News: Hawking on God (Again)

[CraigS]

In the newspapers today ...

"God did not create universe: Hawking"
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/god-did-not-create-universe-hawking-20100903-14rva.html

Sometimes, I wish he'd keep these statements to himself. I think his ego is getting 'feral'.

Cheers
PS: I hope this one doesn't go religious. Please try & stick to the Science, for everyone's sake ?
(Eg: Inflaton fields, entropy, negative energy, inflation, etc). Cheers

[renormalised]

I thought Hawking was God:):P

[SkyViking]

I think that's a perfectly valid point.
All personal beliefs aside - basically in 'A Brief History of Time' he concluded that everything back to BB naturally follows from the mathematical laws of nature and the values of constants such as G. But that he could not rule out that God (or whatever we choose to call him/her/it) had originally set the whole thing in motion.
Given that ABHoT was written some 20? years ago I find it entirely reasonable that he may now be convinced that there is actually no room left for a God, that even the BB itself follows naturally from the laws of nature. And why not say so then?

[renormalised]

At least he's being self consistent.

[bojan]

Why would that be?
He was saying those things before...
And, he has a much more reason for letting his own ego a bit more open than a bunch of others who will try to slam his ideas ;)

[CraigS]

Because I'm not convinced that they are his ideas to start with (hence the 'Ego' comment). Fair enough he's famous so he can act as a spokesman but he never seems to credit others in his statements and they are the guys doing to 'hard yakka'.

There's heaps of other scientists in Science who have examined the initial instances of the BBT.

Cheers
PS: His statements are designed to create hype to sell his books. Others have made them in quieter and yet less inflamatory ways in media which can contribute to furthering mainstream science. Mass media hype does whip up the religious zealots. This may also however, result in public support of funding (by using politics), I suppose.

[kingkong01]

is he not?..:prey2: this would have to be one of the most talked about topics is the history of man... but if you look at how giant stars are made it seems possible that a universe could be made from as similar process...

[avandonk]

A 'God' has always been invoked when human understanding was found wanting. This is known as a god of the gaps in our knowledge.

All Hawking is saying is that we do not need a 'god' to kickstart the Universe.

I am an atheist only because I do not believe in any man made religion. To put it simply I just do not believe in one god less than the rest of the multitude of gods people believe in!

I personally think we are all linked forever to the Universe that spawned us. We are inexorably linked through space and time through the very particles that make up our being.

We are all children of the stars and that includes super novae.

Bert

[SkyViking]

His conclusion is from a new book he has published. Without having read the book I'm sure it contains all the proper acknowledgements required if he is drawing on the theories of others.
Have you read the book and know this not to be the case?

I wonder why can he not speak his mind? If others don't then that is just their problem. What does that have to do with ego?
There is enough PC already I'd say.

[CraigS]

No. I have not read his book.
His mass media statement appears to not contain credits to others.
He can speak his mind as he so chooses, and he does.
My opinion was also, my opinion.
Lets get on with the Science.

Cheers

[Barrykgerdes]

I like this view best.

Many thousands of years ago when the conditions were right the extra strings to our Genetic model were added, probably from the stars. How, who knows. This gave us the power to think. We then searched for our origins. Since then superstitions and wars have shaped our destiny.

If you subscribe to infinity as without start or end the generation of the universe as been going on forever through "big bangs" and collapses "ad infinitum"

Who knows? It is what you believe that makes your world go round.

Barry

[xelasnave]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Men create Gods ..Gods do not create men.

One thing that ticks me off is how folk call in God if they have no explanation... I can tolerate calling in aliens to make crop circles with greater ease ...er thats the second tick off..calling in aliens to explain the unexplainable...
Dam it why cant folk just say... I have no answer ..I dont know....why fall back to magic and superstition.

ANYWAYS Prof Hawking should be beyond criticism or judgment from or by mere mortals and his views given absolute respect even if he is rambling incoherently he deserves no less ...he is a great and wonderful human that I would promote to the Pope as a candidate for sainthood.

alex :):):)

[GrampianStars]

I see nothing wrong with a "God" particle as long as we Humans take out the mis-guided "Personal" attachment of religion :rolleyes:

[CraigS]

Its ok to go forward with beliefs.

Mine have no more value other than that which the reader associates with them. I value mine lowly in this Forum, - which is pretty cool !

Cheers

[SkyViking]

My point was just that he has not made any mass media statement. He's a popular figure and the media has done a story on his new book, in which he makes this conclusion. Why criticise him for that?

Personally I completely agree with Bert's view, but that is really just the old theist/atheist discussion raising it's head again isn't it.

As for the science, I think there are very few in the world who are capable of seriously debating how the BB came about...?

