Seriously thoughtful Universe not created by God

[TGS]

There's nothing special about "life" - it's just a form of organisation of stuff that has some unusual emergent properties, (unusual in the sense that most stuff doesn't seem to organised that way, and therefore doesn't have that property).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Over

..

About evolution and randomness... Evolution is all about randomness... And how the fitest are the ones who survive. There's no "force" that selects who's the fitest or in what direction should evolve. And that's what makes thing even more unlikely, because of the above example: with all scientific expertize, it's not posible to make something that some scientists want to make us belive that just happened somehow a long time ago, in a random event or process of events.

This is where you are wrong. Evolution is a process. The selection is by survival -- that IS the force.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Over

And yet, science still can't create life.

They can certainly create self-replicating organisms; your computer is prone to infection by them.

And in terms of life "like ours", they're getting closer all the time:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

They've managed to create a synthetic genome which, when inserted in a living cell, went on to replicate correctly. Agreed that for this experiment they used an existing host cell to provide the environment for the synthetic material, but they've solved the part of the overall problem that they were investigating.

The fact that science hasn't yet solved an origin question doesn't make an alternative faith position any more valid.

Graham

[Over]

Originally Posted by TGS

There's nothing special about "life" - it's just a form of organisation of stuff that has some unusual emergent properties, (unusual in the sense that most stuff doesn't seem to organised that way, and therefore doesn't have that property).

Life is not special - is that a scientific statement?
Anyway, I gave the example of the origin of life because it's an obvious one, "the elephant in the room".

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is where you are wrong. Evolution is a process. The selection is by survival -- that IS the force.

My english skills are very rusty (I read very well, bu writing is another matter), so I guess I didn't comunicate well what I intended.

Anyway, the point was randomness. Unless you come with the theory of the butterfly effect, saying that everything is a relation of cause - effect.

However, I still say it's randomness when you throw a basket ball with your eyes closed and after spinning you around, and manage to score. Sure you can explain about direction, force, how the ball went from your hands to the basket, why you felt dizzy after spinning you around, etc... But for me, that score was random.

The selection isn't a force. The random and respective cause - effect events aren't selected or driven. The force doesn't select who survives, those who survive are called the selected after whatver happened, happened.

Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well, I hope I'm not frustating you.

Originally Posted by Graham

(...)

And in terms of life "like ours", they're getting closer all the time:

(...)

The fact that science hasn't yet solved an origin question doesn't make an alternative faith position any more valid.

Graham

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.

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.

[Graham]

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?"

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

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Over

Life is not special - is that a scientific statement?
Anyway, I gave the example of the origin of life because it's an obvious one, "the elephant in the room".

Well, I don't know - but probably not since it includes the word "special"...though I guess there are scientific stories that include that word.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well that's the point of this entire thread and of the referenced link.

Oh, I must be going blind because I did not see anywhere in the referenced link where SH stated "there is no God creator". (feel free to insert any other emoticon here you like)

If you could kindly point out the line I must be too blind to see that would be very helpful.

All I saw was SH stating that the possibility of there being no God creator does not violate any of the known laws of physics. Or to put it another way, the laws of physics allow for the spontaneous creation of the physical universe out of nothingness.

As for the point of the entire thread.........silly me thought it was to discuss the thoughts and ideas raised by what SH actually said in the referenced link. I did not know the point was to have everyone agree with you that there is no god regardless of what the referenced link was about. As the latter holds no interest to me, I will refrain from responding further to that issue.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by TGS

I guess PKFFW's point is that Hawking doesn't claim to have proved that the universe was not created by god, but rather that there is no need to invoke a creator god to explain anything - even when that "anything" includes the existence of the universe itself.

That's exactly what his point is.

And of course the principle commonly known as Occam's Razor would suggest that as such, we should, in our attempts to progress our understanding of the universe, work from the starting point of there being no god creator. It's a great starting point that, as Graham points out, does not require any further explanation to work.

Originally Posted by TGS

In just the same way that explaining how my presents get into my Christmas stocking in terms of the behaviour of known individuals doesn't prove the non-existence of Santa Clause - but does render the Santa Clause story redundant,

The difference lies in the fact that every known example, without exception, of Christmas presents arriving in the dead of night, can be shown to have been left by someone other than Santa Claus. It is this known fact that makes the Santa Claus story redundant.

Originally Posted by TGS

so explaining the existence of the universe in terms of science as we currently understand it does not prove the non-existence of a creator god, but...

On the other hand, we don't actually know how the universe came into being. And if you take into account the theory of multiple universes, we have even less idea how every single other instantiation of the universe came into being.

All that has been shown thus far is that the known laws of physics seem to indicate that the creation of the physical universe could have happened without any intervention from a god creator.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Something I didn't understand about the claim by SH is the fact that he reportedly states that the creation of the physical universe "was inevitable due to the law of gravity."

I always thought gravity was a property of physical mass. So if there was no physical mass in existence before the big bang how could the law of gravity ensure the creation of the physical universe?

I'm sure I'm missing something here. Can anyone explain it in lay terms?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Oh, I must be going blind because I did not see anywhere in the referenced link where SH stated "there is no God creator". (feel free to insert any other emoticon here you like)

If you could kindly point out the line I must be too blind to see that would be very helpful.

All I saw was SH stating that the possibility of there being no God creator does not violate any of the known laws of physics. Or to put it another way, the laws of physics allow for the spontaneous creation of the physical universe out of nothingness.

As for the point of the entire thread.........silly me thought it was to discuss the thoughts and ideas raised by what SH actually said in the referenced link. I did not know the point was to have everyone agree with you that there is no god regardless of what the referenced link was about. As the latter holds no interest to me, I will refrain from responding further to that issue.

Cheers,
PKFFW

And how many angels do you figure?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And how many angels do you figure?

For someone who likes to portray them self as an reasoned and rational intellectual, you are remarkably rude to those who do not share your point of view.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Turn about. Please re-examine your own posts and attitude.

I clearly stated my position and you chose to pretend you didn't have a clue.

I'm not going to play games with you. And I'm not going to argue with you about your misperceptions.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Turn about. Please re-examine your own posts and attitude.

I clearly stated my position and you chose to pretend you didn't have a clue.

I'm not going to play games with you. And I'm not going to argue with you about your misperceptions.

I've pm'd you so as to avoid derailing the thread further.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Adoby]

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.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Adoby

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.

As you say, it's only 'blind' faith if you know absolutely nothing about the methods used to resolve the problem. I have university level physics (I read metallurgy), and while I wouldn't claim to have any of the maths necessary I have followed the development of these theories as a layman over the years. I know enough about the ideas behind them, and Hawking's standing in the physics world to have a reasonable faith that he knows his stuff. I also know that there are plenty of other physicists who agree.

I also enjoy reading history, and so have a reasonable understanding of how the various world religions arose.

Like you, my preference and trust is in Hawking's direction.

Graham