http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=060000&biid=2010090333848
In an exclusive interview, the science monthly Eureka of The Times of London released Thursday excerpts from Hawking's new book "The Grand Design." He asks the question "Did the Universe need a creator?" in a book whose title seems to imply the intelligent design theory.
Hawking`s answer? No.
He says the Big Bang was the inevitable result of the laws of physics, not something explained by the hand of God or coincidence. "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, he writes."
I'm with Hawking on this one. I beleive that everything just is.. Human form has and always will be a reflection of the divine, thus we are the closest thing to creator Gods, but we are still at the mercy of the universe. If life exists outside our planet then it too is at the same mercy as us.
Well, there are two big ideas that I don't think are mentioned here.
The first of these is the idea of "necessary" vs "contingent" existences and truths. In philosophy, these terms refer specifically to either the contents or the qualities of the universe. To say that an object, state of things, or a truth is contingent is to say that ot only happens to be the way it is, and could have been different in another world. For instance, I happen to wear a red shirt, I happen to live in Latvia, and I happen to exist. In a different world, I might be wearing a blue shirt, or live in Canada. Maybe in another world, there are no such things as shirts, or there is no Latvia, or I don't exist. This is possible if these features of the world are contingent, meaning only as they are by circumstance.
This is very different from necessary truth or existence. Necessary things are things that could not have ever been different in any possible world, and would be a feature of any possible world. For instance, most philosophers think the rules of mathematics are all necessary truths- they think that in any possible world, 1+1 must = 2 in base ten. It is a necessary truth. Something cannot both exist and not exist, that is a necessary truth ( an instance of the law of non-contradiction).
What Steven Hawking would be arguing here amounts to an argument that the universe is a necessary entity- that it could not have failed to exist. If he was not arguing this, then he would fail at answering the question mentioned of why there is something (a universe) rather than nothing. So as a philosophical consequence of this, he must be arguing that the universe as it is is the only possible universe that could have existed, otherwise it would not be a necessary truth. And it needs to be a necessary truth, in order to avoid the question of why there is something, since it could have otherwise failed to exist, if it were merely contingent. But this is a very strange notion, and I don't think Hawkings has justified himself in suggesting that the universe could not have been different from how it is, as this is a direct consequence of this thinking.
I think there must be a fallacy somewhere in his reasoning. I think it probably stems from failing to explain why the understood laws of physics, like gravity mentioned, are de facto necessary truths. His faith in the idea that the laws of physics are necessary truths is no different from blindly believing in a creator without having a reason, if this is the case. By forming his argument as he does, he merely inherits the same questions that must be posed to the theist arguing the opposite.
Nice Try, Steven Hawking. (That is strangely satisfying :lol: )
i love you stillwater.
the problem is with the fundamental assumption of all scientists, that the universe is an objectively measurable thing made of "concrete" matter that "exists". if that is not true and our existence is based on perception of said universe then the laws of physics are just lines of code that can easily be rewritten once someone has the proper knowledge to do so. if the founding principle is flawed then all hypotheses that spawned from that principle are flawed as well.
i love stephen hawking as much as the next guy, but he's burned out, he's given his best work already and now he's just rolling around for posterity. and on a side note, Einstein was a fraud.
Quote from: Stillwater on September 04, 2010, 04:29:46
Well, there are two big ideas that I don't think are mentioned here.
The first of these is the idea of "necessary" vs "contingent" existences and truths. In philosophy, these terms refer specifically to either the contents or the qualities of the universe. To say that an object, state of things, or a truth is contingent is to say that ot only happens to be the way it is, and could have been different in another world. For instance, I happen to wear a red shirt, I happen to live in Latvia, and I happen to exist. In a different world, I might be wearing a blue shirt, or live in Canada. Maybe in another world, there are no such things as shirts, or there is no Latvia, or I don't exist. This is possible if these features of the world are contingent, meaning only as they are by circumstance.
This is very different from necessary truth or existence. Necessary things are things that could not have ever been different in any possible world, and would be a feature of any possible world. For instance, most philosophers think the rules of mathematics are all necessary truths- they think that in any possible world, 1+1 must = 2 in base ten. It is a necessary truth. Something cannot both exist and not exist, that is a necessary truth ( an instance of the law of non-contradiction).
What Steven Hawking would be arguing here amounts to an argument that the universe is a necessary entity- that it could not have failed to exist. If he was not arguing this, then he would fail at answering the question mentioned of why there is something (a universe) rather than nothing. So as a philosophical consequence of this, he must be arguing that the universe as it is is the only possible universe that could have existed, otherwise it would not be a necessary truth. And it needs to be a necessary truth, in order to avoid the question of why there is something, since it could have otherwise failed to exist, if it were merely contingent. But this is a very strange notion, and I don't think Hawkings has justified himself in suggesting that the universe could not have been different from how it is, as this is a direct consequence of this thinking.
I think there must be a fallacy somewhere in his reasoning. I think it probably stems from failing to explain why the understood laws of physics, like gravity mentioned, are de facto necessary truths. His faith in the idea that the laws of physics are necessary truths is no different from blindly believing in a creator without having a reason, if this is the case. By forming his argument as he does, he merely inherits the same questions that must be posed to the theist arguing the opposite.
Nice Try, Steven Hawking. (That is strangely satisfying :lol: )
I want your brain man.
My thoughts on this are that maybe not everything is described exactly like in the bible of how god created the world.
like,its simplified for retarted people.you get it?
About that Hawking guy:
Okay,maybe the universe didnt need help to be created.He says that the laws of physics done the job.
Okay,but from where did the laws of physics come from? Did they pop out just like that with "Science" ?
(yes i am a christian.)
And of course, the other side of this is that most "establishment" scientists still hold to the idea that we all believe in an objective God that has to follow rules of causation. Which makes it easier for them to reject and be a 'cool' atheist.
8-) it's cool to be atheist 8-)
I had to read that a couple times, but I think I understand what you're saying. Does that mean I have to believe in some guy named god in the heavens, because I have issues with that. :lol: I believe all our energy combined makes up this god thing, so I guess we all created each other....
And I too wish I had your brains! BRrrrrrainssss... :evil:
Quote from: Xanth on November 23, 2010, 17:35:37
8-) it's cool to be atheist 8-)
cool like coming down with the hiv.
Quote from: personalreality on November 23, 2010, 18:25:17
cool like coming down with the hiv.
The hiv of coolness!! ^_^
Quote from: Naykid on November 23, 2010, 17:41:49
I had to read that a couple times, but I think I understand what you're saying. Does that mean I have to believe in some guy named god in the heavens, because I have issues with that. :lol: I believe all our energy combined makes up this god thing, so I guess we all created each other....
What's-his name seems to think so, what's his name, Dawkins? Giving scientists a bad name everywhere. (Not Hawking, I still like him).
I have no idea who that is but I will be looking it up tomorrow. :lol:
I just remembered, Richard Dawkins. His science is good, his attitude and people skills are not.
God didnt create the universe? Then whatever created the universe, people will call "God" anyways. Semantics mean nothing.
QuoteI just remembered, Richard Dawkins. His science is good, his attitude and people skills are not.
Agreed ^ ^
I think he's an idiot.
well, Dawkins, but whatever.