[avandonk]

xelasnave how can anyone be submitted for sainthood to a religion started by ignorant goat herders and fishermen!

When the centuries of living in luxury by the so called men of god when all around were living in abject poverty can be explained by these opportunists. I will believe in the so called god they think they adore.
It has and always will be a simple con to control people with the very real fear of burning at the stake and many other atrocities in the name of a god!

Nothing has changed now our god is the "economy". Multitudes of priests/economists talk about 'growth' and 'profits'.

Nothing has changed. The criminals have only changed verbiage.

Have a nice day. If you can!

Bert

[CraigS]

'A Higgs field that has gotten caught on a plateau not only suffuses space and energy but, contributes to negative pressure.

As far as energy and pressure are concerned, a Higgs field that's caught on a plateau has the same properties as a cosmological constant. A supercooled Higgs field impacts on the expansion of space - like a cosmological constant. It exerts a repulsive force that drives space to expand.

Although a supercooled Higgs field shares certain features with a Cosmological constant, they are not identical. A super-cooled Higgs field need not be a constant, however.

The time varying value of the Higgs field is what gave rise to the bang in (BBT), at about 10e-35 seconds'.

Is the above correct ?

(Please respond on the new Higgs Field thread (if interested). The below discussion is welcome to continue on this thread).

Cheers

[renormalised]

Have a gander at this...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3686

More "timeless wisdom" from the Land of Make Believe.

"Wallace Thornhill....physicist"....when can I laugh!!!:P:P

[snas]

Carl

The "thunderbolts" link you posted this afternoon now does not exist. Makes you wonder why it suddenly disappeared. :shrug:

Stuart

ps: If anyone has seen my copy of A Brief History of Time, please let me know where it got to..... :help:

[CraigS]

Ha !
Stuart: You're right !!!
I did read the page that link directed me to earlier on.
A mystery unfolds !!
Cheers

[bojan]

Well, looks like such a rant full of poison is too much even for them.
I mean, this was really AD HOM attack.. My English is simply not adequate to express my disgust, even after 20 years in Aussie land..

[qld]

:lol:
The big issue he cant explain is where did gravity come from i can only assume that gravity is a myth 'the earth sucks' and that God might be a women ..my wife thinks so ,Hawkins has yet to explain how he married three times and how he consumated each one (divorces are only granted to marriages that are consumated...otherwise they are annulled for lack of ..you guessed it the old consumation thing...) from the famous wheelchair (must have secret gadgets we havnt been told about,and god help us if Fred Nile finds out about them) anyway its all a very interesting opinion.....what happened to the aliens?:lol::rofl:

[rcheshire]

Better left unsaid... but, understanding functionality does not imply understanding purpose. SH could do with some serious lessons in philosophy, aside from his mathematical genius...

[CraigS]

Purpose ?

[KenGee]

I've always felt when you start talking about philosophy it's because you don't like the answers that science is giving you. You start invoking philosophical ideas to justify your denial of reality.

The Hawk has stated clearly what science has been telling us for some time, while there is still much to learn and understand there is no need to invoke some sun god.:thumbsup:

[sjastro]

Here is the Thunderbolts link.

http://49-17.bluehost.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3685&sid=c5522aada604899c3077c48e558c41f c

Vile disgraceful stuff from a group of degenerates whose method of opposing the science is to make personal attacks on the man and poke fun at his physical disability.

And this is from a group who accuse everyone else of adhom attacks at the drop of a hat.

Steven

[Mr. Pressure]

Hawking brings a funny dude.

Justifies the need for the god of his own god which does not understand nor can explain.

Hawking can not tell how his god (gravity), namely thrust generated, and works passed.

He set aside the creator of the existence of their god (gravity) is not really even exists.

This is by far mankind's most amusing and ridiculous thing.

Hawking also believes in expanding the state (expanding space) which also has its own cosmologys god.

Also curved space is equivalent to the concept of the gods.

Gods, the expansive space, curved space, or drive power /drawing force to explain and do not know these people invented gods are not understood.

They can only believe.

Mathematics can not prove the existence of the gods.

.

This is good news

SwRI energetic particle instruments selected for Solar Probe Plus mission



http://www.physorg.com/news202728557.html

.

[Mr. Pressure]

Hawking dont need god.

Well, i dont need gravity.

i can explain how new universe born with out gravity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVucsUCERHc

.

[Alchemy]

Mathmatical understanding of the beginning of the universe in itself neither proves or disproves a supreme being, it simply says hmmm so here's the physical things that happened when the universe came into being.

Don't see what all the fuss is about.

