Did God create the universe?

| 34 Comments

According to an advance review of a program tonight on the Discovery Channel, Stephen Hawking (unsurprisingly) says no. In the U. S., the program is on the tube at 8:00 Eastern time.

34 Comments

Re “Did God create the universe?”

Does it matter? The universe is what it is, whatever caused it to be.

But that aside, there’s the obvious question: What patterns of observations are to be expected if that’s accurate, that aren’t if it isn’t?

(By “expected”, I mean logically deduced from the hypothesis, not made up out of how somebody feels about it.)

Henry

Henry J said: Does it matter?

If there is no next life and no Big G who’s into cheap kozmik magic tricks, even fundies will say NO.

So glad we can get a scientist’s take on the nature of God.

Not only the universe but also life. The atheist just wallows in his misguided belief in self-generation and self-origination. “Evolutiondidit” is all he has to explain reality.

Atheistoclast said:

Not only the universe but also life. The atheist just wallows in his misguided belief in self-generation and self-origination. “Evolutiondidit” is all he has to explain reality.

Sorry, but your “Goddidit” assumption has NO evidence behind it. You don’t make a credible idea in science by merely denying one already established.

circleh said: Sorry, but your “Goddidit” assumption has NO evidence behind it. You don’t make a credible idea in science by merely denying one already established.

One doesn’t make an idea by merely denying another.

And before getting to questions of evidence, there is the question of what are you suggesting as an alternative?

What happened and when? How? Where? Why?

What is the difference between things that are designed (or created) and those that are not? (GIve examples.)

Atheistoclast said:

Not only the universe but also life. The atheist just wallows in his misguided belief in self-generation and self-origination. “Evolutiondidit” is all he has to explain reality.

Hi Joe! How are you? Any new publications lately? As usual you’re wrong and projecting … but hey, we atheists are happy with what is, no need for wishful thinking.

“Stephen Hawking (unsurprisingly) says no.”

I watched the show. He made a big deal about the spontaneous materialization of the universe out of nothing, then concluded nothing caused the Big Bang (its just-so). Atheist “logic/science,” (LOL!). In other words cause-and-effect is valid except in the case of the cause of the Big Bang.

Since Hawking has always been an Atheist his conclusion was never in doubt.

Atheistoclast said: The atheist just wallows in his misguided belief in self-generation and self-origination.

Ray Martinez said: In other words cause-and-effect is valid except in the case of the cause of the Big Bang.

If you two find a self-caused things such a problem, how can you believe in God?

You seem to be complaining about other people using an argument you use youselves.

eric said:

Atheistoclast said: The atheist just wallows in his misguided belief in self-generation and self-origination.

Ray Martinez said: In other words cause-and-effect is valid except in the case of the cause of the Big Bang.

If you two find a self-caused things such a problem, how can you believe in God?

You seem to be complaining about other people using an argument you use youselves.

Yeah, been wondering that myself for sometime.

1. No-one created the universe, or

2. God created the universe, but no-one created God.

#2 just seems extraneous.

3. Which god?

Y’know, you can get around that “who created God?” question with: “God created God!” After all, if the Big G is all-powerful …

It is reassuring that even fundies don’t use an argument that bizarre. Or at least I haven’t caught them doing it yet.

Atheistoclast said:

Not only the universe but also life. The atheist just wallows in his misguided belief in self-generation and self-origination. “Evolutiondidit” is all he has to explain reality.

But you accept micro/macro evolution, common descent and natural selection.

Imagine that; a Creationist who accepts the major claims of that which he is deriding!

This is what happens when evolution is accepted: delusion follows. ‘Clast is completely unaware of the fact.

RM (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

eric said:

Atheistoclast said: The atheist just wallows in his misguided belief in self-generation and self-origination.

Ray Martinez said: In other words cause-and-effect is valid except in the case of the cause of the Big Bang.

If you two find a self-caused things such a problem, how can you believe in God?

You seem to be complaining about other people using an argument you use youselves.

Basic Biblical Theology says God is eternal. That’s the claim.

mrg said:

3. Which god?

Loki?

Henry J said:

Loki?

The FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! Geez! Getakloo!

Basic Biblical Theology says God is eternal. That’s the claim.

Maybe the conditions, laws, or whatever that allow universes to come into being are eternal. Saves a step.

The problem with your BBT is that it injects a being or personality or something, which NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE EXISTS.

