Fr. Robert Spitzer, SJ, to debate Dr. Stephen Hawking on "Larry King Live"

Insight Scoop ^ | September 8, 2090 | Carl Olson

[NYer]

... this Friday, September 10th, confirmed today by the folks at Healing the Culture, Fr. Spitzer's apostolate. Fr. Spitzer (who has written two books for Ignatius Press) just published a book titled, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy . He talks about Hawking here:

YouTube Video

And in an essay, "The curious metaphysics of Dr. Stephen Hawking":

Why would a preeminent physicist make the claim that “the universe can come from nothing?” This is precisely what Dr. Stephen Hawking has done in his new book, “The Grand Design,” when he notes, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

This statement betrays Hawking’s fundamental assumption about the universe, namely that it came from nothing. But why would a preeminent physicist assume that the universe came from nothing? Presumably, because he believes that there are reasons for thinking that the universe had a beginning.

Let me put it in reverse: If one believes that there is significant evidence for a beginning of the universe then one is confronted with the question, “what was the universe before the beginning?” If the beginning is truly a point at which the universe came into existence then one is confronted by the fact that prior to the beginning, the whole physical universe was nothing.

What’s my point? If Dr. Hawking does not believe that there is any reason to think that the universe had a beginning (from physics or philosophy), then why does he even bother to speculate about how the universe could spontaneously create itself from nothing? I am left to assume that Dr. Hawking does believe there are reasons for thinking the universe had a beginning – otherwise his contention about “the universe coming from nothing” makes no sense.

Read the entire essay. See more on the MagisReasonFaith.org site.

[NYer]

Tune in tomorrow night at 9pm, ping! In the meantime, from Larry King Live blog ..

---

September 8, 2010

Did God Create The Universe? Your Thoughts Wanted

Posted: 02:30 PM ET

Friday night Prof. Stephen Hawking will be a guest on Larry King Live. In his controversial new book, The Grand Design, Hawking contends a new unified theory (actually, it's a collection of theories), concludes God was not necessary to create the universe and there are, in fact, an untold number of universes. Oh, he also tries to answer the ultimate questions of life, why we're here, and light topics like that.

So we want to hear from you: Do you think God created the universe?

Leave your comment, and we might read it during Friday's show.

[flying_bullet]

I’d think that a better choice to debate Hawking would be James White. White was to debate Hitchens until he cancelled due to some sort of cancer.

[GeronL]

Hawking says God can’t exist because gravity does.... hahahaha...

meanwhile his theory on “Hawking energy” is not even proveable or testable, even if we had a black hole with us.

[sodpoodle]

God’s brain is actually bigger than Stephen’s.

To use an analogy - Hawking has reached the end of the Internet.

[righttackle44]

James White is always a good choice. My son works with James. White is an amazing mind surrounded by an humble spirit in a joyful body.

[pnh102]

If Fr. Spitzer tries to use science to explain “proof” of God’s existence then he has already lost the debate. There never was, never has been, and there never will be anyone in this life who has, does or will observe God.

[Legatus]

I’d think that a better choice to debate Hawking would be James White

Is it strictly because Spitzer is a Catholic? Fr. Spitzer is apparently working on something called "Real Time: Horizons and Parameters of Philosophical Reflection on Quantum Cosmology", I think I had a slight stroke just typing that out.

From his bio:

-----------

He has also written two articles in the International Philosophical Quarterly:

"Proofs for the Existence of God Part I: A Metaphysical Argument" (Vol 41:2--June 2001) pp 162-186.

"Proofs for the Existence of God Part II:" (A Cosmological Argument and a Lonerganian Argument) (Vol 41:3--Sept 2001) pp 305-331.

He has also published two articles in the Journal of Ultimate Reality and Meaning:

"Definitions of Real Time and Ultimate Reality" (Vol 23:3--Sept 2000) pp 260-276, for which he received the section editors award for the best article between 1999-2001 "Indications of Creation in Contemporary Astrophysics" (Vol 24:3-Sept 2001) pp. 1-50.

He has published eight other articles in a variety of journals and collections concerned with leadership, metaphysics, ethics, ontology of physics, and higher education. A complete list of recent publications is available by accessing the Publications link.

