Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
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.
|
Is this not an example of blind faith? To use some external authority to resolve the problem of origin. I don't see it to be very different to use Hawking or the bible. Or even "science". Unless you, yourself know what it all is about.
I very much prefer Hawkings description, but there is no fundamental difference between that and the religious descriptions, if you don't bother to understand the basis for it. Because in difference from the religious explanation there actually may be some basis for it. However, in this case I suspect that even Hawking only speculate, as you also say.
Most likely the origin problem will NEVER be resolved completely. Not with science anyway.
About randomness: Without random events there can be no evolution. Evolution reinforce and preserve small "good" random events, or delete "bad" ones. The definition of "good" and "bad" used here being that it is reinforced or not. It is easy to start making repeated slamdunks blindfolded, if you for every miss get to move a little closer to the basket. Perhaps by using directions from an audience. And when you get closer may use a ladder.
Real world evolutionary pressure often is more continuous than goal/no goal. And so serve better than scoring or not in basket.