Hawking on God

Considering that science assumes (and I use that word specifically) that there can be no supernatural or divine causes for any natural phenomena, I would be very surprised to find any theoretical physicist claim that a supernatural or divine entity is necessary for cosmological creation.

i don't think science presumes that there is no god, but just states that since there is no evidence it would be presumptuous to claim that there is one, when we all know that there is no way any human being ever in history has any idea as to what created the universe, and we're only at the very beginnings of getting to where we understand concepts like the creation of the universe.

that the claims of the existence of god originated at a time when we had no idea what we were talking about is also a good indication that the theory of existence of "god" is pretty suspect, but besides the point.

I think that modern people should believe in the science of evolution in general, and that principles of evolution, in general, would be at work in other parts of the universe. In general, I think there that our known laws of physics apply to the material-atomic world, which scientists say represents about 4% of all matter in the known universe. But, and it's a big but, I think it's possible that evolution may also have produced other intelligent beings in other parts of this particular universe by some kind of evolutionary principles in general. We have evolved over a relatively tiny span of time compared to the age of the universe, and I think it's highly likely that we are not alone in the grand scheme of things. Lord Martin Rees has suggested that there could be advanced beings using advanced means of communications which we are not capable of detecting with our currently evolved senses or by extension of technology at this point in time. There could be "god-like" beings all around us in this particular universe who might not even be interested in talking with us right now for any particular reasons in general. And I tend not to buy into Hawking's theory that we should be quiet and listen rather than transmit friendly messages into outer space. If they were malevolent advanced beings out there, they would have conquered or destroyed us long ago. In fact, I don't even think that malevolent advanced beings would be interested in us very much at all.

Fidel, evolution is biology.  Hawking is a physicist.  Apples and oranges.  You're making fruit salad here.

Why wasn't I invited?

Yes evolution is biology.

Evolution is one strand of David Deutsch's theory for the fabric of reality.

David Deutsch is a physicist.

Don't forget to wipe your chin.

We're not talking about Deutsch's TOE, we're talking about Hawking.  So far as I'm aware, Hawking does not tie the origins of the universe to a concept of biology.

Please explain this remark.

Ask Fidel!  It's his salad!

As long as he doesnt toss my salad

Physicist Stephen Hawking says God wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe

By that standard, CMOT, we don't know if dinosaurs ever really existed.

i think the idea that evolution is happening throughout the universe is undeniable!  with that many galaxies out there, there is bound to be other planets that can support life, and if anything we know about nature rings true, if it's happening here, it's probably happening somewhere in some shape or form.  there could be thousands of "earth's" out there!  and if there is life it's probably evolving.

also, i think it's quite possible that there have been planets that are no longer around that had life but fizzled out millions of years ago, were consumed by black holes or collided with other galaxies.

Hawking is aware that something changed since Newtonian atomic theory was overthrown after turn of the last century. The Newtonian view of scientist as unobserved observer looking on had to be scrapped with the new quantum theory of matter. Albert Einstein tended toward the materialist view of reality, however, Einstein himself is considered the godfather of quantum physics, and yet Einstein said that he often didn't appreciate the validity of his own theories at the time they were conceived. Even believed them to be wrong at times. And since Stewart Bell, many astronomers, and physicists I believe, reject the materialist view of reality. Modern theories of quantum mechanics hold the view that scientists is an active participant in the universe he or she is observing. And the human brain is a key part of the whole. Our biological brain, evolved over millions of years, is part of the whole fabric of reality so to speak.

 I think Hawking is brilliant, but he doesn't know everything he would like to. No one does. Scientists aren't going to figure out how the entire universe works down to every fine detail by tomorrow or even in this century. At least, I don't think so. I could be wrong and they could end up counting their lucky stars at the LHC near Geneva sometime within the next five or ten. But scientists will admit that they have no real hope of understanding everything there is know about everything in their own life times. Scientists tend to strive toward understanding small parts of it in their life times. And understanding small parts of reality is actually quite a life time achievement for those on the leading edge of scientific discovery. Hawking doesn't know what existed before the theoretical singularity, an infinitessimally small, infinitely hot, and infinitely dense something or other. No one knows why it existed or where it came from, just that space, time and gravity probably didn't exist outside it. Whatever it was.

