He may rather mean that gravity is not just sitting around but is a balanced part of the nothing, its negative potential energy equaling matter's positive kinetic energy, their sum being zero.
Stephen Hawking's view on god and death
- Thread starter Mrs.Lucysnow
- Start date
He may rather mean that gravity is not just sitting around but is a balanced part of the nothing, its negative potential energy equaling matter's positive kinetic energy, their sum being zero.
Maybe you should have read what he actually said:
It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going," he writes.
Not "there is no god" but "this option removes the need to invoke god".
Oh very clever. You dismiss the first half out of hand and misapply the second. Wow.
Are you serious?
"Going to die soon"?
He was informed forty-eight years ago that his disease would probably kill him in 2-3 years.
I hardly think he's in some sort of last-minute rush to make his name.
Hawking isn't the only physicist who talks seriously about the idea of a universe from nothing. Not by a long shot. Many other physicists champion the idea as well because it's what the science is pointing to. Here are some resources for you:
Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? - This is an article by Victor Stenger which is essentially a summary of a more comprehensive paper he wrote on the subject. I can't find it now, but I'm sure Dywyddyr will oblige because he loves pointing people to it.
"A Universe From Nothing" - This is an hour long lecture on the subject given by Lawrence Krauss.
There is of course the metaphysical issue of determining whether or not the "nothing" that physicists are talking about really is absolute nothingness or merely a pure vacuum void of all matter that is still something (albeit an unphysical something) by virtue of it having the potential to become something else. In any case, the complete absence of all matter as well as relational properties such as time and space (properties of physicality) satisfies the working scientific definition of nothing for the purposes of providing an explanation for how the universe could emerge naturalistically.
There's always going to be a question when science finds that something made the universe happen as to "where did that come from". Like the string theory now, where did the strings all come from? So there's never going to be the final answer only more questions which the religious will keep pointing to "god" that is the one who made it happen.
Except that I have just provided a link to a theory that supposes (and shows how it could) nothingness makes a universe.
So your assertion doesn't stand.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Are science and religion in a winer-take-all struggle to the death?
Works at... what? If science and religion are competing with regards to explaining how the physical universe works internally and with regards to generating practical technology, then science has already totally kicked religion's butt, centuries ago. But science isn't even fully aware of some of the the more psychological aspects of religious life.
What people who say that kind of thing typically do is look at religious adherence figures for different years, note a downward trend, then extrapolate out. When the downward-sloping line hits zero, religion is predicted to become extinct. Of course, it assumes that the downward slope is going to remain constant, which is unlikely. It's probably going to flatten out as nominally religious individuals no longer feel any need to claim any religious adherence, while those remaining in the religious ranks are those with deeper kinds of religiosity.
i've often referred to "the father" as "the embodiment of natural law" out here, and most people either dismiss it, or pretend like it doesn't make sense. but it does. the father is the creator, the judge, or as i like to call him "the hammer".
Um, no, it doesn't.
How does one "embody" laws?
ask hawking.
Why? You think for some reason he's going to explain your claim?
he's reiterating it in the quote in the op.
here...
civil law
n.
1. The body of laws of a state or nation dealing with the rights of private citizens.
2. The law of ancient Rome as embodied in the Justinian code, especially that which applied to private citizens.
3. A system of law having its origin in Roman law, as opposed to common law or canon law.
"body" and "embodiment" are terms often used in conjunction with law. in the above definition it's used 2X.
Not only is he not reiterating, he's essentially denying it.
And the definition you have given is NOT that for "embody".
Let me try again: How does one "embody" laws?
I'm a little dissapointed at Hawking for this, because I think he knows better than to label the concept of a universal consciousness as "the cloudman", but I also have an understanding for his viewpoint. I don't know the nature of his physical condition (life), but it seems he's struggling to stay alive and with that in mind a "belief" in life after death could shorten his life, so therefore he refuses that idea. Good for him, but I also feel that when it's time to let go, it's time to let go, when the fight has lost its purpose. Not that I personally have any wish for Hawkings departure, but maybe he should confront his fear of death and come to peace with the idea that he can still torture us from "the other side".
I know many of you share his beliefs, but believe me, I know better.
well i'm pretty sure i said it first, and i didn't get denial out of his quote at all. i interpreted it to mean that seeing god as "the embodiment of natural law" would be reasonable, while seeing god as a human-like sky daddy is not.
and i would agree with that.
hawking however, is not addressing the holy spirit in this quote. a fatal flaw.
i know, i gave you a definition of "law" in which it was referred to as a "body" and an "embodiment", but apparently you missed that somehow.
a body can be a collection or a group. a body of law, a body of work...
Quite possibly.
But Hawking isn't reiterating it.
So somehow you managed to *cough* interpret "It is not necessary to invoke God" as goddidit.
Run that by me again.
What holy spirit? How is it fatal?
Got it. So you think god is a book. Or are you still missing/ avoiding the question?
THE holy spirit. google it if you're unfamiliar, or you can search one of those bible engines.
it's fatal because it makes him incorrect. in the first part of the quote where he refers to "the embodiment of natural law" which i think he deems as being more reasonable, he is referring to the father. in the second part he deems it unreasonable to think that god could be human-like enough to interact with. that's because the father and the holy spirit are not the same thing. they're 2 parts of a whole. hawking doesn't understand this perspective most likely because he doesn't believe in spirits.
also, the collection does not have to be in a book, or even written down. why would it?
Last edited:
What?
You haven't bothered to read the links given you?