Evidence for God from Science

Something else that I've been seeing a little bit of about Hawking's views is the view that the conditions and the things which are in the universe from planets to us and everything else in between would be this way no matter what. If the story of the universe were to be rewound and played again, the results WOULD BE THE SAME. And from what I understand currently, that is the same view that Richard Dawkins has on evolution. This idea to me, strikes me as very odd since if naturalism is true, and we are here due to natural forces along with luck and chance (because luck and chance would have to play a big part since the universe is so hostile to life and the conditions have to be in such a way to permit and sustain life) it would seem more reasonable to say, that if the story of the universe was rewound and played back, we would see something completely different. Just from a common sense, observational viewpoint, it just seems to make sense that we would see something different. Like for an example, we may have a earthlike planet, but maybe with no complex life or we may have a earthlike planet with some complex life, but only life that lives in the water. I mean, why would every single natural universe outcome have a earthlike planet with complex life that lives in the water, in the dirt, above the dirt, and in the air. How would natural forces and laws guarantee such a outcome every time like what Hawking and Dawkins suggest? The fact that we have living things in virtually every livable part and aspect of this planet seems to show signs of intentionality, design, and purpose. I personally think, that if we were indeed living under naturalism and there is no god, just matter, energy and natural laws, wouldn't we see something more random and odd than what we do see? Wouldn't we also see some strange features on us and other living things such as eyes in odd places like a eye near your right knee or a additional unneeded arm or leg? Well we do see these things from time to time but they are very odd, but if we were indeed under naturalism wouldn't stuff like this be the norm rather than the exception? I don't see how these two guys get the idea that if you played the universe's origin a second time that you would get the exact same results, I just don't see that. Let me know what you all think. Thanks and God bless.

Well if that is true the basically Dawkins and Hawkings (sounds like a shop form Diagonal Alley) are secretly Thiests and have been fooling us all along to test our faith.

That is basically exactly what I beleive. If you rewound evolution -- you would get the same results, same with the universe - because that was the way it was designed. Who would have thought, two of the most prominent athiests would be thinking the same thing.

Silvertusk.

If everything has a cause, and you could back the universe up event-by-event, then why shouldn’t the universe unwind exactly the same as it did the first time?

But what if God built randomness into the fundamental quantum nature of the universe; such that the sequence of every action was not set in stone; allowing humans to truly have free will, for example? Then how could we assume, were God to restart the universe (or begin another), that either would result in a carbon copy of what we have now?


.

Another question - where did the vacuum of space come from? If the vacuum is nothingness, how could nothingness spontanously ignite into a big bang since nothing was there. If something was there, where did it come from?

Hawking cannot answer this...
-
-
-

I cant even begin to imagine what the vacuum of space is like outside the universe O_O it literally feels like as if im a 2D entity trying to figureo out what it would be like if i was in a 3D world ...X_X

coldblood wrote:If everything has a cause, and you could back the universe up event-by-event, then why shouldn’t the universe unwind exactly the same as it did the first time?

But what if God built randomness into the fundamental quantum nature of the universe; such that the sequence of every action was not set in stone; allowing humans to truly have free will, for example? Then how could we assume, were God to restart the universe (or begin another), that either would result in a carbon copy of what we have now?


.

I do not believe that God designed everything in the universe to happen the way it did, step by step, as if he created each individual instant so it would happen precisely. I believe that God created the universe so we would have the opportunity to choose. I definitely believe that he knew what we would choose, but I think he specially designed it so that we would all have a fair and equal chance to make those choices. Yes, he built randomness into the universe, but, as Einstein once put it, "God does not play dice with the universe."

One of the things I loved about what Hawking said in his book was that gravity spontaneously brought the universe and all of spacetime into being. However, just a few chapters earlier, he said that according to general relativity, gravity was warped spacetime. So warped spacetime brought spacetime into existence? Seriously, I think this is the most impressive bootstrapping trick I have ever heard of. Unfortunately for Hawking, this was far from the biggest problem with his book. I wrote a review on my blog, http://mattdelockery.blogspot.com, in which I said that one of the biggest problems with this book was that he had already written this before. I read both A Brief History of Time and The Grand Design in the same week and they are about 85-90% the same book. All he does in his The Grand Design is rehash old material and add an angry chapter at the beginning and a short conclusion at the end. This book is not all it's cracked up to be.

kmr --

Yes, he built randomness into the universe, but, as Einstein once put it, "God does not play dice with the universe."

God does not play dice with the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Einstein, stop telling God what to do! -- Niels Bohr


You seem to want it both ways. Yes, if packaged as benevolence, such as allowing man free will; no, if sounds capricious, e.g., playing dice.




.