Your fruit salad remark made me think about what Lord Rees said of the notion that we will probably never completely understand the universe at this point in human evolution. We're just not evolved enough. Some day maybe. Before our sun explodes, I predict we will be forced to consider that precipice, or perhaps some catastrophe which will threaten all life on earth far sooner. Perhaps global warming is the beginning of mankind's precipice moment. It's been a hot summer where I am.

And that is pretty much what hawking is saying.  We don't have any clue, so when someone claims that god HAD to exist to create the universe cause you can't make something from nothing, that is a flawed argument precisely because we don't know.

And i'm not sure if it's that we're not evolved enough to be able to understand the origins of the universe, because it's probably something we could understand if someone just came out and told us, but just that we don't have the kind of access to the universe to be able to really study it and find out.  We're still stuck in our galaxy.  The best we can do is take pictures from inside our own galaxy and that isn't going to tell us all that much.  So anyone who claims to really know the origins of the universe, as those who invoke god try and do, is purely speculating...

That is a fascinating question really. Scientists will tell us that atomic matter is approximately 4 percent of all matter in the universe. That's us, people, the earth and everything on its surface, the stars, galaxies etc. - just four percent. If our five senses evolved only to detect atomic matter, then is it possible that we just don't have the sixth sense that might allow us to understand dark matter and dark energy? Or perhaps we have the biological tools, it's just that our brains haven't evolved for the other kind of matter to register.  What if the other 96 percent of matter in the universe does not react with light? Perhaps cats with their night vision eyes and sensitive hearing could detect it but have no hope of understanding what it is. We wouldn't be able to see it, so that means we could need more than our eyes to observer it. Perhaps we need some kind of high tech device to observe the other matter and energy completely uncategorized and unknown to science so far.

I think you're right. All we can do is be aware of the awe inspiring nature of the universe, and wait for them to discover new forces of nature at the LHC nr Geneva or Fermi lab nr Chicago, perhaps Sudbury, Ontario or Minnesota etc. I think it's an exciting time for scientists striving to know more about everything in general.

I never claimed that science presumes there is no god. I claimed that science presumes that god, if she exists, does not do anything.

whoops, it sounded like you meant they assume it as in they are jumping to conclusions there is no god and that's why they don't see any evidence of it in natural phenomena or cosmological creation.

By that standard, CMOT, we don't know if dinosaurs ever really existed.

I  apologize  Timebandit,  since I immigrated to the wet coast,  my brain has become  mush.  That having been said however, Stephen Hawking's statement is silly.  We barely know anything about the Universe.  We can theorize until the cows come but in the end we really don't have a good understanding of the vast blackness that sourrounds our planet .  Is there a god?  Maybe.  If we could explore the final frontier a bit more, we could get a bit closer to knowing for sure, but right now we're not, so it's best that we avoid absolute statements about the existence of a creator.      

I don't know the words to "What a friend we have in Jesus." But Baptist Minister Don Piper of Texas does. He began singing the lyrics an hour and a half after he was assumed dead!

Almost. I believe that science assumes as a starting point that god does not exist. Or, if god does exist, god has no effect on the natural universe. This assumption then explains why scientists do not see any evidence of god.

Now, this assumption plays out in different ways in different contexts. The topic of this thread is the origins of the universe, so I will focus on that.

So, since we were not actually around at the start of the universe, we make several assumptions that allow us to imagine what it must have been like then. We assume, for example, that the laws of nature were the same then as they are now. We also assume that god had nothing to do with it.

I think this is because it is impossible to test the god hypothesis. The lack of verifiability or testabilty makes it useless, from a scientific perspective. So, in order to have useful experiments that help us understand how the universe was formed, it is a waste of time to think about god doing it.

This assumption seems to have worked out well, in my opinion.

But a single assumption does not support the notion that the same assumption plays out in many ways where all scientists arrive at the same conclusion- that there is no god.

If scientists understand only the majority of physical, atomic matter comprising only 4% of all matter in the known universe, then why would they presume to know what is true of the other 96% of everything there is? For me it's like saying, we've explored 4% of all the water on earth, and we've found no evidence of fish other than Mackeral, Cod and Sardines. Therefore, the only fish in our oceans are Mackeral. Cod and Sardines. Is this good science?

