FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Creation came 'from nothing,' not God: Stephen Hawking
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3

More proof that intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing...


http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/20...2_ST_N.htm

LONDON (AP) — Did creation need a creator? British physicist and mathematician Stephen Hawking says no, arguing in his new book that there need not be a God behind the creation of the universe.

The concept is explored in The Grand Design, excerpts of which were printed in the British newspaper The Times on Thursday. The book, written with fellow physicist Leonard Mlodinow, is scheduled to be published by Bantam Press on Sept. 9.

The Grand Design, which the publishers call Hawking's first major work in nearly a decade, challenges Isaac Newton's theory God must have been involved in creation because our solar system couldn't have come out of chaos simply through nature.

But Hawking says it isn't that simple. To understand the universe, it's necessary to know both how and why it behaves the way it does, calling the pursuit "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything."

"We shall attempt to answer it in this book," he wrote. "Unlike the answer given in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, ours won't be simply '42.'"

The number 42 is the deliberately absurd answer to the "Ultimate Question" chosen by sci-fi author  Douglas Adams.

Hawking, who is renowned for his work on black holes, said the 1992 discovery of another planet orbiting a star other than the sun makes "the coincidences of our planetary conditions ... far less remarkable and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."

In his best-selling 1988 book A Brief History of Time, Hawking appeared to accept the possibility of a creator, saying the discovery of a complete theory would "be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God."

But The Grand Design seems to step away from that, saying physics can explain things without the need for a "benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit."

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing," the excerpt says. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."

Hawking retired last year as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge University after 30 years in the position. The position was once held by Newton.
Whait a minute
can he show show us how one creates somethng from nothng?
How can somehing on it's own accord create itself from nothng? Of course god can do what ever the he'll god wants but he's cuTting about laws just ceating themselves from nothing to get something this seems very very silly
Is spontenous unviverse creation a close  brother to spontaneous human combustion?
Mmmmm
At least he is half way there. He has the "ex nihilo" part down "real good".  (I love that hillbillyism).  It appears to me he has the intellectual gas to figure the presence of God. The problem is if adhering to logic, strictly, it is not possible to prove His existence, only demonstrate. So then these guys say well it isn't logical, strictly speaking, and give up, and reject God. It appears they have not the gift of Faith. More to pity than to blame.
tim
This sad case is in for a rude awakening when he slips this mortal coil.
Any "ex nihilo" argument will always fail the smell test without restoring to a Creator.

Hawking is simply wrong.

No scientific theory explains how matter and energy came to be. Cosmological theories such as the "Big Bang" theory may try to explain how matter and energy were arranged to become what we can observe today. In that one could logically (but incorrectly and irrationally) claim a process absent God.

This is why even atheists who try promote Cosmological theories absent God for explaining the Universe have never attempted to claim that matter and energy did not exist, and then at some point did exist (i.e. Creation). Such folks always say that "In the Beginning" matter and energy were all compressed in one place and then something caused them to spread and organize themselves in a particular way.

The logical failure of Hawking's argument (if it truly is an "ex nihilo" argument -- methinks his incorrect argument is a bit more refined than this) will always fail when we approach it as Aquinas did in exploring causes. All things are caused by something else. The atom splitting causes a massive release of energy, but something must cause the atom to split. Trace any of these causes back and the series is not infinite, but must cease at a First Cause, which by definition is God. Absent Revelation, we can know little more about this First Cause, but still His existence is logically necessary. No scientific theory can explain away that necessity.
Of course, God is immaterial, so Davros is almost there.
(09-03-2010, 12:11 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]This is why even atheists who try promote Cosmological theories absent God for explaining the Universe have never attempted to claim that matter and energy did not exist, and then at some point did exist (i.e. Creation). Such folks always say that "In the Beginning" matter and energy were all compressed in one place and then something caused them to spread and organize themselves in a particular way.

And they even go one step further and make it a cycle, that way, each step is explained by the previous. Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch, etc.
(09-03-2010, 12:21 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-03-2010, 12:11 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]This is why even atheists who try promote Cosmological theories absent God for explaining the Universe have never attempted to claim that matter and energy did not exist, and then at some point did exist (i.e. Creation). Such folks always say that "In the Beginning" matter and energy were all compressed in one place and then something caused them to spread and organize themselves in a particular way.

And they even go one step further and make it a cycle, that way, each step is explained by the previous. Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch, etc.

That is the way an Ann Randist put it to me.  When the universe is at its greatest entropy, gravity will take advantage of all the chaos and bring it all back together.  To them matter always existed.
I'll begin listening to scientists after they have a complete working knowledge of everything on the earth never mind the universe..
(09-03-2010, 01:20 PM)Tulkas Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-03-2010, 12:21 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-03-2010, 12:11 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]This is why even atheists who try promote Cosmological theories absent God for explaining the Universe have never attempted to claim that matter and energy did not exist, and then at some point did exist (i.e. Creation). Such folks always say that "In the Beginning" matter and energy were all compressed in one place and then something caused them to spread and organize themselves in a particular way.

And they even go one step further and make it a cycle, that way, each step is explained by the previous. Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch, etc.

That is the way an Ann Randist put it to me.  When the universe is at its greatest entropy, gravity will take advantage of all the chaos and bring it all back together.  To them matter always existed.

And even supposing (philosophically) such a state of affairs, it doesn't explain away the need for a First Cause. St Thomas' argument works even if you suppose the universe is eternal with no 'beginning point'.
Pages: 1 2 3