He has recently completed a new book manuscript which he has submitted for publication: New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Late Twentieth Century Philosophy and Physics. He has also completed and submitted two articles for publication:

"Indications of Supernatural Design in the Universe" submitted to Zygon (Chicago Center for Religion and Science) in March 2001

"The Ethics of Active Euthanasia" Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Wethersfield Institute (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001).

----------

I don't understand what most of that even means, so it kinda seems like this is his gig. And he's the former president of Gonzaga University and he has a degree from Cambridge (a connection with Hawking), so it seems like he has the academic credentials and the specialty necessary to be accepted as a legitimate debater and thinker on the subject with Hawking. So is it the Catholic thing?

[Ann Archy]

He must not have any children. This is a sad, sad man.

[firerosemom]

Thank you for posting this, NYer! There is a fact sheet on the Magis web site that condenses the physics into something that is (well, if you work at it) understandable - http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/Magis_FactSheet.pdf

I think the big thing is that physics data point to a beginning - this is generally agreed-on by physicists. Matter, energy, space, and time came into being at the beginning. But the beginning had to have a Cause: and this Cause would necessarily exist *outside* space and time, matter and energy, since those things came into existence at the universe’s beginning. This Cause we call God. Because God exists outside space-time and is not mass-energy, He is not measurable by methods that detect these things. Hawking is stepping from physics, whose questions can be tested, to METAphysics, whose questions can be argued for or against, but aren’t verifiable by experiment.

I wish I could watch the Larry King broadcast (tomorrow night on CNN) but I don’t get that channel! I hope that the truth is made clear and the spirit of Peace will prevail.

[firerosemom]

Here’s something that just came out on the Magis website - it’s an “Ask Fr. Spitzer” piece: “Even if there’s cosmological evidence for a creator, how do you make the leap from that to Christianity?”

http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/magis-center-of-reason-and-faith/ask-father-spitzer-even-if-theres-cosmological-evidence-for-a-creator-how-do-you/146181122086684

I tried to boil it down to a sentence or two, but I can’t possibly do it justice. It’s better to read the logic right there in the piece itself.

[SumProVita]

“I’d think that a better choice to debate Hawking would be James White.”

Why would he be better than Fr. Robert Spitzer? Are you aware of Spitzer’s background and abilities?

[SuziQ]

Hawking debate ping!

[johngrace]

"White is an amazing mind surrounded by an humble spirit in a joyful body."

That's news to me.You mean James White the anti-catholic, anti-charismatic and no miracles happened since the apostles age.

I would go to You Tube and type in Catholic then get his anti - everything rant. Nothing against your son. So I am amazed to this man's arrogance on public video. Although I heard he is still friends with Father Pacwa. Even though the different views on scripture.

[MarkBsnr]

Strictly, scientifically speaking...

[NYer]

Thanks, Mark. Of course, the simplest answer to the question is to ask anyone to make something out of nothing. It’s impossible. Only God can create from nothingness.

[ADSUM]

Creationism. (Latin creatio).

(1) In the widest sense, the doctrine that the material of the universe was created by God out of no pre-existing subject.

the doctrine that the individual human soul is the immediate effect of God’s creative act.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm

Whoever created the universe is GOD, as man did not create the universe.

Man can guess at what happened and apply scientific approach to this understanding, but man does not have sufficient knowledge or ability to explain creation and God who created the universe.

Why can’t a scientist accept God when he does not fully understand and his theory is just a guess?

[the invisib1e hand]

the only parts worth watching will probably be edited.

No, I didn't say "censored," but it might be considered that.

[Melian]

I think God created the universe. There are just too many serendipitous events to be explained any other way. One must believe it’s either luck- or God. What are the chances that THAT many random, lucky combinations of events would occur to create our universe? It’s highly unlikely. The easiest, simplest, and most logical explanation is that God orchestrated these events to create us.

[MarkBsnr]

Thanks, Mark. Of course, the simplest answer to the question is to ask anyone to make something out of nothing. It’s impossible. Only God can create from nothingness.

There are many people that either follow or have created a religion out of nothing that they call their version of Christianity. There is a particular UFO gentleman that comes to mind...