GT, I think I know enough of you through our conversations that we woul agree that God lies outside or beyond the bounds of science, and as such is neither provable nor disprovable soley on the basis of scientific inquiry and processes. I am actually a bit amazed that Hawking feels he can rule out God via science. I would agree with him if he said, speaking scientifically, that there is no necesseity of God for X. I can see that because I don't think science can prove God. I also don't see how he can, on the other hand, rule God out. Also, I agree with you, as someone with a history/theology/philosophy background. I love reading theoretic physics because they are so closely related!
Honestly, I think there is a problem of interpretation here by the media (pretty much on queue, right?). He is saying that an unmoved mover is not any more necessary to explain the creation of the universe we observe, than God's intervention is required to explain rain. He then takes it further and says that it is his opinion that there is no God since that which is not required need not be considered (a reasoning, not a proof). None of the language supplied offers that God has been "ruled out" of anything other than Hawking's personal opinion.
Removing the explanation of the Prime Mover is a blow to many an understanding of the proof of a God's existence. I agree that Hawking has not ruled out the possibility of a God, but he has made a forceful argument against on of the enduring explanations for a belief in such an existence and he has stated clearly that, within the confines of that argument (I did not read the statement as really reaching beyond this argument), the Prime Mover theory has been torpedoed. If a Prime mover is not necessary, then that proof doesn't work.
Theu & Mia, Thanks for the thoughtful remarks. I find it interesting that theoretical physics, much moreso than other sciences, lends itself to conjecture about God. I guess because they deal with such things as beginnings and infinity and other deep things. Science doesn't prove or disprove God, but still when you contemplate deep time, or deep space, it's hard not to make the kinds of statements (both statements) that Hawkins made. The Link .
GT, I remembre reading some of Brian Greene's work a few years ago. I think it was in Fabric of the cosmos when he was talking essentially about 'being outside of the time/space continuum, but saying that is impossible, but if we could, and see it as a solid entity (I think he used a loaf of bread to represent all time/space). Anyway, I don't remember the exact point of his explanation, but it was almost like saying, 'This is what God sees, and why it would make complete sense for there to be an 'outside of time/space' entity. For me, it was an elegant rationale of how God can exist and why science would never discover God. It was amazingly beautiful to me. Now, I don't think Greene was arguing for God, and I don't know about his religous beliefs, but hear he is agnostic. It was just very moving and touching to me on a spiritual level to read that part of his work.
THEU, Greene's explanation was meant to illustrate what 3+1 dimensional space would be "perceived" as in >4 dimensional space. It is a flawed metaphor, however, as the act of perception presumes a time dimension... which is then unpresumed in the metaphor. Coelacanth, relativity requires that the dimension of time we perceive to be contained within our universe exclusively, it is a function of the single entity of space-time. This means that there can be no causal event to start the universe since time itself is coeval. Discussing anything 'prior' to our universe in a linear language is simply nonsense. There is no unmoved mover, because discussion of "before" is meaningless.
yes mia1994, but how else would we describe it? From our vantage point in time we can say there was a "time" when there was no universe even though time did not exist at that point. In reality there was a before the universe began and an after. We just don't have the words to describe it properly, so we use the words and concepts we have as people who exist within space-time.
Reminds me of that time at the Solipsist Conference where we were all arguing over who was really there.
mia, you and Coel keep talking about the terms 'before' and 'after.' Perhaps a better term is 'outside of.' God exists before time, because God exists outside of time/space. God is both infinately large, and infinately small because God is not matter. God's self is not contrained by matter/energy/time/space. There indeed is no language with which to accurately describe this, because God is so far outside of our understanding. We strain to understand God, because God is so much more than we can ulmately define. This doesn't mean that God is completely unknowable, however. God is knowable mainly because of God's self revelation through Word and Incarnation. While God's existance is outside of matter/energy/time/space, it doesn't mean God has no activity within these contraints.
THEU, understand that I believe in God the creator, so much of what I'm doing here is advocating for the reasoning which leads to the conclusion being publicized by Hawking. I should say that I prefer my "fact" to be based on observation rather than indoctrination, but at the end of the day I sit in the 'creator' camp. RE: "outside of", I appreciate what you are doing here, by invoking different imagery, but it fails and not just for a similar reason but for the same reason. Both "before" and "outside of" imply infinite euclidean directionality which extends "beyond" the universe, and that is counter to the universe that we observe. The universe is both finite AND has no edge. There is no "outside the universe" and there is no "before the universe", because both concepts are wholly contained within the universe. The paradox is this: Time can not be "created", as creation requires causality and causality requires time. There is no "activity" outside of time, just as there is no motion in the x-axis without an x-axis.
Ok, I guess I’m thinking in the direction of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and it seems to me that in order for our Universe to be consistent, then it must be incomplete. Or, if it is to be complete, then it must be inconsistent. Or, to think of it another way, if our rule-set in speculating on the Universe is to be a sound rule-set, then it follows that we must have recourse to a higher authority—a higher rule-set that is, in some vague notion of the word, “beyond” our rule-set. Or if we choose the alternative and opt for incompleteness, then our rule-set can be consistent, but can never hope to explain everything that is in the Universe. Either there is a necessary Superverse that envelops our Universe, or else there is an inscrutable mystery within our Universe. If it’s the first of these, then God is necessary. If it’s the second, then perhaps he is not (although still possible, even if not necessary). But it seems to me that Hawking’s theory, as you are describing it, is closer to the first than the second.
If people applied the scientific method properly there wouldn't be. Fantasy doesn't even qualify as a good hypothesis.
there are certain things science, and specifically here, physics does extremely well. QM and relativity are examples of this. Then you have other areas where there is a greater leap to the claim of knowledge. The level of certainty decreases. In these cases more human judgement is invloved in the interpretation of fact. The history of science shows that, in many cases, we are a product of our times.
Absolutely that is true, but the perception that science is flighty (each generation dismisses the last) isn't entirely accurate. Since science has been a real discipline, as opposed to an extension of philosophy, while the next generation may dismiss conclusions... the data is NOT dismissed. Which is to say, that consensus picks a favorite theory from the field of options, but what each generation does is narrow (or define more clearly) the available options. We are zeroing in, generation by generation.
I disagree in that too much fantasy leads to poor practice of physics. When one confines himself to only those things that are known to exist, uncertainty falls away and the obvious answers present themselves.
