3 ms·

I fail to see how his reasoning abrogates the notion of God and would appreciate any light anyone cares to shed. Anyone know of any recorded universes sproutin

by all 16y ago

I fail to see how his reasoning abrogates the notion of God and would appreciate any light anyone cares to shed. Anyone know of any recorded universes sprouting out of nothing? Why do multiple instances of intelligent life and mostly consistent laws of physics mean that there is no Creator? It just doesn't follow for me.

danielford 16y ago
I'm also confused by this article. It looks like the last three paragraphs are the ones that support the title, but there's no explanation of why Hawking thinks the last three paragraphs are true. It asserts that universes can occur spontaneously out of nothing, and that the multiverse exists, without providing evidence for either proposition. If it's just the way the universe works, I'm okay with that. But I'd at least like to know why the author thinks it's just the way the universe works.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  The trouble with science is that the further we go, the more you need before you can understand the next step. It's my understanding that the science and math behind this is so complex that you'd need a decade or two of study just for the basics. The alternative is to just not write the article, and that's not a good way to get young people interested enough to go through decades of study. Science in popular media is about recruiting the next generation of scientists, even if that goal isn't explicit.
  - danielford 16y ago
    I'm reaching the point in my intellectual development where arguments from authority are less and less useful. I think a lot of people on hacker news are in a similar position. I need more from an article than, "Distinguished scientist believes X", especially in cases when distinguished scientists start going outside of their field and attempt to deal with philosophical questions. If it involves a bunch of complicated math and physics, then at least show me the crap I can't understand. If I have time I'll work on it, and if not at least I have a better idea of how someone got from point A to B.
    - mkr-hn 16y ago
      The wiki on the Big Bang is probably a good place to start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang It seems fairly well-developed with lots of interesting references.
anigbrowl 16y ago
If you assert something such as the existence of a demiurge, it's up to you to provide support for the theory. That the idea pre-exists modern science and is thus widely believed by default doesn't strengthen it in the slightest, from a philosophical perspective. One has to ask why the notion of a creator is necessary to begin with; sure, we're lucky the universe exists as it does but on the other hand if we didn't need to breathe space travel would be a lot cheaper, so our current form is a limitation as much as an adaptation. And if this being does exist, prior to the universe as we know it, then where? In a higher dimension of some sort? In this context, the notion of a creator is a proxy for our lack of knowledge rather than a positive demonstrable. As for multiple universes, try the number line. Consider how some functions can iterate endlessly upon themselves without falling into an oscillating or steady state. In abstract terms, what you have there is a one-dimensional universe populated by point beings whose only property is that of position, but which can yield exhaustively complex behavior nonetheless. All iterative functions 'exist' simultaneously for all permutations of their starting values whether or not anyone is actually calculating them at any given moment. You can expand this concept to include more than one dimension, or alternative geometries, or indeed any axiomatic formal system, with the one fundamental constraint being that completeness and consistency are mutually exclusive. We could do worse than consider our own existence from a similar perspective.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  None of this addresses the OP's point. You stated your opinion that deity was formed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge (the popular "God of the Gaps" theory), your opinion that one who professes belief in a deity harbors the burden of proof (assuming that that person is trying to prove something to you...), and your opinion that number lines exist (?). These are all valid opinions if you want to hold them, but they don't address the OP's point. This article is entitled "Why God Did Not Create the Universe". So, how does the idea that there are reliable laws that govern the operation of our universe show why "God did not create the universe"? What about the idea that an astonishing number of randomly lucky and successful permutations occurred in the correct succession out of an infinite number of wrong potential permutations, how does that demonstrate the article's title? Evolution is the same way; it's all well and good, but none of it explains _why_ species change, just _how_. Learning how species change is all well and good too, but it is not useful in the debate over the existence of god(s). I wish the creationist v. evolutionist group would just accept that already. I think it all depends on the perspective you take. A religious person would read this article and spend it marveling at how anyone can believe that God does not exist, even when presented with evidence of all the effort and precision necessary to form a world like ours from an infinite expanse of random blackness, where the potential that things would randomly occur so correctly as to create intelligent humans and a hospitable environment for them is essentially as close to nil as possible.
superuser2 16y ago
Do you know of any recorded instances of Creators sprouting out of nothing? You're making an implicit assumption; something exists, therefore it was created by an intelligent being. If God exists, this has to apply to Him as well, otherwise it's equally acceptable to say that whatever there was before the Big Bang is "eternal."
- all 16y ago
  > You're making an implicit assumption; something exists, therefore it was created by an intelligent being. On a certain level, this is true. It depends on how you define 'god' as a concept.

