General Music Chat

Stephan Hawking (Physicist) proclaims that there "is no God". To make this claim, he presents a couple of arguments, which on the face of them, could lend to a good explanation in support of non-existence of God. However, there are equal counter-points. For now , read on.

The very short of it works like this. Scientists had discovered that certain protons of an atom would tend to arbitrarily appear from "nothing", then hang around for a while... and then disappear.

Just so were clear, "nothingness" is defined as: "Non existance, cessation of life, emptiness /void, space..." just to name a few.

The observation was critical, because it parallels the explanation of the 'Universe-Big Bang Theory, in which contenders of the theory believe that the universe simply and abruptly appeared into existence from nothing. This is the essential key behind the argument, which claims there was no God to create the universe.

Instead of a God, they explain first, by citing the mechanisms of a black-hole, which is said to destroy all matter. A black hole is so powerfully dense, that not even light can escape its gravity...Everything gets swallowed by it and ceases to exist. Where nothing exists, even time itself can no longer exist.

Hawking asserts that God could not have created the universe from 'nothing' to 'something', simply because there was no existing 'frame of time' under which a God could himself exist and operate to create a universe.
What remains is how the universe actually came into being from nothing to something. How could matter appear from nonexistence into existence?

One physics theory describes the universe in terms of positive and negative energy. Negative energy is construed as the 'space' which contains (or better yet, 'accounts' for) the positive energy. In other words, where there is an object(matter = Positive energy), there is proportional space (Negative energy) to host it. In a recent documentary on Hawking, they used the analogy of a man digging a hole to create a mound of sand. As the mound grew, so did the corresponding hole. Note that space fills where matter doesn't.

Science cannot explain how a positive particle of energy can spontaneously emerge from nothing. However, if the universe "appeared" by this unexplained principle, then using this principle, it will hang around for a while and then disappear. Given the vastness of the universe, and the time as it exists, this could take a while to complete.

In a small twist of Irony, as Hawking asserted there was no god, he also stated, " ...Therefore there is no heaven or afterlife. We have but only this one life, and for that I am gratefuL..."

Thus, My question; To whom or what do you offer your gratitude, Dr. Hawking?"

Now for the holes.
1) Sciences have not adequately confirmed how the universe appeared , or that a 'big bang' actually ensued. (Consensus, perhaps. But, no real proof yet.)

2) Time is strictly a man -made concept, and thus its definition would lend no more credence than the argument that God is a man-made Concept. Scientists should avoid this logical dilemma and re-examine the principles of time. (I have a theory about time that will blow you guys away... maybe for another Discussion)

3) There is another school of thought surrounding the notion of "Multiverse". If such a thing exists, that could explain how subsequent universes emerge and appear. But it raises questions about a new set of laws in Physics...which may include "Hand-of-God" engineering principles. (A god could "exist" in another universe, where time prevails equally, and thus that God could operate as an agent (creator) of a subsequent universe.)

4) The definition of existence itself is arguable at times. We correlate existence with consciousnesses, forgetting that all matter exists but not all matter has consciousness. So, that proverbial question: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound. We seem to assign relevance only to that which we comprehend...We have no idea what lies beyond relevance, and we may not have the filters to receive it yet.

In summary, All I have in my mortally lame ass is faith and belief... Whatever my expectations, I'm sure they are rather minor in the grand scheme here ; )

It is impossible for carnal man to understand the things of God. You must be born of the spirit to understand the things of the spirit. God is spirit, Mr Hawkins obviously has not been born of the spirit, so spiritual things do not exist in his world. In my understanding, God created time before the foundations of the world were laid, yet in eternity time shall cease to exist for it will not have any purpose.

It's easy for me to see God in all that has been created. It is far better to ask God to reveal himself to you, if he is real, than to find out that he is after it is too late. A wise man will hedge his bet.
I find that it is harder to believe there is no God that it is to believe in God. But that kind of faith comes from God. In my world, God is.

2) Time is strictly a man -made concept, and thus its definition would lend no more credence than the argument that God is a man-made Concept. Scientists should avoid this logical dilemma and re-examine the principles of time. (I have a theory about time that will blow you guys away... maybe for another Discussion)

I would love to explore this topic with you PaperDog.

