Blinded with 'science' - Atheist's worst nightmare takes apart Hawking's 'design' flaws

WND ^ | September 24, 2010

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

God didn't create the universe, Stephen Hawking says in his latest book, "A Grand Design."

Rather, the renowned physicist writes, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Everything – created from nothing? The assertion begged a reply from the author of "Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution."

"It is embarrassingly unscientific to speak of anything creating itself from nothing," said Ray Comfort, a best-selling author and acclaimed minister who's confronted and confounded some of the world's most accomplished atheists. "Common sense says that if something possessed the ability to create itself from nothing, then that something wasn't nothing; it was something – a very intelligent creative power of some sort."

Hawking commits several "greater fallacies of logic," says Comfort.

[XEHRpa]

> sounds like heresy!

As a child, I was drawn to the scientific fields, not only because of aptitude, but because I perceived that the yardstick was objective, unlike liberal art fields. It wasn’t until I reached the Ph.D. program that I came to realize that science is just as political as the social fields of study.

There are scientific “mafias” called “schools”, not universities, mind you, but groups named after a leading practitioner, who inculcate their students and attempts to co-opt their colleagues into their scientific approach.

I’ve actually had papers rejected for publication with the explanation “this isn’t the accepted way to solve this problem.” Well, duh, isn’t that what research is all about? I am not bitter, mind you. I have a nice publication trail, in spite of it.

The whole AGW scandal of last year highlights, to a tee, what I am talking about. The practitioners blackballed opponents in the field, pushed forward like-thinking colleagues, and tried to take control of key institutions.

Now I think AGW is an exceptionally blatant case, though the rest of science is eerily similar, but to a lesser degree. I’ve noted a trend against funding individual researchers, but instead of funding “consortia” (i.e., mafias).

So, the bottom line is that Beckmann was an independent thinker who, indeed, was considered heretical. He even had to start his own journal (Galilean Electrodynamics) in order to get some of his views into print.

Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong (I’m no expert in his field), but he clearly was a scientifically-thinking man and looked at the world differently than the entrenched establishment.

BTW, here is a link to his book:

http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Plus-Two-Petr-Beckmann/dp/0911762396

[Condor51]

I have a couple problems with this article.

1. As to Hawking 'saying' something, that is a bit impossible. He can't use that touchpad any more, all he can do now is blink. A Post Grad student does all 'his' work. Guessing at what Hawking wants. Its very laborious and time consuming.

   So what 'Hawking says' may not even be 'his' words.

2. And as to this phrase, 'the renowned physicist' -- well, I hate to burst WorldNutDaily's bubble but Stephen Hawking isn't exactly 'renowned'. In the world of Physics he's basically forgotten, his name gets a shrug. Hawking is onl 'renowned' yby the general public - who wouldn't know a Lepton from a Quark.

   A few years back there was a Poll held among Physicists as to who contributed the most to the world of Physics in the 20th Century -- Hawking finished last, with One Vote. And most of the names who finshed at the top, are complete unknowns to the general public.

3. Einstein.

   I don't know where WorldNutDaily is going with him, but Einstein was far from being an atheist. His belief in God is one reason why he never bought into Quantum Mechanics and fought against it (wrongly) all his remaining days.

   Einstein's reason: "God would not create a Universe where two sets of laws were required to describe it".
   (I may have that quote off a tad, but it's pretty darn close)

There seems to be a misconception that all 'Scientists', especially Physicists, are atheists. And WorldNutDaily is trying to further that mistake with this tripe.

Note To WND: God and science (Physics) is NOT mutually exclusive.

Even when they're trying to find the holy grail of Physics: the Grand Unification Theory (GUT). Or solve the question of the Big Bang and if, or what, or anything that preceded it. When 'time began', or if other - parallel - Universes exist.

[BipolarBob]

"Our perspective" has been elevated just as it has by psychology and every other "ology". The ultimate upshot is, "if it's true for you, it's true" because the fine print says, "from your perpective." Perspective is an illusion, an allegory.

