Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Quote:

"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Hawking said yesterday that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.' There is also a Webcast available (Realplayer or Real Alternative required)."

Source

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Ig
Posts: 96
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Interesting. I thought we

Interesting. I thought we were only working on a certain plank time AFTER the Big EXPANSION(im starting to hate the word bang).

 I read a bit of Stenger's website where he says the "nothing" is the most unstable thing so it seeks a more natural state...a universe. 

 


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
qbg that is a little

qbg that is a little skeechy man.

Does he say something in the webcast? 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Quote:

qbg wrote:
Quote:
"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Hawking said yesterday that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.' There is also a Webcast available (Realplayer or Real Alternative required)."
Source

 

I have been pointing out that 1) cosmologists have supported ex nihilo creation since the 1970s  and 2) nothing about this hypothesis contradicts physics.

I need to see if this is a change from Hawkings' finite but boundless model for the universe, it may not be...

Anyway, here's the background on scientific ex nihilo accounts of our universe. Atheists trading in cosmological arguments need to recognize that only theist ex nihilo models are irrational... and that there are rational scientific ex nihilo accounts for our universe.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

Ex Nihilo arguments (something out of nothing) are arguments for a magical creation of the universe that violate all the laws of physics. Interestingly, there are ex nihilo cosmological arguments that do NOT violate physics.

But where would the matter come from?

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631

Ok then, where does the energy come from?

As for the source of the original energy? There are several theories:

a) Edward Tryon has put forth the idea of a vacuum fluctation, which is NOT a violation of physical law, as the original source. Alan Guth's Inflationary Model explains the rapid expansion of this energy. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Tryon makes the point that the total sum of positive and negative energy in the universe may well be ZERO, indicating again, that no physical laws are violated by the big bang event. As Tryon writes: "Im my model, I assume that our present universe did appear out of nowhere 10 to the 10th power years ago. Contrary to the popular belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Note: this version is akin to ex nihlio creation, except that it does NOT violate any laws of physics and does not require a 'miracle'.

b) Alex Vilenkin proposed, in contrast to the Hartle-Hawkings boundless model, an initial state of no dimensional nothingness that is overcome by vacuum tunneling to a dimensional state. As per his model, 'eternal nothingness' is an absolute impossibility.

See my audio file on this: http://www.candleinthedark.com/exnihilo.mp3

 

Although you'd be far better served listening to  Hawking's audio file. 

 

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ig
Posts: 96
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Thanks todangst. I wasnt

Thanks todangst. I wasnt aware there was models for Ex Nihilo models of the Universe.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ig wrote: Thanks todangst.

Ig wrote:
Thanks todangst. I wasnt aware there was models for Ex Nihilo models of the Universe.


Unfortunately other atheists on the board are not familiar with them either, usually they hold that matter/energy is eternal in some form, but  this is not the only position in cosmology... I will be surprised if Hawkings moves towards Vilenkin....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ig
Posts: 96
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Didnt he make some sort of

Didnt he make some sort of announcement in front of a scientific audience about a month ago that caused a mini furor?  I forget what it is he said.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The problem with the ex

The problem with the ex nihlio theory is that nothing by definition cannot change into something without something. If nothing were capable of seperating into positive and negative infinity on it's own, then we should see multiple "big bangs". An endless chain of them, though perhaps not in a predictable fashion. And there would need to be something to stop the process or it would continue to seperate 0 into positive and negative through infinity, creating an endless source of energy and matter.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


dretceterini
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Something from nothing

 

 

As a theoretical physicist, I do not belive it is possible for something to come from nothing.   I'll simply call what existsed before the big bang another form of energy.  

To paraphrase Gabriel Voisin, a French aerodynamicist: There is something that travels faster than the speed of light; the thoughts of an imbecile


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Ig wrote:I read a bit of

Ig wrote:
I read a bit of Stenger's website where he says the "nothing" is the most unstable thing so it seeks a more natural state...a universe.
If "nothing" has properties, isn't it "something"?


 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:qbg that is

Voiderest wrote:

qbg that is a little skeechy man.

Does he say something in the webcast? 