And, of course, there are at least hundreds of other well-developed theologies in the world that consider yours patently silly. Yours gained its present ascendancy only because Europeans arrived first at the Industrial Revolution and industrialized warfare. I wonder what your theology would be had the Chinese come to dominate the world over the past few centuries, as the Europeans did.

The problem with most of these comments as well as Stephen Hawkings premises :

Something omnipresent and infinite, capable of creating time and space is subject to laws of nature that our puny little gray matter and even lesser experience…has discovered-Right!

Making statements about truisms which MIGHT be fact on earth and then extending them to the Universe (there are rhinos in Tazania so there are rhinos in the Falkland Islands) -Way to go Steve-O!

It is really hilarious to listen to speculation from these short-lived, egotistical beings who cannot even conquer cancer, obesity, domestic violence etc …speculating about the eternal and omnipotent like they are talking about their backyard. It is like a bunch of Pet Rocks speculating about their owners’ bio-chemistry. Unfortunately, it is not only ridiculous,but also sad that we waste intelligence like this…instead of curing cancer, obesity, domestic violence etc.

Convenient isn’t it Ray? It is almost as funny as the scientist who now say the Big Bang occured becaused it spread over from another dimension and therefore nothing caused the Big Bang. Okay.…what caused it in those Universes. It is easy to understand why Hawkings id an atheist. He reminds me of the gay researcher who says all people have a “gay” gene. As hard as manking tries they will never understand. How can mortal beings whose lives are a flash in the pan and whose reasoning is so minute and whose experience is even less, hope to understand the omnipotent, etrnal, omnipresent and infinite? Can my hamsters explain my brain construction? Or can a one-celled organism explain the Theory of Relativity? They say the Universe is expanding and will end one day. What is it expanding into? …the universe? When it ends …what will be there? These scientist make me laugh. They also make me cry over the way they waste their brains.

A new troll. Please do not feed them.

Ray Martinez said: Basic Biblical Theology says God is eternal. That’s the claim.

Okay, so you accept the existence of eternal things as a possibility, right?

I.e., you accept that its possible for things to exist which do not have an external cause. Right?

mrg said:

3. Which god?

Turtles all the way down…

cwjolley said: Turtles all the way down…

No, just the Great A’Tuin.

I liked the program and I think a better title might have been, “Is a god required to make the universe?” To which the answer would be no. But then it might not have had the draw that a commercial cable station requires.

There was also a 30 minute “post-program discussion” on most of the Discovery affiliate channels that also aired the “Curiosity” program. With “well known theologians and scientists.” It consisted of Sean Carroll (for the science), Paul Davies (for the science woo) and John Haught (for the religious woo). http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c[…]ing-and-god/ by Sean Carroll at his Cosmic Variance blog has a pretty good writeup if you were watching or did watch the program.

Lawrence Krauss also did a pretty good talk on the idea of a “Universe from Nothing” which is available on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo (starts about 3 minutes in).

Anyhow… cool that Discovery Channel finally did some good programming with or without the disclaimer. Beats the crap out of a lot of their junkier shows IMO.

I’ve been checking around over on Unimaginably Dense, AiG, DI and other IDiot sites. Not one of them gets Hawking’s point because none of them can comprehend basic algebra let alone the mathematics of general relativity or the implications of multiple universes; or any other model for that matter. So we cannot expect any of the ID/creationist “objections” to address any relevant issue here.

But there is a deeper crassness in ID/creationist objections. They always appear to take any acknowledgement by some scientists – vis. that deities cannot ultimately be ruled out in any model of the universe - as proof of their narrow sectarian dogma about their own particular deity.

However, if one is to admit the possibility of a deity or many deities, what does that tell you about such entities? Why put them in the picture at all? To say that a particular sectarian deity always existed is a childish dodge at best. Why does it have to be your sectarian deity, and why does that deity require the characteristics your sectarian beliefs attribute to it?

ID/creationist objections to and sneers at scientific models of the universe always betray their sectarian bigotry and their profound ignorance of science. That’s what makes every one of them irrelevant.

Mike Elzinga said: Why does it have to be your sectarian deity, and why does that deity require the characteristics your sectarian beliefs attribute to it?

Because there IS no alternative to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You need to getakloo too!

Dang, the more I play this game, the bigger a craving I get for my pasta addiction.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Why does it have to be your sectarian deity, and why does that deity require the characteristics your sectarian beliefs attribute to it?

Because there IS no alternative to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You need to getakloo too!