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong so ......

If you are talking about the famous (and contentiously named) dark matter - it can indeed be measured. Not directly, but in the effect it has on the 4% that can be observed. How else did physicists come up with the figure 4% (or the reverse) 96%. The computation comes from the rate at which the universe is (still) expanding - when any self respecting big bang theory would have it slowing down after the initial whump.

As I understand science it deals with what can be measured, in mass, size, colour etc. any of the physical characteristics. God may have not been needed at and for the beginning of the universe .. but it is something of a non sequitor to announce there is no God from scientific findings .... trying prove a negative is a waste of time and rather like answering the question .... "Where is Toronto?" with "Green."

Good answer, but not the answer to the question.

Oh yes .... if other varieties of fish had not been observed - I am sure their existence would be discovered by the piles of fish shit.

Good science would say "therefore, provisionally we conclude that the only fish in the oceans we've managed to explore are..."

At no point would it be good science to say "... and we also believe in a talking fish that walks on little legs and comes in rainbow colours, though admittedly nobody has seen this fish because this fish does not wish to be seen, and honestly, we're not worthy anyway".

I think that good science would say something like this. We know of three kinds of fish after looking at only four percent of water. Therefore, we expect to find all kinds of living things from here on out, and especially after we learn how to swim and hold our breath under water for minutes at a time.

i don't know if the fish comparison is apt in this case fidel.  science wouldn't come to that conclusion using that language at all.   I mean, we just found new deepwater species, but we don't then conclude that mermaids or sea monsters might exist, and that is the equivalent to what the god argument is saying.  in fact they say "who knows what else is out there, let's keep looking."

for the god argument: sure, it's by some far out definition possible, but it is nevertheless implausible and highly unlikely given what we do know about our planet,  the universe, and what we know about the origins of the idea of gods.  by your definition, we would have to take into account every single ridiculous idea with no evidence or likelyhood into science just because it might by some stretch be possible including mermaids and every other thing dreamed up by people.

The point is, science does say "we only know so much, let's keep studying" but your saying that it's an error not to take god into account.  But you admit we only know so much so how on earth COULD they take a "god" into account in the creation of the universe or anything else?  you can't because it's neither an observable phenomena nor has there been any indication that any such thing exists, so they would be wasting their time trying to take it into account. 

i can't think of a rational way they could, seems impossible.  to me it's "where does the idea of god even come from" and all the evidence is people just made it up.  for scientists to use that as any basis for research seems irrational to me.

What is the shiny object upper right in this photo?

who knows...an aluminum plate?  a kite? aliens? gods new sedan? a yeti?

you're going to have to elaborate on what the relevance is to this discussion, which i'm sure you were already planning for your next post!  

But up above you ascertained that there probably is no God and therefore no gods exist, because you've seen no proof. No proof - no god. Is that right?

But what if some race of beings out there were so advanced that they were able to build self-replicating space probes. We might refer to them as von Neumann probes for readability. And those von Neumann probes could be piloted by organic robots of a kind with intelligence levels far exceeding our own. This probe or monolith of a sort similar to the one depicted in Clarke-Kubrick's 2001: Space Odyssey, come and go from earth for a long time. Maybe they were here since apes first descended from trees and began foraging around. These probes hang around, just like in Arthur C. Clarke's story, since the dawn of man and waiting for us to make a move toward, say, the moon. At that point, they realize we're serious and send a message back to whatever or whoever created them, and perhaps their own gods who created the intelligent probes millions of years ago, will decide to wait a few thousand more years when we may or may not survive our own technological adolescence.

It's just a theory. A long shot. And remember, you have no proof for or against this wild-eyed theory of alien probes visiting earth whatsoever as you've admitted already.