In summary, All I have in my mortally lame ass is faith and belief... Whatever my expectations, I'm sure they are rather minor in the grand scheme here ; )

In the end, that's what "all" man operates on - faith commitments - reason being, all evidence is interpreted based on current knowledge and available evidence - as long as there is a future, there is room for future discovery and new theories that better explain currently held beliefs, and therefore current theories will always be subject to overriding and contrary evidence. Anyone claiming certainty to any currently held fact is displaying faith that no new evidence will be discovered that will negate currently held beliefs. This is why Atheism proper, the claim that God does not exist was abandoned in favor of a new definitions of Atheism (weak atheism), agnosticism.

Hawking ignores completely the other aspect of our experience by the way - the transcendent, universal and unchanging aspects of our experience. Something philosophers have yet to conquer - epistemology.

To those who believe in God, time is NOT a man made concept, for time is referred to before man was created. However, one could assume that time did not exist before creation, because time is only relevant within the realm of creation.

Gen 1:5 Naming the light, Day, and the dark, Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.


Gen 1:8 And God gave the arch the name of Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.


No need to continue, but to anyone who believes the Bible, and some other religions that deal with creation, time was in existence before man was created. That is unless the term "day" has no beginning or end. Therefore, to those who believe, time is not a man made concept, but rather a concept instituted for man by God.

I tend to agree with you on this Slacker, but I think for other reasons. In any case, it's not a closed debate in the least. theologians, such as John Calvin, Van Til and a lot of others seem to side with the position that time is created by God.

The reason I think they want to call it a creation of God, is because if one views time as co-eternal, but not created by God, then you end up with contingency issues - and no theologian want's to say that God is somehow contingent on time, or not responsible for the concept of time - i.e., if God didn't create it, or is not the source of it, then where did it come from? But I think it might be a mistake to refer to time as an "it". Seems more like a framework that is imposed on knowledge to make it meaningful.


I've been informally studying this topic on and off for a few years now - mostly in conversations with others and I've looked up what has been said about the topic in quite a few books and works, and while the bulk of them side with time being created, I still have a lot of questions. The answer to the question I think would have ramifications to the Supralapsarian/Infralapsarian debate, and pre-creation decrees in general. Perhaps that is why I have a bias towards time being an attribute rather than the result of creation. But bias aside, I think I'm still up in the air on the issue.

Cheers

To those who believe in God, time is NOT a man made concept, for time is referred to before man was created. However, one could assume that time did not exist before creation, because time is only relevant within the realm of creation.

Gen 1:5 Naming the light, Day, and the dark, Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.


Gen 1:8 And God gave the arch the name of Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.


No need to continue, but to anyone who believes the Bible, and some other religions that deal with creation, time was in existence before man was created. That is unless the term "day" has no beginning or end. Therefore, to those who believe, time is not a man made concept, but rather a concept instituted for man by God.

I'm taking world religions right now haha. I guess I'm classified as agnostic. I believe in something greater than mankind, whether it is science or a God, or multiple Gods/Goddesses. I just have trouble believing in either science or religion. In earth science (also taking right now), they say that according to the nebular theory, planets were created from different gases that over time circled each other, joined together and then collapsed upon each other and because of gravity and heat, a flat like solid matter formed and over time, this turned into a planet. but where did these gases come from is my question. or were did space come in to play? how does something exist from nothing? then, there is the God aspect of creation. where did God come from? okay, God created the universe and all other universes. but where did God come from? neither makes sense to me. so until I find some sort of answer or inner peace, something that feels right to me, I just try to do the best I can in the world and hope that if there is a judgement day, that my good deeds were enough.

I'm pretty sure your all clear on where I stand on the subject.

I pray Mr. Hawking, whom is consumed by his own intellect and made that his god, is able to find Jesus in the little time he has left in this realm.

Eternity is a long time to suffer a mistake.

Dog, I would also like to hear your time theory. I love talking about stuff like this as long as it doesn't get ugly lol.

In reference to the time thing being man-made...I said something similar to my earth science professor and he said I am getting carried away. we were talking about facts. how facts are something that is man-made because we came up with words and meanings for everything. but what if we decided that, for example, a chair wasn't really a chair. it was called a...banana. it would change the "facts". but he said that it would still be a fact because the meaning is the same. told me I was getting to quantum physics, but I don't even know much about quantum physics. but anyway...interesting stuff!

In high school's world religion class, we had speakers come in of various religions and we were able to ask questions. It was interesting how several times, they didn't have an answer or they kept repeating themselves even if their reply wasn't really answering the question that was being asked. things got ugly in that class. even the teacher got into some arguments with the speakers.

