Posted on 03/14/2007 9:15:46 PM PDT by dayglored
Last night, nearly 3,000 people received a mini lesson on the origin of the universe from perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist, Stephen Hawking.
Hawking spoke to a packed audience in Zellerbach Hall about how Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity and quantum theory explained the creation of the universe.
...
His lecture, which touched upon subjects such as black holes and spacetime, was peppered with quips that drew laughs from the audience.
“If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was, what happened before the beginning,” Hawking said. “What was God doing before He made the world?"
...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycal.org ...
> Uh, no. They don't. And Hawking doesn't conclude that God did it. He's just using colorful language.
Perhaps my statement would have been more clear like this:
"...the closer our scientists get to a description of the Big Bang, the closer they come to realizing that our science stops at the Big Bang, and that on the other side lies belief. Atheists will conclude that the Big Bang happened spontaneously and without precursor; those who believe in God will find that science does not conflict with their belief."
Hence, because science cannot reach to the "time before" the Big Bang, scientists will be free to conclude that only a supernatural cause fits the description. I personally believe that a majority of them will eventually do so, as soon as it is "allowable" without being censured. Hawking does a good service by opening up the discussion, even if he does so with tongue in cheek.
I saw the same thing! My first thought was that Mary Kay must be giving away a pink cadillac as a door prize or something and then I saw Stephen Hawking's name and realized my error.
> The remark is a conundrum and, if not deliberately farcical, insulting.
I don't think he was being either farcical or insulting. I think he was using an unanswerable conundrum as a way of challenging his listeners to expand their thinking.
...Supreme executive power, derived by a mandate from the masses, not from some - farcical aquatic ceremony!!!
Only a supremely arrogant man, or a fool, would look into a region that can have only a faith-based reading (that which preceeded the advent of our spacetime universe) and conclude an explanation other than a statement of faith. Stephen shows his brilliance in choosing a faith-based assertion.
Well of COURSE he was being, if not sarcastic, then challenging. What credible cosmologist or astrophysicist dares speculate about the events (if such a word could apply) that preceded the Big Bang? Naturally, none -- since science can't go there. The mathematics does not allow it.
What then to do? Hawking's quip points out that a belief in God grants one the ability to not only ask the unanswerable question "What came before?", but to propose an answer, albeit an unscientific one.
The fact that the answer ("God") is essentially untestable and unfalsifiable makes it unacceptable science. But that's the point. Science stops at the Big Bang like a fly against a brick wall. If one chooses to do so, one can then consider the possibility that God is on the "other side" of that wall (yes I realize that metaphor is untenable).
Given the opportunity, I would ask Hawking whether he personally believes in God as a Prime Mover. If you know of any statement of his on that topic, I'd be appreciative of a link.
Thank you, you have not only "gotten" it, but you stated my own reaction precisely, and more eloquently than I did.
Well thank you, but I happen to have also had limited correspondence with Stephen (through the library staff), mundane as it is in total. His mind follows the complexities of the universe, but he is a man of limited common sense, liberal in the main ... perhaps I should say an idealist in the main, though not too hopeful of the human species.
Perhaps.
Consider these quotes from Hawking:
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.These don't sound like the statements of an atheist. They sound like the statements of a scientist who is comfortable with the idea that we can't know everything strictly through natural means. Whether Hawking himself personally believes in a Prime Mover or not is unknown to me; but that's only incidental to the point that he leaves that to each person. He does not say, "Thus there is no God." That was my point -- that even the most advanced science does not preclude the existence of, nor a belief in, a Prime Mover.[Note that he's addressing the Big Bang (the beginning of the universe) and later, but not anything "prior", since science doesn't go there. Hence his question about what God was doing "before" can only be seen as an statement that if there was anything "before", it had to be supernatural.]
So Einstein was wrong when he said "God does not play dice". Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen.
------
“If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was, what happened before the beginning,” Hawking said. “What was God doing before He made the world? Was He preparing hell for people who asked such questions?”
According to Hawking, the origin of the universe can be depicted as bubbles in a steam in boiling water.
------
There are a number of implied preconditions in the "God" paragraph that rely on the natural thought process of accepting sequential time based events as factual constructs of our reality and likewise the ultimate reality of all things including God's place in time. It's a silly paragraph and the 'hell' reference is curious. The article reports that Hawking is apparently committed to the idea of the ultimate beginning, or as stated, an 'origin'. If he does in fact believe there was a 'beginning', then there can be no God unless God created Godself from nothing.
I have no idea what Hawking's views are regarding God. I'm making comments on the article in isolation of anything else. Furthermore, I mean not to challenge your point of view on the subject in general.
I interpreted the "hell" reference as a way of suggesting that while God might encourage us to develop science as a tool to understanding "our side" of time/space, that crossing the boundary was getting into "Godspace" as it were -- a realm where our mathematics fail, where our comprehension fails, where we must not go. Of course, that's to be taken as a challenge by any scientist...
> The article reports that Hawking is apparently committed to the idea of the ultimate beginning, or as stated, an 'origin'. If he does in fact believe there was a 'beginning', then there can be no God unless God created Godself from nothing.
Or, perhaps, that the very nature of "existence" as we conceive it does not apply to God. We anthropomorphize God at our peril.
> I have no idea what Hawking's views are regarding God. I'm making comments on the article in isolation of anything else. Furthermore, I mean not to challenge your point of view on the subject in general.
Oh, you're welcome to challenge my point of view, so long as you don't restrict my ability to hold it and defend it, or change it if it suits me. Challenge is what makes us stronger and smarter, and as it happens, it was through challenge that I came to my belief in God.
The question is.. the beginning of WHAT?..
Are there multi-verses and multi-dimensions?..
If you cannot see the entire system what are we trying determine the beginning of?..
The beginning of a part of the system may be the result of something else..
Maybe, determining the beginning of something is so easy a Cosmologist can do it..
Generating bodacious grants and research graft..
In addition to 'what was before..?" science cannot answer the "why is there anything at all?" question.
Hawkins is not a philosopher of science. He is not a metascientist. And therefore cannot see past his, and sciences, limited sphere of knowing.
Science is the firmest set of what we can know of reality, but it is still a subset of what we can know and do know.
I too have a BS-Physics. I have always believed in God and see no conflict between science and theology. Ahhh, there is a slight conflict. Belief in God is a consensus. Science is fact. That is why algore is so full of BS. He has them backwards.
A thought-provoking man of amazing brilliance and humor. It will be a sad day when his time comes to pass on. God's gain, our loss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.