And all I have, really, is that photo above as circumstantial physical evidence. And maybe there are hundreds of hours of recorded radar as physical evidence. And maybe there are tens of thousands of eye witnesses alive today who've seen similar things with the naked eye. And perhaps there are massive international government cover-ups of even more physical evidence kept from the public since, say, 1947. And that's all though. It's your dearth of evidence in contrast with my circumstantial evidence for, plus dozens of ancient cultures around the world claiming silly connections with the stars for a long time. But that's all. It's flimsy evidence really. Afterall, we are lords of atomic matter and all we survey, that four percent of everything there is. Surely any empiricist worth his weight in carbon atoms would demand real, measurable, tangible proof before jumping to any conclusions. There will be no leaps of faith in this thread. Not today. If a god makes no noise nor interferes in our earthly democracy and refuses to micro-manage each and every one of our lives daily to the point where we no longer possess the will to strive, then does she even exist? She must be a terrible and merciless god, and we should not want to be familiar with her.

It reminds me of an old Steven Spielberg movie about a five-note wonder in the sky.

Lets get to the real reason we are talking about religoin on a left winged blog.

The fact that we are under a capitalist system and economic fear resides in all of us.

It's the fear that makes people look for reasurence for somewere.

When you tell someone the believes in a God that there is not one, which there isn't. They get all freaked out because if there isn't one then they don't know how to look at the world.

Also lets be frank about what God we are all talking about here. It's the Middle Eastern God that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all talk about. We  are not talking about Budda or any of the million Gods from India.

You want to end the arguement about God. Get rid of the capitalist system and bring in a sytem that makes everyone feel economicly safe.

Other wise you will be blowing hot air for ever.

No open the egg from the large end....No open the egg from the small end... no open.....

by the way how do you insert a picture into your post?

Maybe that's what she wants us to do if it makes us happy, trippie. 

You know what Hawkins problem with explaining god is?

He has a weak understanding of politics. He doesn't really understand how the bourgeoisie propagate capitalsim and what happened politically to all the workers revolutions in the last century.

Do what? And who is she?  How do you insert apicture into a post? Now learning that would make me happy.

If you teach me that , I'll refer to you as God for today. kinda like "My God Fidel".

Eagle Eye Hawking does not know how to insert politics into the the unyielding argument about a God.

Kinda like, "Why don;t people understand there is no God? Science has already shown evolution to be real, I don;t understand... Oh Ill just write another boring science book and then they'll understand'.

[ img]http://www.somewebaddress/Anyphotofile.jpg[/img ]

Note: The photo file doesn't have to have a JPG OR JPEG file extension at the end. It can be GIF. Those are the only two I ever use.

And don't insert ANY spaces in the above example, like I did at after the first square bracket and the very last one at the far right-hand end. If the whole image address is one with no spaces anywhere within, then the HTML interpreter part of your browser will see it as a valid address pointing to a photo stored somewhere on the web, and then display it for you on your screen.

And if this doesn't work for you, don't be afraid to say so. I'm not real good with instructions, I confess.

ETA: You'll have to experiment a few times before you are able to master it. Here is a valid address for a photo you can use to play with. Just append and prefix the address below with [img] on the extreme left end, and append [/img] on the right-hand end.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/foo/scotland1947.jpg [39]

Fidel; you are a God!, Thanx.

My God Fidel:

That is awesome. I just posted a picture at the discussion called. Art's Sake: wherefore Art Thou?

It's to be expected I think. Not all scientists are as hawkish as Hawking. Hawking also said that we should be afraid of making contact with ET' civilizations. He says they could be meanies. I don't think there are any meanies out there with the technical ability to destroy us or enslave us anytime soon though. Of course, that's just my opinion. Perhaps all our world leaders have had their brains sucked out through their nostrils and are now drones working for an alien army of darkness, or something.

Both the Catholic and Anglican churches accept the theory of evolution today. And Fr. Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican observatory, says that the real possibility of extraterrestrial life doesn't conflict with the faith.

but fidel, "god" doesn't meet even that minimal level of circumstantial evidence.  

the point is to me, how on earth can science take god into account, even if you did assume god exists?  It would amount to nothing more than saying

"i don't know, maybe god did it?".  Why not take into account the effect of mermaids on shrinking tuna populations, who knows--if mermaids did exist, maybe they eat tuna?  where would that get you?

if science took god seriously then why bother with evolution, we already have the answer, why study plate tectonics? we already know that earthquakes are a punishment from god!  i mean those are the kind of answers you would get if science took the idea of gods seriously.

i think your taking my point about no proof to an extreme.  I mean, there's no proof that there's life on another planet but i'd still agree it's highly likely.  and if the definition of god was: "whatever created our universe be it a collision of elements or a a force in space from another dimension or an intelligent being" then maybe science could use the concept.  

