PM

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

Zombrex · 24-09-2010 03:52PM

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 · 24-09-2010 03:58PM

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

sensibleken · 24-09-2010 03:59PM

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 · 24-09-2010 04:01PM

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 · 24-09-2010 04:11PM

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 · 24-09-2010 04:14PM

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 · 24-09-2010 04:22PM

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 · 24-09-2010 07:32PM

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 · 24-09-2010 07:41PM

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 · 24-09-2010 11:23PM

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.

Hawking, God & the Universe

Comments