by all 16y ago

danielford 16y ago

I'm also confused by this article. It looks like the last three paragraphs are the ones that support the title, but there's no explanation of why Hawking thinks the last three paragraphs are true. It asserts that universes can occur spontaneously out of nothing, and that the multiverse exists, without providing evidence for either proposition. If it's just the way the universe works, I'm okay with that. But I'd at least like to know why the author thinks it's just the way the universe works.

mkr-hn 16y ago
The trouble with science is that the further we go, the more you need before you can understand the next step. It's my understanding that the science and math behind this is so complex that you'd need a decade or two of study just for the basics. The alternative is to just not write the article, and that's not a good way to get young people interested enough to go through decades of study. Science in popular media is about recruiting the next generation of scientists, even if that goal isn't explicit.
- danielford 16y ago
  I'm reaching the point in my intellectual development where arguments from authority are less and less useful. I think a lot of people on hacker news are in a similar position. I need more from an article than, "Distinguished scientist believes X", especially in cases when distinguished scientists start going outside of their field and attempt to deal with philosophical questions. If it involves a bunch of complicated math and physics, then at least show me the crap I can't understand. If I have time I'll work on it, and if not at least I have a better idea of how someone got from point A to B.
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    The wiki on the Big Bang is probably a good place to start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang It seems fairly well-developed with lots of interesting references.

anigbrowl 16y ago

If you assert something such as the existence of a demiurge, it's up to you to provide support for the theory. That the idea pre-exists modern science and is thus widely believed by default doesn't strengthen it in the slightest, from a philosophical perspective. One has to ask why the notion of a creator is necessary to begin with; sure, we're lucky the universe exists as it does but on the other hand if we didn't need to breathe space travel would be a lot cheaper, so our current form is a limitation as much as an adaptation. And if this being does exist, prior to the universe as we know it, then where? In a higher dimension of some sort? In this context, the notion of a creator is a proxy for our lack of knowledge rather than a positive demonstrable. As for multiple universes, try the number line. Consider how some functions can iterate endlessly upon themselves without falling into an oscillating or steady state. In abstract terms, what you have there is a one-dimensional universe populated by point beings whose only property is that of position, but which can yield exhaustively complex behavior nonetheless. All iterative functions 'exist' simultaneously for all permutations of their starting values whether or not anyone is actually calculating them at any given moment. You can expand this concept to include more than one dimension, or alternative geometries, or indeed any axiomatic formal system, with the one fundamental constraint being that completeness and consistency are mutually exclusive. We could do worse than consider our own existence from a similar perspective.

cookiecaper 16y ago
None of this addresses the OP's point. You stated your opinion that deity was formed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge (the popular "God of the Gaps" theory), your opinion that one who professes belief in a deity harbors the burden of proof (assuming that that person is trying to prove something to you...), and your opinion that number lines exist (?). These are all valid opinions if you want to hold them, but they don't address the OP's point. This article is entitled "Why God Did Not Create the Universe". So, how does the idea that there are reliable laws that govern the operation of our universe show why "God did not create the universe"? What about the idea that an astonishing number of randomly lucky and successful permutations occurred in the correct succession out of an infinite number of wrong potential permutations, how does that demonstrate the article's title? Evolution is the same way; it's all well and good, but none of it explains _why_ species change, just _how_. Learning how species change is all well and good too, but it is not useful in the debate over the existence of god(s). I wish the creationist v. evolutionist group would just accept that already. I think it all depends on the perspective you take. A religious person would read this article and spend it marveling at how anyone can believe that God does not exist, even when presented with evidence of all the effort and precision necessary to form a world like ours from an infinite expanse of random blackness, where the potential that things would randomly occur so correctly as to create intelligent humans and a hospitable environment for them is essentially as close to nil as possible.

superuser2 16y ago

Do you know of any recorded instances of Creators sprouting out of nothing? You're making an implicit assumption; something exists, therefore it was created by an intelligent being. If God exists, this has to apply to Him as well, otherwise it's equally acceptable to say that whatever there was before the Big Bang is "eternal."

all 16y ago
> You're making an implicit assumption; something exists, therefore it was created by an intelligent being. On a certain level, this is true. It depends on how you define 'god' as a concept.