But let's be honest.  when you say god, you are referring to an all knowing supernatural being who "designed" the universe.  

Well as I've mentioned before, there are scientists who are open to certain possibilities that there may be civilizations out there with what would certainly seem to be god-like abilities given what we understand about our own human evolution. The question is, does evolution only work here on this planet?

I think it's probable that evolution works everywhere else in the universe as do Catholic and Anglican Churches today. That in itself requires a certain leap of faith, but according to science, it's not inconceivable. I think it's possible that there are sentient beings throughout the universe, and some may have evolved for many millions and perhaps billions of years. Perhaps they have even evolved into other non-material states of being. Perhaps some have learned to travel between worlds or parallel universes, which is a theoretical reality today that would have been scoffed at by most scientists 10 years ago. And the evidence for this is our own evolution. Have we stopped evolving? According to science, we will continue to evolve into the future unless something drastic happens in the mean time.

It's not necessarily my point of view. I tend not to believe in religious dogmas. I am not a religious fundamentalist. On the other hand, I don't hold the extremist point of view that says, this is all there is, and that there is no god or anything that would appear to be supernatural. This is a fundamentalist view of reality shared among atheists of today and religious inquisitors of medieval times.

OTOH, I am not afraid to admit that I don't know. But I tend to lean toward the view that says, we are not alone in the universe. And there is plenty of physical evidence for this view, like that photo of the shiny object in the sky.

Baroness attacks Hawking as being Taliban-like. A real airhead.

http://tinyurl.com/39d6lh9

It's fascinating to see how such an innocuous statement is causing so many people to lose their wigs.

Hawking didn't say "there is no God" or "there cannot be a God" or "I have proven that there is no God, QED".  All he's suggesting is that magick isn't necessary to explain the origins of the universe.

And it's really telling to watch people freaking out about that.

Lovelock says we're too stupid to handle climate change.

Rees [48] says we're too stupid to understand the universe.

okay fidel, but there is a HUGE difference between "god like abilities" such as interstellar travel, inter dimensional travel and the like ( which are mostly theoretical concepts at this point) and the existence of god.  And that evolution exists elsewhere in the universe is not a leap of faith like believing in god, but an actual observable phenomenon.  space is expanding, we can see light from millions of years ago and of course WE are in space and we're evolving so that's pretty good proof it exists in the universe, also we can observe changes in planets that can be considered evolution.  And if life exists out there, it is most likely evolving: most biologists would agree with that.  

but you seem to be equating belief in gods with belief that life exists elsewhere in the universe, and specifically belief that those beings have actually visited earth.  I'd agree it would be highly unlikely that earth is the only planet among billions that has life of some kind, but i'm not so convinced that those forms of life built ships and came to earth, and to me that doesn't have a big connection with the idea there is a god.  As for the subject of the thread, i don't think most people view god as a being from another planet, but the being that CREATED the planets (and everything else) and that is obviously what Hawking is referring to, and what i'm referring to when i say there is no reason to believe god exists.

but isn't the origin of these claims (friendly beings helping with agriculture, seasons etc.) just the astrological observations made from earth?  In fact all the stories modern religion uses are based on these principles.  So for example, the idea of the virgin birth is derived from the story made up around the constellation virgo, or the idea of the resurrection is based on the position of the sun on earths horizon when it reaches it's lowest point, stays there for about three days and then starts rising again (dead for three days, resurrected. a story found in almost every religion that has existed from the egyptians to christianity to hindu religion)

check out this video (part one of three) which explains the connection between astrology and religious ideas: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9f0XU_S78

The cosmic dance of Shiva                          Shiva's cosmic dance at CERN

 i'm no expert on the construction of pyramids...and i'm familiar with the ideas that aliens showed the egyptians how to build them but at the same time there are some pretty credible theories as to how the pyramids were constructed by humans at that time (the hidden ramp theory) so it looks more likely they simply used some excellent geometry and mathmatics and a ton of slaves to build them.  Why are they so similar?  i'm sure there are people with more credible theories than me, but my guess is they were both emulating one of the creators most impressive creations, mountains.