We're still talk math and science here aren't we? Because I do not believe in moral relativism. There is a right and wrong. There is an absolute right and wrong. And that is just one more reason I believe in God.

[The Comedian]

Hawking is a talentless hack

I think a more accurate insult would be to call him "weak and spineless".

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[fabian]

Unfortuntly, Hawkings is possessed by the spirit of anger towards God. He does not know it and is committing the sin that Adam did by filling himself with prideful knowledge...”do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. We are not to be in our heads but are to live by revelations in a wordless, commonsense way!

[lonevoice]

Interesting article and some well-reasoned comments...at least up to the point of this ping the discussion hasn’t yet deteriorated.

[mlo]

I wasn't addressing your argument so much as I was making a general point to everyone, just using your comment to take off from.

People scoff at Hawking for saying the universe didn't need to be created, calling him an idiot. But their response is just that it had to come from somewhere and they throw God in. This isn't an answer. It just moves the answer an extra step away. If one can say God just is, then one can say the universe just is.

[metmom]

Rather, the renowned physicist writes, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Which came first, the universe of the law?

You can't have a law be self-existent outside of the universe. It's a property of the universe, not the cause of it.

[pnh102]

But their response is just that it had to come from somewhere and they throw God in. This isn't an answer.

The difference between what I said and what Hawking says is that I state very clearly that this is a belief. On the other hand, Hawking and others like him present their own unscientific personal beliefs as facts.

If one can say God just is, then one can say the universe just is.

Exactly. This just shows that this question is beyond the scope of science. Hawking is deceiving people by presenting his own personal beliefs as science.

[metmom]

Thanks for the ping.

Hawkings has been thinking too much and needs to give his brain a rest. It’s getting fried.

[metmom]

If one can say God just is, then one can say the universe just is.

Not really. Red shift has shown a beginning, therefore there are limits to the size of the universe. It's material. God isn't.

If God is outside the universe, then it isn't exactly the same thing with just one more step added.

Believing that the universe just is and excluding God is just one step removed in the other direction.

In the end, whether you beleive in God and the universe or just the universe, it's all philosophical and taken by faith. In that way scientists and atheists are no different than the believers they dis.

[itsahoot]

Hawking is an industry, we have no clue whose writings are being published, as long as he is alive someone will continue making money publishing what ever they want. We have absolutely no way of knowing if any of the thoughts are his. Sort of like guided writing used by wishful thinking parents if comatose children.

Sort of like using a picture of Billy Maze in the background of a commercial, to make the other guy look more believable.

[Erasmus]

If the class had been in philosophy, you would probably have gotten an ‘A.’

‘Specially if you'd quoted Nietzsche.

[E8crossE8]

This thread is weaving in and out of different topics. I’ll leave all but one alone: the absurd claim that “relativity is a scam.”

I am motivated to write something because I strongly believe in the conservative cause, and I don’t want to see this cause damaged by the appearance of flat earth-type nonsense on Free Republic, which is an embarrassment. We must vote Obama’s enablers in Congress out of office in November, and can use all the support we can get. When nonsense regarding established, entirely non-controversial (frankly, baby level) physics appears uncontested on Free Republic, the job of gaining converts to conservatism is made much more difficult.

