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. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.Another genius once again reaffirms Romans chapter 1 verse 22 which says "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." Interestingly enough, this verse is immediately preceded by this thought from verse 20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." And now, the upper echelon of academia are using "what has been made" to claim there is no God.
But I digress. It is not my intention to point out Mr. Hawking's logical fallacy by way of the Bible. Let us suppose, for a moment, that Mr. Hawking is correct: The mere existence of "a law such as gravity" does enable the universe to create ex nihilo (out of nothing). From the back of the classroom my had tentatively rises into the air. "Mr. Hawking?" I say hesitantly. "I don't mean to be rude, and I hope this isn't a dumb question but... If that's the case, where did the law of gravity come from?"
If Mr. Hawking is to be believed then there is an inherent organization to the universe which is in direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. All nature moves to a point of equilibrium by way of entropy. It does not move to an imbalance such as suddenly creating matter out of nothing by way of the laws of gravity. A further expedition into this theory reveals that it stems for the concept that the state of energy in the universe is a net of zero. Gravity is negative energy and the energy of motion is positive. In its simplest form, the theory states that, in a vacuum, the combination of these two energies can spontaneously create protons. The problem that I have yet to see answered is that gravity requires mass and, if Einstein is correct, E=MC2 means that energy has mass so once again, we don't have creation ex niliho, we have gravity (reliant on mass) and energy (also reliant on some type of mass) creating other mass. Mass, energy, gravity, even a vacuum had to have some beginning. Any law or energy or even location that exists that might allow for the universe to "create itself" must have been designed by an intelligent architect.
Sorry, once again, I've digressed. I would ask Mr. Hawking where the space in which the universe created itself and the time used to measure it came from, but I believe I know his answer. And this is where he takes his true leap of faith.
You see, Mr. Hawking believes in what is known as a "multiverse." What is a "multiverse?" It is a completely unscientific untestable unprovable theory that our universe is simply one of many universes, either connected or parallel, in which life may exist and the laws of physics may differ. (I'm not making this up.) The M-theory (as it's occasionally called) allows for such a monumentally massive incomprehensibly immense number of galaxies, solar systems, and planets that the law of large numbers makes Earth and the life therein likely and trivial instead of statistically improbable and precious.
One other point I wanted to make is that in the quote Mr. Hawking states "the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. (Emphasis added)" If the universe will create itself from nothing why, in the history of mankind, have we not seen this occur. It has not been seen in nature, space, or the lab. Why did the universe create from nothing for such an extensive period of time to ensure that there was enough matter to fill the universe as we know it and then suddenly decide it was done creating?
So why is it more acceptable, perhaps more fashionable, to place one's faith in the M-theory for which there isn't even experiential anecdotal evidence rather than placing that faith in a purposeful intelligent creator deity? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Hawking?
6 comments:
Hawking is the leading mind on physics in the world, ever. No fool. And he never claims there is no god. His claims that there is no need for a creator based on the fact that universes just explode out of nothing essentially, and everything... sort of creates itself. Great program on Tom Ashbrook's On Point from last week - you should download it! If Gen 1.1 says In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, then one could conclude that before that, there was nothing, and therefore, everything did come from nothing. It is more fashionable to put faith in M theory because it's not a fairy tale asking you to put your faith in sky gods and monsters from hell - do you get that? Belief in gods means a whole system of real belief in real things that, on their face, are purely fantasy, so it's no easy task to make sense of gods when you have no point of reference from the natural world.
Hi Jeremy. Just to clarify a point... I in no way intended to specifically mean the God of the Bible as the creator deity. If I did then, yes, there are other aspects of that belief system that are included in the deal: Buy one (creator)... get the rest free (heaven, hell, sin, etc). However, I'm just suggesting a non-religion specific creator god and leaving it at that. Paley had no problem with a god that created and then stood back and watched what happened. That doesn't suppose all of the extra baggage that the Bible does. Nietzsche assumed that god was dead. Once again, there is no way that "sky gods and monsters from hell" can possibly be included in that paradigm. I'd encourage you not to limit your view of God to what you know of Christianity. Even if the Bible is wrong, that doesn't necessarily exclude a creator deity from the equation.
The point I'm making here is just that I find it interesting that putting faith in one thing that is not scientifically provable is somehow more acceptable that putting ones faith in a different thing that is not scientifically provable. M-Theory is one person's fantasy that others have latched on to. A creator deity (that does not assume any of the aspects of Christianity that you decry) is another.
Truth be told, I see M-Theory as a fairy tale. How many universes are there? How many big bangs are we to believe occurred? Or were these other universes set into exhistance and motion by some other ex nihilo natural force? Just for fun, M-Theory supposes that the laws of physics in those other universes may not be the same as ours. That seems convenient. But what if they aren't different? How many times were the specific conditions (that we are unable to duplicate) perfect for the origin of life? How many different and unique ways did evolution occur causing vastly and entirely different life forms resembling nothing like what we see on earth? I have no "point of reference" for other universes "from the natural world." I see far more inherent baggage in M-Theory than I see in a non-religion specific creator deity. So why is mine the fairy tale?
As always, my best to you, your wife, and your family.
Well, you and I aren't in physics, and if we were, M-theory (which seems as theoretical to a layperson like me as it does you) would seem more feasible.
It's funny you're trying to point me toward any creator god, when any creator god is jus...t a fairy-tale like as M theory! I'd like to see you get at this from a science angle and not just a faith angle. Let's say I try to believe in any old creator god - maybe an Indian one or a Norse or Greek one - what satisfaction would that give me? Some stand-offish god who creates and abandons? It makes no sense to invest in that just to feel there's some answer out there that I need.
The point is - have you listened to the On Point yet? It's free on iTunes - that universes bang out themselves without a seen god - they come into existence at the death of a sun, and the ratio of non-life universes to life-universes is currently (that we limitedly know of) 400 billion plus to one.
So a little scientific digging I would dare you! And no drdino.com either - get some real science to back you up! Remember, Hawking is not saying there is no god, although I wish he just would - he is saying that god is not needed, which I guess is even worse?
This thought just in: if the only "proof" or logical evidence for the plausibility of a god is that there "has to be" some sort of creator god/energy out there, and you're not arguing anything else, it makes for a weak idea. Agreed? If nothing of any religion has any relevance in the world of science except this notion that there must be a first cause, then all of religion is a moot point except for this vague notion...
Jeremy, it seems that, in your posts, that you are looking for a scientific explanation for faith. Are you saying that science is the only means of obtaining truth? What about history? Historical analysis is un-scientific, yet we use it all the time to discern truth. My point is that there is more than one way to acquire truth. Scientific theory is great in determining observable truth in the here and now, but sucky when it comes to the past.
Not looking for a scientific explanation at all...you can't "feel" your way or believe your way into large truths about existence. It's either true or not true, or unknown. It's the unknown we're dealing with here, and to assert opinions about truth on the unknown doesn't have any ground to be banked on. I'm more interested in the heart of Hawking's work, not making up ideas about faith and then ill-fitting them to scientific discovery.
Post a Comment