I see what capra says about taking the holistic approach and so on, and the idea that science and religion share some common impulses and are in a way similar in their search for explanations, and i too find a lot of buddhist teachings to be very enlightening and quite sensible.  At the same time, i tend to separate the fact the knowledge and insight is useful from the idea of the actual spiritual being from which they are supposed to have come from.  To me, most signs point to these things being created by people trying to figure out the concept of god rather than a god themselves.  But to be honest i'm not very familiar with the relationship of hindu religion to modern physics.  

I wonder if all the blocks are all of the same density, or, if the mixtures varied according to how the blocks were solidified.

Just an "interesting theory" while correlating a making  of taffy, while organizing the blocks according to a cetrain vibrational organizations?

Cymatics and the Heart Song [55]

I was thinking about the metal staples used to cross connect the stones. Is the sun gate at Tiahuanaco really 14000 years old?

Interestingly enough, the age of the Sphynx [57] has been hotly debated between Egyptologists and geologists. Was the Sphynx created in 2500 BC, or was it built in the 5th or 6th millenium BC? Egyptologists were not happy that their life study was even brought into question by outsiders.

Betrayal of Images" by Rene Magritte. 1929 painting on which is written "This is not a Pipe"

While one might have been entertained historically by a Sun Worship, what value could have been more thought of when considering the effects of,  "casting shadows around the Giza Plateau?"

Plato- Book VII of The Republic [59]-The Allegory of the Cave

Geometries has to have their start in how the lines of distinction are supported by,  and how a line could have been held in contrast to "either/or" as a dualistic interpretation of how that line exists?

"Line of shadow/Line of light."

Were such thoughts historically from undeveloped human beings, or , were the concepts of that cultural thinking never really understood?

It's known that range of species of life on earth have been wiped out by cataclysmic events from time to time. How old is the oldest civilization on earth? Are there ancient civilizations which archaeologists have not discovered?

 Velikovsky's talks were with Einstein  are interesting.

It would be nice if we had some kind of finely tuned radio that actualy could broadcast the past?:)

Ummm...better than Carbon Dating?

Euclid's Window: the Story of Geometry from Parallel Lines to Hyperspace (ISBN 0-684-86523-8 [64])

Was very well done so I suspect given Leonard Mlodinow artisic flare in his writing,  it should be interesting to see what the two of them come up with.

So, perhaps Stephen Hawking simply meant that science had formulated a complete theoretical model for the origin of the universe, and that that model (obviously) made no reference to god.

If that is the case, that would be quite interesting. Far more interesting than any final purge of the god of the gaps.

And here is a helpful page on metaphysics [67]

Larry Krauss once said that, "I am an atheist, but..." He's very interesting to listen to and entertaining at the same time.

I guess in a sense we are all speculating as to the substance of the book Grand Design, as Pants of Dog said, it might be  theoretical modeling that does not require God? You would be hard pressed not to see that part of science has christened other parts of the theoretical as religious in context anyway.

Theoretical abstraction mathematically is no different then seeking to understand the geometrical as a distillate of the substance of the reality and working from that perspective you had to understand that science progresses in this way.

Salvadori Dali may of help to send that geometric to a God like status in his painting of Jesus hanging on the cross. You had to know what the cross represented.

[70]Cover
of Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions,
from Plato to String Theory and Beyond by Lawrence M. Krauss
Viking Press

See:Book Review: Hiding in the Mirror [71]

Einstein's Cosmic Dance Party

Dual Black Holes Spinning in a Cosmic Dance – Complete with Disco Ball [73]

Cosmic Polska and the mind-body paradox [74] according to Giuseppe Del Re

Cosmic dance of life - Lou Bega [75] YouTube

Classical dancing in Indian has its origins in the Vedas [76]. Dancing is taken very seriously by some cultures. The cosmic dance is also metaphor used by physicist Fritjof Capra in his book, The Tao of Physics.

cool, thanks for the links i'll check em out!

sure we do ... when is the last time you visited Parliament or Alberta?

I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Who said that ?