Here's another gem from S.H.'s "speach":

“If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was, what happened before the beginning,” Hawking said. “What was God doing before He made the world? Was He preparing hell for people who asked such questions?”

Hmmmm...wonder if S.H.'s God popped into existence or was always around.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
dretceterini wrote:As a

dretceterini wrote:

As a theoretical physicist, I do not belive it is possible for something to come from nothing.   I'll simply call what existsed before the big bang another form of energy.  

I agree (only with fewer credentials).

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

dretceterini wrote:

As a theoretical physicist, I do not belive it is possible for something to come from nothing.   I'll simply call what existsed before the big bang another form of energy.  

I agree (only with fewer credentials).

The guy's stuck in a fucking wheelchair with nothing to do
but come up with something amusing... at this point of his "career".

I take his proposal as nothing more than an amusement and exercise of his brain.


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:Ex Nihilo

todangst wrote:

Ex Nihilo arguments (something out of nothing) are arguments for a magical creation of the universe that violate all the laws of physics. Interestingly, there are ex nihilo cosmological arguments that do NOT violate physics.

But where would the matter come from?

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

Maybe this is just too above me, but this looks like little more then the semantics of the word "nothing".  Is energy a "thing", or does "thing" only apply to matter.  If the latter, then what word can we use in place of "thing" to include energy?  Why would energy not be a thing, as it is interchangeable with matter which is a thing?

 

 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hazindu wrote:todangst

hazindu wrote:

todangst wrote:

Ex Nihilo arguments (something out of nothing) are arguments for a magical creation of the universe that violate all the laws of physics. Interestingly, there are ex nihilo cosmological arguments that do NOT violate physics.

But where would the matter come from?

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

Maybe this is just too above me, but this looks like little more then the semantics of the word "nothing".  Is energy a "thing", or does "thing" only apply to matter.  If the latter, then what word can we use in place of "thing" to include energy?  Why would energy not be a thing, as it is interchangeable with matter which is a thing?

Actually, it does not assume the energy pre-existed. The idea is that a state of zero energy changed into a state with two types of energy, the positive energy associated with particles and photons etc, and energy associated with gravitational potential energy, which is mathematically negative.

The idea of gravitational potential energy being negative comes from the idea that masses separated by indefinitely large distances such that they do not interact gravitationally to any significant extent have virtually zero GPE. If they start to move toward each other under the influence of gravitational attraction, they gain velocity, which represents normal 'positive' energy, which comes from a reduction in GPE, which then becomes negative.

There are many references to this concept. This looks like a reasonable article on the subject.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Argument from

Argument from authority.

 

 

 

 

 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Argument

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Argument from authority.

When did you become a pancritical realist?


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
hazindu wrote:...this looks

hazindu wrote:
...this looks like little more then the semantics of the word nothing. Is energy a thing...

Agreed.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Argument

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Argument from authority.

Just curious, Cpt, could you clarify just which argument you are referring to?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Argument from authority.

Just curious, Cpt, could you clarify just which argument you are referring to?

 

The OP and

 

dretceterini wrote:

As a theoretical physicist, I do not belive it is possible for something to come from nothing.   I'll simply call what existsed before the big bang another form of energy.  

 

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Argument from authority.

Just curious, Cpt, could you clarify just which argument you are referring to?

The OP and

dretceterini wrote:

As a theoretical physicist, I do not belive it is possible for something to come from nothing.   I'll simply call what existed before the big bang another form of energy.  

 

The OP was just presenting a report on a presentation by Stephen Hawking, not using Hawking to support an argument, as far as I could see, and dretceterini was just stating his belief - he made no reference to any authority to justify his position.

So I still don't see how you justify that statement, I see no arguments in either post, unless you are referring to Hawking's presentation - did you see Hawking using an argument from authority?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:qbg

todangst wrote:

qbg wrote:
Quote:
"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Hawking said yesterday that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.' There is also a Webcast available (Realplayer or Real Alternative required)."
Source

 

I have been pointing out that 1) cosmologists have supported ex nihilo creation since the 1970s  and 2) nothing about this hypothesis contradicts physics.

Despite all the speculations about the nature of "nothing", none of this explains how the laws of physics came into existence. The illusion is that the gap has been closing. The truth is we have been shifting the boundary. Ultimately the atheist is in the same spot he was prior to the enlightenment. He has a black wall facing him beyond which requires faith.
 


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Despite

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Despite all the speculations about the nature of "nothing", none of this explains how the laws of physics came into existence. The illusion is that the gap has been closing. The truth is we have been shifting the boundary. Ultimately the atheist is in the same spot he was prior to the enlightenment. He has a black wall facing him beyond which requires faith.
 

The laws of physics are representations of how things work and interact.  They were discovered through observation, and I can think of no reason to believe that matter and energy worked differently prior to humans understanding their properties.

 

 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:
Ultimately the atheist is in the same spot he was prior to the enlightenment. He has a black wall facing him beyond which requires faith.
You may be happy to take something unverified as truth and hold to that belief, but some of us prefer to admit we don't know some things, as that at least gives us a chance of finding out.


 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
hazindu wrote:OrdinaryClay

hazindu wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Despite all the speculations about the nature of "nothing", none of this explains how the laws of physics came into existence. The illusion is that the gap has been closing. The truth is we have been shifting the boundary. Ultimately the atheist is in the same spot he was prior to the enlightenment. He has a black wall facing him beyond which requires faith.
 

The laws of physics are representations of how things work and interact.  They were discovered through observation, and I can think of no reason to believe that matter and energy worked differently prior to humans understanding their properties.

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Even if you assume a quantum fluctuation created the false vacuum that drove the inflation of the universe you still need to explain how the laws of physics came into existence (to produce the quantum effect). This is not explainable. It is beyond the ability of science to do so.
 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:hazindu

OrdinaryClay wrote:

hazindu wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Despite all the speculations about the nature of "nothing", none of this explains how the laws of physics came into existence. The illusion is that the gap has been closing. The truth is we have been shifting the boundary. Ultimately the atheist is in the same spot he was prior to the enlightenment. He has a black wall facing him beyond which requires faith.
 

The laws of physics are representations of how things work and interact.  They were discovered through observation, and I can think of no reason to believe that matter and energy worked differently prior to humans understanding their properties.

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Even if you assume a quantum fluctuation created the false vacuum that drove the inflation of the universe you still need to explain how the laws of physics came into existence (to produce the quantum effect). This is not explainable. It is beyond the ability of science to do so.

Positing something even less explainable and logically empty, such as God, is obviously not a solution, as I'm sure you must acknowledge.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

hazindu wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Despite all the speculations about the nature of "nothing", none of this explains how the laws of physics came into existence. The illusion is that the gap has been closing. The truth is we have been shifting the boundary. Ultimately the atheist is in the same spot he was prior to the enlightenment. He has a black wall facing him beyond which requires faith.
 

The laws of physics are representations of how things work and interact.  They were discovered through observation, and I can think of no reason to believe that matter and energy worked differently prior to humans understanding their properties.

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Even if you assume a quantum fluctuation created the false vacuum that drove the inflation of the universe you still need to explain how the laws of physics came into existence (to produce the quantum effect). This is not explainable. It is beyond the ability of science to do so.

Positing something even less explainable and logically empty, such as God, is obviously not a solution, as I'm sure you must acknowledge.

Belief with out evidence is belief with out evidence.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Belief

OrdinaryClay wrote:
Belief with out evidence is belief with out evidence.

AKA The very definition of "Faith", and why I believe
Hawkins proposes a crock of shit, based on nothing but his own speculation and imagination NOT based upon any known laws of physics.

I remain utterly unconvinced of Hawkins imagination of the
beginning of the Universe.
He might just as well AND HE DID CLAIM IN HIS SPEECH, THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THAT TOO, is utterly unfounded, and again, as an Atheist, I remain unimpressed, unconvinced, and
unsuprised at the amount of speculative BULLSHIT spewed forth by Academics with nothing better to do, AND WHOM THRIVE ON ATTENTION to the garbage they are bound by their professional to spew forth at the ignorant masses AND other stupid Academics that bow in the presence of their Master, or at the very least take as gospel the word of anyone eslse in their brotherhood.

