Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.