Hawkings wrong

Space and Time are tools of the mind

Rest assured, I know less than half of all things, so you can take what I say is less than half a grain of salt. I've thought a little about this subject. We're trying to explain everything in purely scientific terms. Science CANNOT explain religious belief. There are things that have happened in my life and to those around me which may never be explained in scientific terms. We have all heard of near death experiences where people were declared clinically dead, only to come back alive with stories of visiting a place they claim is Heaven. Was this a psychological phenomenom? I experienced the Holy Ghost entering my body. Me, a non-believer at the time, experienced this first Hand. You may scoff until you're blue in the face. My wife took a picture of my son sitting on our patio. When we got the picture developed there was ELEVEN different crosses surrounding him, completely unplanned. When it comes to the creation of the universe science is woefully inadequate in explaining how it was formed. The Big Bang is a theory. What sparked the Big Bang? It's hard for me to fathom that the incredible complexity of life just happened by dumbass luck. Just the right combo of molecules by chance getting together and then start replicating themselves, then become larger molecules, then becoming simple cells, then more complex multi-cellular, etc. No, I've seen too many signs that there IS a God, too many scientifically unexplainable events. I try and look at the world scientifically but it's obvious to my pea-brain there's a force guiding things that science will never explain. Where science ends belief begins. Hawking is a smart dude but from where I sit his science is a jail cell limiting his understanding of the Universe.

... epistemology.

I have often thought about this and here is my triple play on it (It addresses the audience of skeptics) :

What can we possibly bring to God's table of knowledge? What can we possibly enlighten god with?
IF there is such a place as heaven, then when we die, we shall come to know everything about the universe.
If there is such a place as Hell, then when we die, we shall come to know everything about the universe.
If there is no such place as a hell or a heaven, then what we come to know is neither important, or meaningful.
But regardless of a heaven , hell or the void, we can bring love with us, and that makes us important and meaningful.

The discussion about time :

I'll begin but wont finish tonight as Ironically, I seem to be short on time :wink:

First, I will state that I believe all things come from "God" , even those which are man made. This includes time.

I also believe that time, in its fullest glory, gives the necessary context to the vary fabric of existence itself, which includes temporal and spacial presence.
Without time, there is no completed dimension, no progression or evolution, and thus no growth, spiritually or otherwise. We operate under time, yet time is the very fume of our presence, and is the implication which suggests we have permission to continue and that we are dynamic and mobile in a world of matter that is otherwise static. ..hence we 'live' within existence, which lends to our distinction in life. (More on that later)

The explanation of time, when used in conjunction with the big Bang theory, can reveal some pretty startling points of interest:. The bible states that the Earth was created in 7 days. Science states that the universe "exploded outward" and has been expanding ever since.

A few years ago I saw a very special video from some research org, that explained what a day was really like in the "beginning". The assumption here is that "In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was God..." correlates with the sudden emergence and appearance of energy and matter. (More specifically, originating as a dense mass that appeared first and was compelled to explode outward, thereafter).

Given the size of the universe at the beginning, it was relatively tiny, containing the same amount of energy and matter that lingers in modern day universe (of vast porportion and size).

Under the principles of time, as we know it today, a tiny universe, packed with all that is here today, would contain time, as compacted, back then. So, given x units in a tiny frame, and comparing the same X units in a vast frame, it is possible to construe that a day in that tiny universe was the equivalent of a 10 thousand year span in our modern universe. If this is true, then it would make sense if the earth was created in 7 days, that time could easily translate to a rough millennium by today's definition. There is some math that supports this theory (And No I don't know that math...But I did stay in a Holiday inn Express once... ) .

This aint over...But I gotta crash ..got a meeting in the morn...

"Under the principles of time, as we know it today, a tiny universe, packed with all that is here today, would contain time, as compacted, back then. So, given x units in a tiny frame, and comparing the same X units in a vast frame, it is possible to construe that a day in that tiny universe was the equivalent of a 10 thousand year span in our modern universe. If this is true, then it would make sense if the earth was created in 7 days, that time could easily translate to a rough millennium by today's definition. There is some math that supports this theory (And No I don't know that math...But I did stay in a Holiday inn Express once... ) . "

Yet according to Genesis, the time of a day is indicated by the rising and setting of the sun of this world. That would make it roughly a 24 hour day. Now I do not have a problem believing the God that I worship could have done it instantly if he had wanted to, but I propose that God chose to do it as written for his purpose concerning us. So as one who believes scripture, I have to accept the evening and morning time frame as written.