Dang, the more I play this game, the bigger a craving I get for my pasta addiction.

Indeed; the filamentary structures of galaxy clustering throughout the universe are more consistent with the noodley appendages of the FSM laying out the distribution of matter in the universe.

So if one is constructing models to explain what we see in the universe, why not also use that knowledge about the universe to construct models of a deity (or deities)?

Mike Elzinga said: So if one is constructing models to explain what we see in the universe, why not also use that knowledge about the universe to construct models of a deity (or deities)?

That’s exactly how we got to where we are. Most of today’s main religions originate/date from when we thought the earth was the center of everything and we were at the top of some ladder of animals. So they reflect that. Its sort of like rocket booster width: a decision that was sensible many years ago gets propagated, generation after generation, until it we realize that no longer makes any sense but would be incredibly socially painful to update.

eric said: Its sort of like rocket booster width: a decision that was sensible many years ago gets propagated, generation after generation, until it we realize that no longer makes any sense but would be incredibly socially painful to update.

The Salyut space stations were designed to fit through railroad tunnels. Of course it is problematic to build gear that won’t fit on railroad cars. Ever see bits and pieces of the big OTR trucks – the monster vehicles used in open-pit mines – being hauled down the highway?

I always wondered about railway gauge width. I knew what it was, and its origin, but I never understood why we stuck with it. It seems obviously dangerous to me to put a loaded car weighing 140 TONS, with a width of over 10 feet, onto a base less than 5 feet wide, and run it a high speeds over curves and (where I live) uneven, lumpy tracks. God knows what the largest steam locomotives weighed.

Why would anyone try to balance an arrangement like that over such a narrow base? The track clearance has to be wide enough for the train anyway, so why not make the wheelbase wider? Sure, it would cost somewhat more to build the track, but surely not prohibitively much to add 2 or 3 feet (longer sleepers, more ballast, etc.). In 2009 there were 1308 train derailments in the US alone. Some–maybe most–of those could have been prevented if the gauge were, say 7 feet.

OK, back to God (FSM) and his universe.

Henry J said:

mrg said:

3. Which god?

Loki?

It would explain a lot.

Stephen Hawking said that the total net energy of our universe is ZERO.

Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krause say the same thing.

If you think about it, that is strong evidence that our universe is part of a multiverse and arose in a way similar to virtual particles.

Why is it zero? It could have been any number positive or maybe even negative?

Does anyone know what a net negative energy of zero for the universe really means and how is it determined. I’ve looked and most explanations are pretty sketchy.

raven said:

Stephen Hawking said that the total net energy of our universe is ZERO.

Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krause say the same thing.

If you think about it, that is strong evidence that our universe is part of a multiverse and arose in a way similar to virtual particles.

Why is it zero? It could have been any number positive or maybe even negative?

Does anyone know what a net negative energy of zero for the universe really means and how is it determined. I’ve looked and most explanations are pretty sketchy.

In quantum physics, particles and their antiparticles can pop out of the “vacuum” and annihilate shortly thereafter. Charge, momentum, spin, energy, and other quantum properties remain conserved for those pairs within that tiny interval of space-time.

I suspect you are thinking of some energy level from which all energy levels are referenced and that only energy differences are observable; and that would make the unobservable, non-zero reference level moot.

Some models have our universe emerging as a “fluctuation,” with space-time expanding out of that and forming what we see. Time itself is intricately tied up with space and the interrelationships among particles moving relative to each other.

Time would not only have no meaning without matter and space, but given the enormous density of the universe at that initial fluctuation, time intervals among events would appear to be infinite (remember also: clocks are only selected sequences of events; and any knowledge of time intervals would require the existence of hierarchies of memories that logged these sequences and compared them).

The “multiverse” models come in various forms also. Many involve events in our universe as projections, down onto lower dimensions, of events taking place in higher dimensions.

None of these models require deities of any sort. If one wants to stick deities in somewhere, one then has to decide on the attributes of such deities. That may or may not include any attributes that care about humans. But this reveals the arbitrariness of injecting deities.

Just Bob said:In 2009 there were 1308 train derailments in the US alone. Some–maybe most–of those could have been prevented if the gauge were, say 7 feet.

Thank you, Isambard Kingdom Brunnel and the Great Western Railway.

–W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on August 7, 2011 2:38 PM.

Springboro Update was the previous entry in this blog.

Yet another “Post-Darwinism” is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter