Evidence for God from Science

. Quantum theory not only allows but demands fluctuations in which pairs of virtual particles appear from nothing. The lifetime of the pair is dependent on the energy required to account for them. The more energy, the shorter the lifetime. Virtual photons have zero rest mass (= zero energy requirement) and can exist forever. Virtual photons are the carriers of the electromagnetic force, which has infinite range for that reason.

You might think that the energy content of the entire universe is enormous but that may not be the case. Mass-energy creates a gravitational field but the energy content of a gravitational field is negative. It may be that the net energy content of the universe is zero. Positive mass-energy balanced by the exact same amount of negative energy gravitational field. (Gravitational fields have negative energy because they 'pull' instead of 'push'.)

As I said, virtual particles come in pairs and they spring from a single point in space-time. They have opposite quantum numbers for symmetry reasons. One possibility is that this universe and a corresponding anti-universe both appeared at the space-time point we call the Big Bang singularity.

Imagine this anti-universe having opposite quantum numbers in all respects. This would include being composed of negative mass-energy and gravitational field of positive energy. The result of this is that the direction of time's arrow would be reversed in such a universe with respect to ours. From out point of view, things would fall up. Inhabitants of such a universe would not notice anything unusual. They would consider us as the ones going backwards in time.

Now imagine an infinite number of such universe pairs, each having its own unique set of parameters for its laws, analogous to virtual particle pairs in our universe occupying all possible quantum states. This addresses the issue of why this universe should be tuned in a way that allows us to exist. Of course we exist in a universe that allows us. It also addresses the even bigger issue of symmetry - the heart and soul of modern physics. All possible configurations exist. The hyper-verse is perfectly and maximally symmetrical.

Allowing the laws of physics to exist a priori does not mean that nothing happens. It could mean that everything happens.

Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest theoretical physicists of our time, has concluded that God is not necessary as an explanation for the creation of the universe. Such is part of Hawking's upcoming
book, "The Grand Design."

Hawking's assertion is based upon the idea that physical laws of the universe inevitably lead to the spontaneous creation of the universe, without the necessity of a creator or any other kind of "first cause."

Hawking seems to base his conclusion on something called "M Theory," a model for the universe that assumes 11 dimensions and seems to explain both the origin and the nature of the universe.

Of course, Hawking's attempt to use physics to bury God will likely not be very convincing to people of faith any more than Richard Dawkins' attempt to use evolutionary biology to accomplish the same thing. For one thing, "M Theory" has not been proved by experiment, a process that is ongoing with the Large Hadron Collider, for example. "M Theory" is just the latest in an ongoing attempt to reconcile quantum physics and relativity and to create a unified explanation for the universe.

For another thing, if the laws of physics are sufficient to explain the creation of the universe, then how did they come into being?

One thing is for certain, though: Stephen Hawking has ignited a new discussion about the nature of the universe, the nature of God, and how the two may interrelate. Graham Farmello, author of a biography of Paul Direc and a skeptic of Hawking's assertion, has a more cynical idea for why Hawking decided to try to kill God once and for all, at least as a creator:

"The science-religion relationship, in so far as there is one, continues to be a crowd-pleaser. It seems to be a fundamental law of PR that the God-science debate is a sure-fire source of publicity. Always welcome when one has a book to sell."

Richard Dawkins and a number of other authors on both sides of the God debate have certainly found that out to their great profit."

Swimmy wrote:Hawkins believes everything came from nothing, spontaneously. So how the heck did Gravity establish itself before the laws were establish to create existence.

Gman wrote:According to his new book, "The Grand Design" it appears that God is not needed.. I wonder how he came up with that? I think he has more faith than all of us..

Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest theoretical physicists of our time, has concluded that God is not necessary as an explanation for the creation of the universe. Such is part of Hawking's upcoming
book, "The Grand Design."

Hawking's assertion is based upon the idea that physical laws of the universe inevitably lead to the spontaneous creation of the universe, without the necessity of a creator or any other kind of "first cause."

Hawking seems to base his conclusion on something called "M Theory," a model for the universe that assumes 11 dimensions and seems to explain both the origin and the nature of the universe.

Of course, Hawking's attempt to use physics to bury God will likely not be very convincing to people of faith any more than Richard Dawkins' attempt to use evolutionary biology to accomplish the same thing. For one thing, "M Theory" has not been proved by experiment, a process that is ongoing with the Large Hadron Collider, for example. "M Theory" is just the latest in an ongoing attempt to reconcile quantum physics and relativity and to create a unified explanation for the universe.

For another thing, if the laws of physics are sufficient to explain the creation of the universe, then how did they come into being?

One thing is for certain, though: Stephen Hawking has ignited a new discussion about the nature of the universe, the nature of God, and how the two may interrelate. Graham Farmello, author of a biography of Paul Direc and a skeptic of Hawking's assertion, has a more cynical idea for why Hawking decided to try to kill God once and for all, at least as a creator:

"The science-religion relationship, in so far as there is one, continues to be a crowd-pleaser. It seems to be a fundamental law of PR that the God-science debate is a sure-fire source of publicity. Always welcome when one has a book to sell."

Richard Dawkins and a number of other authors on both sides of the God debate have certainly found that out to their great profit."

Source: http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... html?cat=9

B. W. wrote:Again, how did the first dimension begin?

ratgibson wrote:Im just getting into the swing of the rules of logic, formal debate, etc. especially from an apologetical standpoint and i came up with this. Maybe it could be phrased or structured better or something...

1. Gravity can only exist if matter, mass and time exist.
2. Matter, mass and time came into existence.
3. Therefor gravity came into existence.

The logical implication is this: gravity is NOT the cause of the universe.

Id love to hear what Craig and Moreland can do with Hawking.

dayage wrote:Dr. hugh Ross and Dr. Jeffery Zweerink address Dr. Stephen Hawkings' comments about "no need for God."
http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/science ... d265539001

Gabrielman wrote: Well I had not planned on getting into this thread, but it has proven funny once again. I am glad Hawking can provide us with good laugh now and then, seeing as it now seems he has given up, and just decided to make up things now to satisfy himself. When will they just admit they cannot prove there is no God, and that there is no point in trying anyway. Why do they persist? I mean really, what is the point? If they don't want to believe in God, then fine, go worship chance and don't tell us otherwise, especially when they come up with some crazy idea like this. When I had first heard of it, I started to laugh.... oh well if I continue like this I am going to start ranting and drive you all nuts! LOL

Gman wrote:

Gabrielman wrote: Well I had not planned on getting into this thread, but it has proven funny once again. I am glad Hawking can provide us with good laugh now and then, seeing as it now seems he has given up, and just decided to make up things now to satisfy himself. When will they just admit they cannot prove there is no God, and that there is no point in trying anyway. Why do they persist? I mean really, what is the point? If they don't want to believe in God, then fine, go worship chance and don't tell us otherwise, especially when they come up with some crazy idea like this. When I had first heard of it, I started to laugh.... oh well if I continue like this I am going to start ranting and drive you all nuts! LOL

I have lost a lot of respect for Hawking... IMO he is not an intellectual.. No offense.