Quick clearification question about Hawking's theory...

[DRDS]

Hey there, I've got a quick question about Hawking's origin of the universe theory. Does he hold to the idea that the universe or some kind of natural matter or force has always existed or does he hold to the view that the universe and everything had a beginning but the universe and or whatever was first there at the moment of the Big Bang came into being out of nothing. And when I mean nothing, I'm talking about a philosophical or literal nothing, ie no thing, what rocks dream about.

If Hawking doesn't hold to any of these, what in the world is his theory or view on the universe's origin? Thanks everyone God bless.

[Gman]

Hey there, I've got a quick question about Hawking's origin of the universe theory. Does he hold to the idea that the universe or some kind of natural matter or force has always existed or does he hold to the view that the universe and everything had a beginning but the universe and or whatever was first there at the moment of the Big Bang came into being out of nothing. And when I mean nothing, I'm talking about a philosophical or literal nothing, ie no thing, what rocks dream about.

If Hawking doesn't hold to any of these, what in the world is his theory or view on the universe's origin? Thanks everyone God bless.

You can find out more what he believes here. Basically he worships the god of chance for his religion. He is also an advocate for the multiverse theory.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=34309

[DRDS]

Ok, after reading that I'm even more confused. It looks like at first he says everything came from stars, which is ludicrus because where did the stars come from? If they came from dark matter, than where did the dark matter come from? And if it came from something else where did it come from and so on and on until you get to the very beginning of the very first thing whatever it was.

Also Hawking states he believes in the multiverse,but also claims that the universe came into being via quantum activity whether it be quantum foam, quantum mechanics or a quantum vacuum. So out of all of this what in the world does he hold to? Does anyone know, or does he even know?

[Gman]

Ok, after reading that I'm even more confused. It looks like at first he says everything came from stars, which is ludicrus because where did the stars come from? If they came from dark matter, than where did the dark matter come from? And if it came from something else where did it come from and so on and on until you get to the very beginning of the very first thing whatever it was.

Also Hawking states he believes in the multiverse,but also claims that the universe came into being via quantum activity whether it be quantum foam, quantum mechanics or a quantum vacuum. So out of all of this what in the world does he hold to? Does anyone know, or does he even know?

He believes that it has always existed.. That the universe simply expands then collapses on itself then expands again or expands into oblivion. He believes in a completely naturalistic universe without God. How he arrived at this conclusion is anyones guess. Bottom like is that he believes in miracles just like the creationists do when it comes to the origin of live. His religion is FAITH based. You cannot get around it. Period.

[DRDS]

Ok that where his belief in the multiverse comes in? Also isn't the scientific evidence in favor of a actual beginning to our universe? If that is indeed what the evidence shows, then in this case, Hawking is going against the scientific evidence and the scientific consensus.

[Gman]

Ok that where his belief in the multiverse comes in?

Wherever he wants it.. He is surmising all naturalistic possibilities.

Also isn't the scientific evidence in favor of a actual beginning to our universe?

Yes.. It's called the big bang theory.

If that is indeed what the evidence shows, then in this case, Hawking is going against the scientific evidence and the scientific consensus.

If we believe that nothing creates something then yes...

[DRDS]

Ok, so the scientific consensus (not Hawking necessarily) thinks the universe did have a beginning, but yet was caused from nothing by nothing???? I thought for the most part the scientific consensus as far as what caused the big bang is so far "we don't know". Now the best theories from what I know are the multiverse, quantum foam/physics/particles/vacuum and then whatever Hawking believes which I still don't know for sure yet. This must be a hot button topic for you Gman, you seem to get angry talking about it. Which I fully understand, because the stakes and the implications are so high. Does anyone else want to chime in?

[Gman]

Ok, so the scientific consensus (not Hawking necessarily) thinks the universe did have a beginning, but yet was caused from nothing by nothing????

Yes... a mystery, or they simply don't address it. Like it has always existed. That is why I was saying before that it is a faith based religion as well.

I thought for the most part the scientific consensus as far as what caused the big bang is so far "we don't know". Now the best theories from what I know are the multiverse, quantum foam/physics/particles/vacuum and then whatever Hawking believes which I still don't know for sure yet. This must be a hot button topic for you Gman, you seem to get angry talking about it. Which I fully understand, because the stakes and the implications are so high. Does anyone else want to chime in?

Not really angry. Just when he says that his way is "science". Actually it's not, it philosophy... It's no more science than what the creationists believe.

Yet people become gullible and believe that Hawkings has all the magical answers.

[MarcusOfLycia]

If science is defined as a body of knowledge discovered using the scientific method, the multiverse and Hawkings own beliefs do not fall within the scope of science. I suppose you could call it 'speculative science' or probably more precisely 'philosophy', but calling it science is a misnomer and a very misleading one at that. I never quite understood the reason for it myself - why can't people just admit they are trying to define their philosophies on things? Why is it so hard for Hawking (and others) to just admit they don't know something and are trying to develop an explanation that isn't testable or repeatable?

After all, that's the reason all of this stuff falls short of science - you can't produce something from nothing and you can't recreate eternity past so you instantly lose the 'repeatability' and 'falsifiable' elements of the origin of the universe. Couple that with the fact we can't actually visit other universes, and you are stuck with what should be considered something entirely different than science. Unless you define science as what you believe... which is a dangerous but really popular game people like to play.

[DRDS]

Also I was going to add, is his theory or theories on the origin of the universe even testable? I heard from a agnostic friend of mine that the only thing that needs to be worked out is the math and he thinks it is only a matter of time until it gets worked out. Once it is worked out Hawking can then simply plug in the equations of his theory into the known equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics and if everything checks out, then his theory is proven, or it is as much as things like general relativity which I assume is almost as certain as the big bang and gravity right? I'm still very confused and worried about Hawking's views and theories.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Based on calculus, the general theory of relativity also 'proves':

When an object going slower than the speed of light accelerates to the speed of light, it has infinite mass but has 0 volume.

When an object going faster than the speed of light slows down to the speed of light, it has no mass but infinite volume.

Math doesn't prove scientific things - there's a reason why we have experiments. Math can provide a framework, but it never surpasses being just a framework, and hopefully with the help of the examples above, a really silly framework if we don't apply some reasoning to it. I've never heard in any science class, in any science book, online, from any science professor scientist, or anywhere else the idea that a scientific theory can be 'proven' by 'plugging in the numbers'. I wouldn't give that argument much weight.

[DRDS]

Very good point Marcus, say, I've also have heard William Lane Craig and others say there is little to no evidence currently for Hawking's universe theories. As far as what you know do you see that to be the case? Also do you think his theories could EVER be thoroughly tested?

[Gman]

Very good point Marcus, say, I've also have heard William Lane Craig and others say there is little to no evidence currently for Hawking's universe theories. As far as what you know do you see that to be the case? Also do you think his theories could EVER be thoroughly tested?

Even if it were partly true there is nothing that says that God isn't behind it. The only real way to find out is if one has a time machine. So far the tests reveal that the god of "chance" has no chance..

[coldblood]

If it is possible that the universe came from nothing; it would seem only a slightly larger step for God [being the greater] to have come from nothing.

Or if the universe (in some form) has always existed; it would seem only a slightly larger step for God to have always existed.

If either the universe or God came from nothing, or either has always existed, it adds only a slight bit of complexity to sequence the events; such as, that God came from the universe, or that the universe came from God.

As for science, perhaps due more to the limitations of their methods than the faultiness of their methods, it appears far easier (simpler) to find evidence for the universe’s existence than for God’s existence.

However, statements such as, science cannot ‘disprove’ the existence of God, are equivalent to saying, science cannot disprove the existence of unicorns. If such reasoning allows one to feel good then it serves a purpose; but it does nothing to discredit science, or prove the existence of God.

.

[Byblos]

If it is possible that the universe came from nothing; it would seem only a slightly larger step for God [being the greater] to have come from nothing.

Or if the universe (in some form) has always existed; it would seem only a slightly larger step for God to have always existed.

If either the universe or God came from nothing, or either has always existed, it adds only a slight bit of complexity to sequence the events; such as, that God came from the universe, or that the universe came from God.

Not true. To avoid infinite regress (and all its silly paradoxes) there must be an uncaused cause. Since an uncaused cause must 'decide' to cause, this precludes the universe from being this uncaused cause. This leaves only God.

As for science, perhaps due more to the limitations of their methods than the faultiness of their methods, it appears far easier (simpler) to find evidence for the universe’s existence than for God’s existence.

However, statements such as, science cannot ‘disprove’ the existence of God, are equivalent to saying, science cannot disprove the existence of unicorns. If such reasoning allows one to feel good then it serves a purpose; but it does nothing to discredit science, or prove the existence of God.

Lol, strangely enough I'm inclined to agree with you there. Don't you then think that atheist scientists ought to at least be agnostic?