[Over]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

My point is, there's no evidence, facts, that backup that possibility. We're talking about a possibility based on onther possibility, none of them confirmed of backed up by facts. It has as much value as me saying that gremlins possibly exist or existed somehow, somewhere, somewhen in a multiverse with an almost infinite time line.

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.

On, there's a gap, more than one. That's what we've been talking about. But i guess we'll have to wait for the book to make any fair conclusions.

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?"

And why do you assume that everything must be created? That's what I meant a few post ago that humanity can't handle infinity very we'll.

We're trapped in finity. Everything for us must have a beggining and an end. A cause and effect. It's hard to imagine and explain an infinite universe, for example, or an infinite creator.

I guess we have limited capacity and "tools" to understand this. Science doesn't have the means to study and understand God, for example. So it can't deny or confirm it, must settle with the current best answer. That might be different tomorrow. There's always paradigm shifts and there's always will be. We're must not there's yet. But I won't settle with a "we don't need a Creator", because science didn't demonstrate that it doesn't need. Saying we don't require a Creator (or that we do require) is, in my opinion, unscientific.

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.

Must because the time dilation is convenient, i'm not saying it's not sensible. But in this particular case, with having read the book, it seems that time and universes we're added without any facts backing it up. You mentioned fossils, for example. That's a more legitimate reason.

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

i'm curious to know how can that be even an hypothesis. We'll have to wait and read and verify and reproduce the facts. Meanwhile, i can hypothise that if Santa Claus exists, them we aren't required to buy gifts for the kids.