Quote:
Originally Posted by Over
Of course not, and that wasn't my point. My point is that science can't deny a God/Creator, because it can't even explain the origin of life nor reproduce it. What I'm saying is that neither religion neither science can't know for a fact our origin, so I think it isn't very honest to deny eachother. Science doesn't know, but it believes in his own hypothesis and speculation, without factual proof. That's a form of faith.
|
But there is a difference. By my understanding of this, Hawking is saying that the physics suggests that it is possible for something to spontaneously be created out of nothing. Pairs of particles and anti-particles arising where there was nothing before, for example. The randomness of fluctuations within that would allow that something to grow and develop, rather than simply annihilate itself.
So, although it can't fully explain the creation and subsequent evolution of the universe, Hawking is satisfied that science supports the idea that no Creator was required.
Science doesn't need to deny the existence of a Creator for its explanation to work.
While you're correct that Science can't deny that there was a Creator, Hawking is satisfied that this doesn't leave an unexplained gap in Science's position.
The faith position that the universe had a Creator, on the other hand, does require further explanation that has not been provided, particularly to the key question, "If things must be Created, then who created the Creator?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Over
So far, about origins, it's all about giving it more time, to make it more plausible, until some answer appears. Now there's multiple universes, big bangs... More time, more randomness, better the odds of fitting current hypothesis in scientific canon.  |
You are correct here, but that doesn't invalidate the position. The argument though isn't that scientists are inflating timescales and universes until they get the answer they want, but rather that the need for a longer time frame for evolution, and the proposed need for multiple universes, are indicated by the current state of events.
In evolution's case the fossil and geological evidence puzzled thinkers used to biblical timescales. The scientific evidence suggested that the world was much older, and subsequent tests proved this to be the case.
In the case of the universe the set of physical constants that we have (that allows the universe to exist and life to evolve) seems to be from a very small subset of what could be possible. Various reasons for this could be proposed, but they boil down to two options: a) a Creator chose these values, or b) multiple universes exist either all together or in a sequence, which allows the current universe to exist as one unlikely instance.
Hawking's point is that if a universe can get started spontaneously, then there is no reason why it shouldn't happen many times, leading to multiple universes, including this lovely one which houses us. His science seems to support that (b) is the case.
Graham