[CraigS]

Seems like we may have a few of those types here, too (qld .. disgraceful! ... and in direct violation of IIS Terms of Usage) ..
:(

[renormalised]

It's what I'd expect from these people.

[mjc]

Depends on what Hawking actually said. I believe he's being misquoted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

The BBC head line: "Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe"

Did he really say anything that precludes / assert it to be impossible for any divine role in the origin of the universe? I haven't read anything (apart from ill-thought out headlines and associated content) to convince me that he did. If he did not (my current assumption) then Alchemy is quite right. If he did then Hawking is taking a position which, I believe, is logically invalid - for reasons stated a little later. I believe what he's saying is that we now can (or soon will be able?) to demonstrate that the universe had to come into existance given the laws of nature as we now (or soon will?) understand them - and there are no gaps in the implication chain from nothing to wonderful expanding universe.

Two questions arise.
1) Can the laws of nature exist independently from an actual current existance of a physical universe (because we need to generate one)?

Consider this:
In mathematics (and I suggest science generally) there is a language which is interesting. Mathematical constructs and relationships are discovered - they're not invented.

Take Pyhtagoras theorem, as a representative example. I suggest that the relationship between the hypotenuse and the other two sides of a right-angled triangle (in Euclidian / flat space) existed before Pythagoras discovered it. I'd be suprised if anyone were to suggest otherwise.

However, does that relationship hold even if there is no universe (and noone to contemplate it)?

For the universe to come into existance as a consequence of laws of nature alone - it would have to be the case that the laws and relationships of mathematics and science must still be true in the absence of a physical universe - and then the universe arises as a result.

But now we've got the brain teaser of having something that existed prior to the BB (but the BB is where time started) - or the brain teaser of the universe came into existance as a consequence of - but concurrently with - the establishment of the laws of nature - but the implications of that are really profound (why did the laws come into existance? There is room for arguing the case of a divine role here and that is where a logical invalidity arises mentioned previously).

2) If we accept that there are laws of nature and mathematical (logical) implications that exist independently from the need for an already existing universe then surely for these laws and implications to actually do anything requires a machine or mind to make the corresponding inferences (an inference is made at a point in time - an implication is timeless?) or for physical reality to perform that which is so described by the laws - two billiard balls doing (physically playing out) what chain of inferences from logic and science say they should.

I don't have the educaton to realistically support or challenge - whatever - Hawking said. However, I suspect we've still a way to go on our collective journey - and the headline assertions are, at best, premature. I can't see a time where Theists will ever be logically denied wriggle room for fitting God in (I declare myself to be a born-again atheist - but logically - and strictly speaking agnostic).

(FYI Deism is the blue touch paper approach see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism, Theism is the belief in the active, intervening, personal God - someone might find that interesting).

Mark C.

[CraigS]

Interesting comments Mark.

I think I've seen Alan Guth (the grand master of Inflation Theory) say words to the effect: "there is nothing in physics which prevents the Universe from coming into existence on its own". (I can't remember the exact verbage).

He then went on to say, "actually theory predicts it". I think he was talking about Entropy and the stuff I'm trying to record in the 'Higgs Field' thread.

It is very hypothetical stuff mind you. So I think there's plenty of wiggle space in there.

Cheers & Rgds.

[renormalised]

Very well argued post there, Mark.

[sjastro]

Thanks for your comment Mark.



We already know that many of the laws of physics such as the conservation laws are a consequence of mathematical symmetry.
Instead of the mathematics simply describing the conservation laws, the laws can only exist due to the underlying symmetry.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NoethersSymmetryTheorem.html

Did mathematics exist prior to the Big Bang? Quantum field theory says yes.
In fact the Big Bang may have been the result of symmetry breaking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking

Symmetry breaking has explained a number of phenomena such as Inflation and the existence of Z and W bosons.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

So Steven;
If:
- symmetry under translation corresponds to conservation of momentum and;
- symmetry under rotation to conservation of angular momentum and;
- symmetry in time to conservation of energy, e,

have they figured out which symmetry broken system is thought to have caused the Big Bang ?

Cheers

[sjastro]

In these examples the symmetry hasn't been broken. A mathematical operation such as translation, rotation etc results in the Lagrangian (which describes the energy of the system) to remain the same (it is invariant).

In QFT there is Gauge Theory. Gauge theory predicts the existence of zero mass gauge bosons such as photons. Gauge bosons are required in order for the Lagrangian to remain invariant, but cannot predict bosons with mass such as the W, Z and the yet to be discovered Higgs boson.

By breaking the symmetry gives mass to the bosons. The theoretical properties of the W and Z bosons as predicted by symmetry breaking were confirmed after their discovery.

With regards to the BB a gauge field may have existed prior to the BB, but as to what symmetry may have been broken to trigger the BB no one knows.

M (brane) theory also predicts a pre BB.

Regards

Steven

[marki]

Alright, you get a pen and paper but I get a can of baked beans and a cigerette lighter. Whilst you explain your theory I will give a graphic demonstration of how the sun shines out my RS. Fark this place is falling to bits, I am going to start a new site and call it thunderRS.

Mark

[avandonk]

Alright the best way of partly settling this is that science at the edges of our understanding always overturns long held beliefs that were formulated without a shred of rational testable evidence that has diffused into the mindset of the average person..

This always upsets the status quo whether scientific or superstitious. It is all about power not truth.

Personally I have found that science has so far made the Universe a far more wondrous complicated elegant place than could even begin to be imagined prior to about the 1890's.

When Maxwell linked electricity and magnetism by his four 'simple' equations the Royal Society said that all science now needs is a bit of tidying up to account for gravity.

Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics just a few decades later really threw a spanner into this nice 'simple' version that described reality.

Currently we are grappling with concepts such a dark matter and energy.

I am afraid that even the LHC will give us more questions than answers.

The important thing is the journey not the destination. We are still at base camp or lower I think.

The current biomolecular revolution is going to impinge on all our lives far more than any esoteric arguments of how many singularities can you fit on a pin!

Bert

[avandonk]

It is even more complicated. Fred Hoyle first postulated nucleosynthesis of heavier atoms from Hydrogen and Helium in stars. This was in about 1947! He should have got the Nobel Prize. Of course we all now know only nuclei up to iron can be produced in a star. The heavier elements such as gold and silver can only be produced in a super nova. Think about this next time you see a gold ring. Every atom in that ring was once drifting through space for eons after being spread by a huge explosion before our solar system formed!

Bert

[renormalised]

Just think of where science will be by the end of this century, or 100 years from now. What we know now will most likely seem quaint.

[mjc]

It's taken me a while to digest this - thanks very much - I think I'm learning something that I didn't even have a handle on before.

Would I be correct in saying that if many of the laws of physics are a consequence of mathematical symmetry - and the bifurcation process breaking some of that symmetry that:

a) the birfurcation process in non-temporal (its a mathematical sequence that exists independent of time)? (I ask this because I'm uncomfortable about things happening "before" the BB.)

b) that no bifurcation branch is special - they're all just different - and that all exist?

If the answer to question b) is true then it must be the case that one cannot preclude that multiple universes arose at the same time as the one that we experience - but it could be that the one that we experience is the only viable one (however one wants to interpret that). Have I missed the dart board all together here?

Thanks all
Mark C.

[CraigS]

My 2 cents worth & as an aside, (until Steven responds):

Sounds logical to me, Mark;

It seems to me that most descriptions about 'origins' in Mainstream Science are about what happened during infinitesimally tiny intervals immediately after the Big Bang, (except for the maths you are probing here).

This would seem to be because all we can do as present-day-humans is to garner information we know about the present and at best, extrapolate it in reverse (ie: into the past).

We had an interesting discussion in the 'Higgs' thread, (following the mysterious locking of this thread yesterday), about 'nothing' and perhaps there was 'nothing' before the Big Bang, perhaps not.

But your questions are probing the interdependence of symmetry-breaking and time, huh ? In Quantum Physics/Field Theory, does 'nothing' before the Big Bang include the symmetry-breaking process ? (In quantum physics I think there cannot be a "nothing", because of the uncertainty principle ...?)

Very cool question ... but at the end of this discussion there can be only ...










Cheers & Rgds.
Over to Steven ...

[sjastro]

Symmetry breaking is independent of time.

The process of symmetry breaking involves a Lagrangian which is a measurement of a dynamical system in terms of it's kinetic and potential energies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian
If the system is symmetrical, the Lagrangian doesn't change when subjected to certain mathematical operations such as rotations, spatial and time displacement etc. The Lagrangian is said to be invariant.
The symmetry is broken when the Lagrangian is no longer invariant.

Depending on the initial symmetry and the type of Lagrangian, symmetry breaking can manifest itself in various physical ways such as the creation of W and Z bosons to inflation in the early Universe.



It's not the case that symmetry breaking leads to an infinite number of physical outcomes of which our Universe represents a particular outcome. (The anthropic principle). Rather as mentioned previously a physical outcome is based on the type of symmetry and Lagrangian defined.

It's possible a mathematical gauge field existed prior to the BB. The BB may have originated from the breaking of an (unknown) specific symmetry with an (unknown) specific Lagrangian.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/09/talking_hawking_and_god.html

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Classical 'Physics' (aether) => Modern Physics (BBT, Higgs Field) => Quantum Physics/QFT (Gauge fields, Symmetry Breaking, W&Z Bosons, Gravitons) => String theories => M-Theory (touching 2D Branes floating in a higher dimension space with unified Quantum Physics & GR).

Lots of leap-frogging. Lots of Maths. So few people understanding it all...

I had to chuckle at the interviewer's questions ... eg: "How many more years until you (physicists) find it all out ?"

Thanks Steven.
Cheers

[netwolf]

Even Einstien once made a Blunder (expanding universe), so shall we not learn to be humble in the search for knowledge. Or are we so self asured that the cup of knowledge is now full?

I recall at a Macuqarie uni Astronomy night they had a lecuture about the Universe. I dont recall the name of the gentelmen who prsented. However I recall soemthing he said. Science is about understanding the function of things, how they work and it is not for the understanding of purpose.

We quarel so much in the world about what is the purpose and intent of others. We can not even know the purpose behind our childrens action nor our parents, unless they tell us.

Science and Religion have there place. One gives Function the other provides purpose. What you chose to setup as your purpose in life is your religion, it determines how you will behave. Yet only via something called Trust can we come to know the purpose of another human being. While we may think we can mesure there actions and determine there fucntion we can not know what is there purpose. That is one human to another. Even with all our knowledge of the mind we still do not comprehend its purpose through Science. How then do we preseume to understand something much much more complicated.


Knowing how it works does not give us answers to why its here.

[Omaroo]

Fahim - why does anything celestial require a purpose at all? It just "is". To assume that there may be a purpose to it is essentially, and nothing more than, human. Everything we humans have the power to do requires of us a decision to do it. To assume that of everything is, I think, wrong.

[CraigS]

Perhaps there is no purpose?

I was once challenged to demonstrate "Purpose", silently, (no language or visuals), with only a bunch of pins and paperclips. I took about an hour or so, to convince judges that I'd succeeded.

I was then challenged to demonstrate "demonstrate" ... That took hours !

One of the many points learned via the experience was that "purpose" is given meaning, only by humans. And humans rarely agree on the meanings we associate with the demonstration of "purpose".
Demonstrations are for an audience .. demonstrations are only done by humans because they are only defined by human observations. And almost never do humans agree on the meanings they associate with demonstrations.

I'd say that separates Nature from our interpretation of it.

Cheers

[netwolf]

Not knowing its purpose does not mean there isnt one. Most of the members her in this group are hear because the like to look at the stars, so have the stars provided in some small way an inspiration for them to learn about Astronomy?

What stops human beings from complete anarchy and chaos? More human beings chose a purpose that does not lead to those for all. Unfortunately we do have people who act from self interest and will create problems.

We can agree to disagree, I chose to belive in a universe that has purpose that inspires me to understand it better. Like finding the form hidden inside a block of stone. Or the unlocking the music of the Universe as Einstein once said Mozart's music "was so pure that it seemed to have been ever-present in the universe, waiting to be discovered by the master"

But we still have this question, can we have laws without a universe? Can we find the laws pre-universe, and how the Translated to the laws post universe? And if there is a pre-universe law, then how did that come to be?

[CraigS]

Cool words .....
Good onya, Fahim ..
:)
Cheers & Rgds

[bojan]

Depends on the definition of the universe, I guess ;)
What we call "universe" is obviously not the whole thing ...

[netwolf]

Bojan, so have the laws change from the time the universe started and now?
Do we have any evidence of this?

[bojan]

Why would the laws change?
I am guessing the assumptions is that they didn't change.
Otherwise the calculations on universe evolution since BB would be impossible.

And, if the laws did change, and we know how... then we can again do all the calculations.. by just taking this new law(s) into account.

[avandonk]

Fahim the moral compass a society uses should not burn people at the stake for pointing out the Earth is not the centre of the Universe.

Religiosity is not the only source of moral values. Cooperation and altruism that exists within a species, exists due to evolution. Basically this is to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Any social species that feeds on its young for example would not last long.

My major objection to any religion getting involved in competing with science is that in the past this was always a misuse of power by mere men in order to protect that very earthly power that they generally decreed was given to them exclusively by some god. It was never about the higher things it was about earthly power and wealth.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. One has to be very careful in drawing any conclusions based on one and then applied to the other.

You are correct that we all have a purpose. This is to take the wondrous journey of life and take in and enjoy all the things our senses tell us. There is no such thing as destiny. It is up to each one of us to take responsibility for our own path.

It might be worth your while to google 'fine structure constant'. This may go some way in answering why the so called 'constants' do not vary with time.

Or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

Bert

[Brundah1]

Very interesting discussion.

