It was reported just a couple of weeks ago that new discoveries reveal… God did not create the universe, says Hawking LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book. In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday. "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," Hawking writes. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." I am going to appeal here from as neutral a position as possible because I think that each polar party deserves the respect of an objective platform to rule from. In other-words, my goal with this thinking is to search for an end result of truth. Let me start with the article itself; given that the above article is accurate, (I did a comparison of news reports and they are very similar), let me make some comments. I am not a theoretical physicist but I am given to logic and analytical thinking and it seems that Mr. Hawking has missed the point about the argument from Cosmology. The argument is, for those who are not familiar, that everything that exists has a cause for its existence. Hawking's claim is that new scientific information reveals that prior to the "Big Bang at least the law of physics (Laws of Nature) existed to enable such an event to occur. But Scientists majoritively believe, that at the "Big Bang", something came into existence from nothing, even these laws of nature themselves came into existence. This seems then more like theoretical speculation rather than involving causal principles, something from nothing. Logically, Hawking theory is now a contradiction of a causal nature, for even the laws of Physics to exist there has to be matter to adjudicate with. These laws then must come into existence when matter, space and time were instituted (regardless of Intelligent Design or Evolutionary processes). To be forward and say, it is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going, is a non sequitur. The conclusion (God did not initiate existence) does not follow from "the Big Bang is a necessary derivative of the laws of physics" - the conclusion does not follow the premise. Let me clarify more; to claim the laws of Physics are the necessary origin of the Big Bang, fails to say anything about God's existence or his possible involvement in starting something from nothing. It could be (not that it is) that God initiated the laws of Physics thereby initiating something from nothing. Who or what was intelligent enough to "light the blue touch paper"? One of the other issues here is that Hawking, as an evolutionist, postulates from an intelligent argument (Laws of Physics) as the genesis of the start of the known universe. But this also is contradictory, this is not part of his evolutionary worldview; an intelligence claim is that of the Theistic worldview. Could it be that Hawking's latest research might indicate that intelligence was responsible for the start of everything in this universe. Professor John Lennox weighed in on Hawking's theory and in a refuting article wrote the following: But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. These laws of nature are explanatory laws, intelligence constitutes there function and consistency is there perpetual existence. These laws of nature are the how certain physical parameter functions. To use these laws in a foundational manner for theoretical construction of the origin of the universe is to deposit more responsibility then they really can contribute. My last comment is sort of observational intuition that really has more to do with an honest pursuit toward truth. Its common knowledge that Theists are charged consistently with narrow-mindedness, and though such a faction exists and represents too many, there is a rising rich resource of theistic thinkers. With a quick search one can easily find this accusation of narrow-mindedness highly fallacious given the quality and quantity found. A recovery of thinking in such areas as apologetics, philosophy, science, history, archeology, and so-on reveals the multiplicity of studies the theists have engaged in their effort toward sound truth. The narrow-mindedness seems to develop in our social and cultural emphasis of scientism - the use of science single-handedly being the catalyst to unveil truth. As a human looking at the determination and all-inclusiveness of the above argument, the impression is the theist succeeds. Even if the theistic argument was not entirely accurate, still based on their open-minded pursuit for truth it is easier to put my trust in their conclusion. We live in an age of information, but often times this information is still unstructured. Our effort of resolution through theoretical means restricted to science will continue a path of limited postulations and perpetual speculation. "God did not create the universe, says Hawking" http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics, University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/stephen_hawking_and_god/ Extra resource: William Lane Craig, Research Professor, Biola University http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a 2010 Copyright © Mark Elson ~ Elson Group Inc.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
From The Very Beginning
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I appreciate the effort toward objectiveness in which you work towards.
You write in a logical format which makes sense but as the science grows so should the logic.
Science is very dependable because it looks at things emperically. I am not saying Hawking is correct, or that you are correct I am still also nuetral or objective about this.
Cheers
Anonymous
Thanks for the comment... if I could, you suggested that science grows so should the logic.
I think you are suggesting that science grows so should logic grow. I would agree that there is certain "growing" in science, especially toward fields that are more theoretical in nature or their work approaches into metaphysics. There is perhaps some science that humanity just has not uncovered it but maybe a constant with reliable information.
Logic however is different, it doesn't grow. If logic grew that would presuppose it was not logical or less than logic. In-other-words Logic is logic or it's not, anything that is not logical is not reasonable to believe.
I am glad that at your unknowing stage, you are being as neutral as possible to pursue evidence on both sides to guide you to the truth.
Mark writes:
it seems that Mr. Hawking has missed the point about the argument from Cosmology. The argument is, for those who are not familiar, that everything that exists has a cause for its existence.
So, what caused God?
Anonymous asks:
What cause God?
Great Question…
To ask what caused God is a good question but is not a question that makes sense, as we will see it ends up being an illogical question.
William Lane Craig builds the cosmological argument in this manner;
* Whatever begins to exist has a cause
* The universe began to exist
* Therefore the Universe has a cause
To ask the question what caused God presupposes a beginning for God. But by definition God is outside of time and space (being the creator of these cosmic characteristics) God is then eternal, there is no beginning to his existence.
This question is what in philosophy they refer to as a Category Fallacy – to ascribe a characteristic or property to something which it is not possible for that thing to possess - attaching a beginning to a spaceless and timeless God. It is like asking “who is the married bachelor?” or “what does the smell of a rose look like?” They are invalid questions.
My explanation for the Cosmological Argument could have followed William Lane Craig’s by saying “whatever begins to exist”, that would have probably avoided your question but still to attach the causal question to God suggests a beginning which then represents a Category Fallacy.
Thanks for your question!
So when you said that everything that exists has a cause for it's existence, you didn't mean "everything that exists", because you believe God exists.
That's why most theists and atheists alike reject the maxim as you originally stated it, because both believe in at least one thing that exists necessarily, i.e. that has no cause.
It would have been better to just use the Kalam version, or another well-known version:
Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8088)
The question of what caused God only becomes illogical once you've fully defined what you mean by God.
Post a Comment