No, “relativity” is not a “scam.” Although it is not possible to properly and fully explain this topic in a brief posting in a blog, especially without mathematical equations, there are a few things that can be pointed out. Specific predictions of special relativity are confirmed literally thousands of times every day, and have been for decades, in the form of the vast amount of data from particle accelerators located in the US and in a number of other countries around the world. These are measured data that are in agreement with the predictions of special relativity, and that are not in agreement with the predictions of any other physical theory. These data are produced all the time at places like SLAC, Fermilab, Brookhaven, etc. Special relativity is manifested by a very specific set of mathematical constraints on the forms of the differential equations of motion of the elementary particles (these constraints are collectively referred to as Lorentz invariance, which means that a certain functional of elementary particle fields (a functional is a generalization of a mathematical function) known as the Lagrangian density, transforms covariantly under the application of arbitrary elements of the Lorentz group – equivalently, that the action transforms invariantly. “Covariant” transformation refers to the tensor structure of the elementary particle fields upon which the Lagrangian density depends, which is beyond the scope of this post.). One calculates from the solutions to these equations of motion various physical quantities of interest, such as scattering amplitudes, distributions of energy with respect to time and angle, particle decay widths and many others quantities. In particular, the lifetimes of literally hundreds of identified resonances and particles are calculable, and these predictions of special relativity are all in accord with the measured results (actually, to be technically precise, the data are in accord with the predictions of what is called “quantum field theory,” which is a self-consistent melding together of special relativity and quantum mechanics. The predictions of one quantum field theory in particular, quantum electrodynamics, provide closer agreement with experiment – to many decimal places – than any other physical theory thus far developed.) General relativity is likewise manifested by a very specific set of mathematical constraints, collectively referred to as Poincare invariance. Analogously to Lorentz invariance in special relativity, Poincare invariance means that the underlying Lagrangian density (now including dependence on the gravitational field) transforms in a specified way under application of arbitrary elements of the Poincare group (which contains the Lorentz group as a subgroup, hence the names “special” and “general.”) Over the years literally millions of data points have been accumulated that are in agreement with the predictions of special relativity. There is less data available with which to assess the predictions of general relativity (for practical reasons that are well understood, related to the differences between experimental astronomy and cosmology versus experimental particle physics), but there are a number of experimental confirmations of the predictions of general relativity that are not explained by any physical theory other than general relativity. I will not take the time or space to enumerate these, but I will only mention the famous prediction of the shift of the perihelion of Mercury, which decades ago was the first experimental result found to be in agreement with general relativity (and in disagreement with non-general relativistic gravitational theory). Regarding those confirmations that I am not taking the time to list here, there is MUCH more explanation of the agreement between theoretical predictions of relativity and experimental results provided in a clearly written book (“Was Einstein right?”) by Professor Clifford Will. Cliff wrote this book for a popular audience many years ago in an attempt to fight the spread of flat earth-type nonsense. The contents of that book have been supplemented by much more experimental confirmation since its publication almost 25 years ago.

VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT IN NOVEMBER.

[metmom]

I am motivated to write something because I strongly believe in the conservative cause, and I don’t want to see this cause damaged by the appearance of flat earth-type nonsense on Free Republic, which is an embarrassment.

This thread was doing just fine without the cr@p that evos have to add about *flat-earthers* every time someone expresses an opinion about science that doesn't agree with theirs.

You're just trolling for trouble with that kind of rhetoric.

BTW, paragraphs are your friend, noob. If you think that people are going to read through that poorly written, rambling post without paragraphs, you need to think again. And, FWIW, don't try to convince yourself that people aren't going to read it because they're *anti-science* We're just anti-poor grammar.

E8crossE8

Since Jun 15, 2010

[wendy1946]

No, “relativity” is not a “scam.”

Yeah it is. Relativity was never based on anything better than "thought experiments(TM)" and thought experiments turn out not to be much of a basis for physics. Einstein was doing the same sort of thing which the scholastics were trying to do in the middle ages with their ontological proof of God's existence, i.e. arguing from the realm of metaphysics into the realm of real things. It doesn't work.

[Condor51]

You really -- REALLY -- need to reformat that and add *more* paragraphs.

I did try to read it and couldn't. That third one made my eyes blur.

[editor-surveyor]

Let us never forget that the idea of a “flat Earth” theory was invented by the same idiots that embraced Darwin and his now disproven ‘theory,’ the school teachers.

All the ancient writings supported a spherical Earth, especially the Bible.
.

[aruanan]

All the ancient writings supported a spherical Earth, especially the Bible.

More accurately: Many ancient writings supported a spherical Earth, and perhaps the Bible, as well.

[editor-surveyor]

> “ I admire anyone who can endure what he has endured and lead not only a productive and reasonably happy life, but one that is more productive and happy than most lives.”

.
Where did you get the idea that Hawking is in any way happy?

He is a combative, and agressive man, that seeks to dismiss all of the basic elements of happiness and stability.