Glad everyone settled down in this discussion with mutual respect.

I generally agree with Bert and Fahim's comments separating cause and purpose discussions.

Study in comparative religions only confirms the human frailty in defining purpose and the global devastation from the outcomes of superior self righteousness.

The above does not reduce the possibility of a power (such as gravity) being the origin of purpose.

As others have suggested Hawking is one of many brilliant minds on this small planet.

David

[Bassnut]

Thats a shame, sounds limiting. Why is purpose so important?, couldnt the need for purpose just be a human construct?.



Really?, Seems to me they would be if there is/are no God(s) :P.

[avandonk]

You are quite correct from where I sit Fred. I always throw the deluded a rope so I can hang them with it when they get closer!

All jokes aside. When are so called rational humans going to realize that any so called religious thoughts are a construct of your brain. This is a remnant of evolution! I find this an even more exquisite barb to shoot at the fundies.

I honestly am fearful for the future as so many know so little about so few subjects. They are so easily led by the unscrupulous. These people peddle simple answers to very complex problems.

We are not out of the middle ages but heading towards them. It is as if the renaissance never happened!

We only have to look at what is happening in the USA. Over 25% of americans think that Obama is a Moslem. Now where was this fallacy spawned?

It is still the seemingly ignorant leading the the ignorant for their own purposes.


Does the expression 'she is a witch' remind you how stupid mobs can get.

Bert

[CraigS]

Bert, you focus on the cup being half empty !
The US is after all, .... the US!
What of elsewhere ? Like Oz ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

CraigS we are only a bit behind. We did send our brave boys into a useless war or two again did we not? These two wars and the reasons for them were based on lies and fabricated scenarios including religious nonsense!

When our leaders go and fight and send their own sons I will follow! With a stretcher to pick up the wounded and dead.

Bert

[Bassnut]

Precisely. IMO, Religion (particularly Christianity) is the single largest cause of hate, death and destruction the world has known.

I dont deny the need for "religion" generally in the Human condition, but the "God of gaps" model we have used so far is beginning to wear thin, time for a different paradigm :P.

[CraigS]

Bert: I'm not convinced that the majority of Australians ever did, or ever will, support sending troops to fight in those wars !

Not all leaders speak for their people, all of the time !!

But we digress ..
I agree with you about religion, science and purpose. However, I see all too often, scientists arguing religiously ... about science !!

How come ??

Cheers

[avandonk]

Fred the different paradigm will only occur slowly as the information diffuses slowly through the populace. We die for one simple reason so the young can take our place with new ideas. We cannot perceive this 'shift' in our life time as the change is subtle.

We are well on the way though when a twelve year old is consulted to change the parameters of your new phone!

I heard them say settings you silly old twit. But I could be wrong.

Bert

[avandonk]

Very simple CraigS the Templeton Prize is worth far more than the Nobel Prize!

Just be the leader in your field and stick god in the missing bit and you are half a million dollars richer!

Bert

[CraigS]

You see no value in spirituality of any kind, at all ?

[rcheshire]

I am of the view that when you don't like the questions that philosophy raises...

...and while I share respect for SH as a brilliant mathematician, I'm not inclined to follow his religion... he's entitled to his view.

Science has a purpose, but it doesn't guide my conscience... neither does it explain consciousness, and most respected scientists, in-fact, the honest scientific community knows that.

"to achieve an intimate understanding of the workings of the universe is to know the mind of God..." (Stephen Hawking)

SH doesn't rule out God, he refers to a conventional understanding of 'all knowing,' but confers that on mankind, or the people that achieve that level of understanding. Do I need to mention the obvious potential social issues?

While SH's comment is metaphorical in one sense, it also reveals an underlying agenda, which SH has, as you say, recently stated - "God did not create the universe..." he's been saying that for years...

A dependence on science to provide all the answers, leads us down a path that does not and cannot address the issues facing mankind. Similarly, philosophy unattended by science. One with out the other is eventually destructive. I'm not inclined to rule out either to gain an understanding of my humanity.

[avandonk]

From what I have observed and read I find that so called spiritualty is the the least adhered to cause ever invented by man!

This does not mean I can ignore it. It is a bit like mental illness as it is real but I do not suffer from it.

Bert

[CraigS]

I see tremendous goodness in you Bert ... and in many others, including scientists !
Yet I cannot predict goodness from any theoretical perspective(s).

Does this support not further scientific progress ?

[astroron]

I had just read this post in this thread, then went to the ABC Website and saw this http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/09/06/3002136.htm?site=science&topic=space and it is not from America;)
Should be a very interesting discussion :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

What does that mean?. "Spirituality". What, external influences?, reaction to the unknown?, Spirits?, Unexplainable human thought trains?.

"Value" implies some positive effect, relative to what?.

[avandonk]

We humans find it hard to define goodness in others. Yet we all know it instantly when we see it.

We cannot even define what consciousness is. Self awareness is the really fundamental first test.

A simple test is to put an animal or bird in front of a mirror and see what they do.

A human child passes this test with flying colours. They KNOW it is him or herself!

The universe by random events has finally produced a flackey self destructive species called humans.

I personally think we stand on the precipice. We as a species have just worked out how to start to write the user manual to our bodies at the molecular level. We stand to gain much. Misused we lose far more.

We do not need mythical entities dreamt up by goat herders to tell us how to live.

We should grasp the chance to control our future with both hands and our combined intellects.

I will settle for nothing less!

Bert

[CraigS]

There is an ineffable quality to knowledge and experience which guides all humans.

Spirituality, wisdom or whatever you want to call it, must be actively summonsed in oneself and others, in order to progress as a species.

This conversation requires no deity.

Or so I feel, anyway.
And that doesn't have much to do with Science.

Cheers & Rgds to all.

[Bassnut]

There is huge confusion. If there is true choice, then God is irrelivant, redundant (and is indeed bad or impotent allowing such an equal choice) .

God loves everyone so is supposedly a positive influence. David Attenbrough was asked if he believed in God. He replied. There is a parasite that exclusively lives behind African childrens eyes that slowley, eventually causes a very painfull blindness. What possible notion of love or choice could that be attributed too. Davids conclusion was that God was either non existant or truly evil.

[avandonk]

When I finished year twelve in 1967 we had to go to a retreat with Jesuit Priests for two weeks. In one of the discussions I got up and said that everything I had been taught from the bible was either allegory or at best out and out fabrication. The rest of my peers were visibly disturbed. The head Jesuit asked me lots of questions and I answered him as best I could. At the end of it he said that we have to tell simple stories for the ordinary people. He went further and said when did you work all this out. I told him when I was nine. He then agreed with me. With the proviso that I will understand it all better as I get older. I am now sixty one and it is still fabrication not allegory.

They knew all along!

Bert

[marki]

Oh crikey, I hate philosophy. You will keep moving around in ever decreasing spirals until you disappear up your own fundermental orifice. Our spirituallity is simply a consequence of our consciousness and environment, nothing more nothing less.

Mark

[netwolf]

Why is it that eventually any such discussion as with the subject we eventualy get to the point where further discussion would breach IIS polices. While we are not allowed to debate religion it seems perfectly alright for Scientists to crticise spiritual values. As i said before lets agree to disagree and focus on the Science rather thant trying to prove or disprove God, spirtuality etc.

Why is that when you accept that human beings are limited do you then think that everthing we derive Scientifically is the absolute truth? As much as some Scientist would like to say Religion is a human creation, so is Science. Where would Science be with the absence of human mind and consious? The truth is subject to our human understanding of it, is it "The Truth" or just a construct of each persons understanding. As each person is diffrent this becomes even more hard to nail down as one thing.

Regardless of what theory you want to present, it is not universaly true, how can you say so when only human beings can percive it. They say mathematics is the language of the universe well again thats a very racist remark given mathematics is a human construct.

Some of you Trekkie fans would recall the Movie where the Klingons come to make peace with humans and the Klingon lady says somethin along the lines of human rights sounding so racist because it denise Klingons by its context. So what makes us humans on this small third rock think that our constructs of the universe are absolute truth and there is no Consiousness beyond mankind. As bert said clearly humans have developed a consious but what is to say that it can realise the truth?

So whatever scientific or Spiritual theory is created by human consious is not the be all and end all of it. So why argue on what is the truth. That is a subject outside the scope of this forum and possibly the human mind.

[avandonk]

Our consciousness is the Universe's way of contemplating itself. So far we have done a lousy job. There have been a few bright points.

If you know anything of Godel you will understand that it is impossible for our feeble mind to contemplate the Universe let alone the thing we use to contemplate the Universe with!

I know my limitations. Reductionism only works until you get to the tricky bits.

We are far better than that. I cannot prove it yet but I happen to think that with very good training and discipline the human brain can and will surpass even what we have seen so far.

I will also say that the discipline and training can be something we cannot even define now.

As an example Mozart wrote a full symphony at the age of five!

Bert

[marki]

No one is saying science is absolute truth, only a fool would do that. It is simply the best explaination we have (although the whole dark matter business is a bit on the nose). Of course it is a human construct like everything else we perceive. Gave up on the idea of truths years ago.

Mark

[netwolf]

Bert I agree the human mind is far mor capabale than what we see today.
But even when we use more of our brain with a higher level of disipline and self control, we still are human. Can we speak for all the universe when we are only a small fraction of it? That to me sounds much like the Earth Centrer universe concepts. Its just now Human Centrerd universe.

Whent things are there worst, human beings have the opertunity to be there best. While naturual disasters and diseases may claim there victims they also inspire many people to be there best in helping them,for example the Australia Eye specilist Fred Hollows I think it was who did so much in this area. Yet we also have human beings who wish to bomb some nations back to the stone ages because of a diffrence of view. Natural disasters and disease are universal they can occur anywhere and there are leasons to be learned from it. What does not break only makes you stronger.

There is this other construct that the universe is only a stage for us to see the only truth there is , the truth about ourselves. The only truth that a human mind in the end can not deny is the Trutgh of there actions in this life. There is no escape from that, the world is perhaps a stage to let us see who we are. A mirror to look in so there is no doubt about it in our consious mind who we are. Then againt that is just my humble view of it.

[avandonk]

Here are a few tests

How many flying chariots existed in ancient times? urrrr!
How many airliners cross our oceans per day. Thousands

How many people were brought back from the dead in JC's day? One!
How many people are brought back to life by modern medical methods every day? Quite a few!

I won't bother to go on.

This is not an attack on religion. It is an attack on ignorant people purporting to speak for religion. If you want to believe what ignorant goat herders beleived in fine.

It is very simple. If god really spoke to these ignorant goat herders he would have said 'wash your hands' not cut off the bit on the end of your willies!

Bert

[netwolf]

Bert dont you feel you are crosing the line there. Does it really make you any better to throw insults. Did Science that we know today occur overnight? Then why should the message from Religion be understood in one time period. Perhaps it is for all time and will take all time to realize its full meaning. In the meantime some few things like do good deads is a good start. Throwing insults at Religion is not really a good way to debate.

[avandonk]

Excuse me but far more sins have been perpetrated in the name of religion than I can even enumerate.

The sins of the Catholic Priests. Brothers and Nuns even in just the last fifty years should cause you some concern. The real sin was the cover up from the hierachy. This goes all the way to the Vatican!

Wake up these cretins have been hiding behind their god for years.

I will stop now as there are far more religions that are just as bad.

Please do not ever say holier than thou.

There are only two sins in this Universe Fahim. Hypocracy and Ignorance!

Bert

[netwolf]

Bert, I agre with you there is much bad in the world, but human beings are to blame for that. But so what we deny spirtuality and religion because of some bad people. The same message if you read it also tell us what will happen to these people and most of them get there due in this world in one way or another.
So how about all the good Work Mother Teressa did is it invalidated because others did bad things?

If you were to find out that some famous Scientists comited a crime or was not all good, does that invalidate the Science he produced?

[avandonk]

It was not an insult it was a statement of fact Fahim.

Bert

[avandonk]

Yes Einstein was a turd the way he treated his first wife. I am sure that there are more scientists that behaved apallingly including myself.

I do not go around preaching how to behave to other people! This is the difference!

All I do is educate people in what I think is the truth according to our best knowledge. Not some third hand idiocy passed on by by the ignorant to the fallible.

Bert

[Bassnut]

Because religion expects us to understand the "message" based on data from just one time period from ancient script, this is a universal religeous artifact (why is that, I really dont get that?)., unlike scientific evidence which is constantly evolving.




Dunno :P, IMO chucking old school dogmas out the window seems a good fresh start to me :thumbsup:.

[astroron]

There are countries that have Dozens of Gods,India for example, who is to say which god is better than the other:question:
The same countries who have millions of poor people who look to their favourite God all their lives for salvation, and are no better off for it:shrug:

[avandonk]

I will reiterate as an atheist I only believe in one god less than all the other religious monodeists. That is zero gods.

I am no worse than all the other religious people that do not believe in all the other gods!


So to get back to the original thread I reckon that Hawking has really stuffed his chances at the Templeton Prize. If you all remember Paul Davies got it for mentioning god for the so called bit that was beyond his understanding.

I suppose if I recant and do something wonderful I could still win it.

Yes it is coming to me. I see the threads of quantised locally spread entanglements surfacing as virtual particles. God at work.

You beauty that will do!

Bert

[Bassnut]

Only God caued be the initiator of locally spread entanglements surfacing as virtual particles, most appropriate, im converted :thumbsup: (Hick, I think Ill have another one thanks James, cheers)

[avandonk]

You left out quantised as this is most important!

Bert

[Bassnut]

No, I think its linear, we just havent looked close enough.

[avandonk]

It could be quadratic. The only evidence I have is why did they teach us this stuff without explaining it's reality.

Bert