Bah!


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:todangst

OrdinaryClay wrote:

todangst wrote:

qbg wrote:
Quote:
"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Hawking said yesterday that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.' There is also a Webcast available (Realplayer or Real Alternative required)."
Source

 

I have been pointing out that 1) cosmologists have supported ex nihilo creation since the 1970s  and 2) nothing about this hypothesis contradicts physics.

Despite all the speculations about the nature of "nothing",

 

There's no need to put 'nothing' in quotes, it can be precisely defined as zero dimensions.

 

Quote:

none of this explains how the laws of physics came into existence.

That's really not the case. At any rate, if you are really interested, you could look into that separate, but related matter yourself. But I'm betting your not interested in the slightest, and that this is really just a a way for you to hold to some cheap point

 

Quote:

The illusion is that the gap has been closing. The truth is we have been shifting the boundary. Ultimately the atheist is in the same spot he was prior to the enlightenment. He has a black wall facing him beyond which requires faith.
 

 

Just as I predicted.

 

Just to let you know: you're confusing your own ignorance for the ignorance of science and cosmology. No doubt they don't have all the answers, but we've come a long way from the enlightment....

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:OrdinaryClay

treat2 wrote:
OrdinaryClay wrote:
Belief with out evidence is belief with out evidence.
AKA The very definition of "Faith", and why I believe Hawkins proposes a crock of shit, based on nothing but his own speculation and imagination NOT based upon any known laws of physics 

 

This is incorrect. Please read my posts on the matter.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:I'm not

OrdinaryClay wrote:


I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Even if you assume a quantum fluctuation created the false vacuum that drove the inflation of the universe you still need to explain how the laws of physics came into existence (to produce the quantum effect). This is not explainable. It is beyond the ability of science to do so.
 

Your argument assumes that  we need a separate explanation for the laws, apart from the explanation for the origin of matter. This assumption is itself false.

There's no doubt that the matter of 'laws' is a hot topic... can they fluctuate... do they fluctuate,  do we exist in a megaverse with infinite universes with different laws, etc.... There's also no doubt this is a very important topic.

But this does not indicates a need to explain things the way you assume.... to know that there can be vacuum flucuations and quantum effects IS to explain how our universe could come to be... there's no need for a 'second layer'... in fact, that's a theistic assumption.

 

 

"The materialist thesis is simply: that's all there is to the world. Once we figure out the correct formal structure, patterns, boundary conditions, and interpretation, we have obtained a complete description of reality. (Of course we don't yet have the final answers as to what such a description is, but a materialist believes such a description does exist.) In particular, we should emphasize that there is no place in this view for common philosophical concepts such as ''cause and effect'' or ''purpose.'' From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to ''sustain'' a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings, but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world. Of course scientists do talk about ''causality,'' but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one. If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time... According to the materialist worldview, then, structures and patterns are all there are --- we don't need any ancillary notions."

http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Baloney! A clear and

Baloney!

A clear and concise definition of Faith was given above. Additionally, if you bothered to listen to the video, you'd know that Hawkings claimed that "God"
created the Universe.

He (Hawkings) provided nothing whatsoever to substantiate ANY of his Nothingness speech.

As an Atheist, and believer in Science, I don't accept
ether of his baseless claims.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:Just as I

todangst wrote:

Just as I predicted.

Wow, do you do carnivals ?

 

Quote:

Just to let you know: you're confusing your own ignorance for the ignorance of science and cosmology. No doubt they don't have all the answers, but we've come a long way from the enlightment....

Very uncreative attempt at setting up a strawman.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:OrdinaryClay

todangst wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

 

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Even if you assume a quantum fluctuation created the false vacuum that drove the inflation of the universe you still need to explain how the laws of physics came into existence (to produce the quantum effect). This is not explainable. It is beyond the ability of science to do so.
 

Your argument assumes that  we need a separate explanation for the laws, apart from the explanation for the origin of matter. This assumption is itself false.

There's no doubt that the matter of 'laws' is a hot topic... can they fluctuate... do they fluctuate,  do we exist in a megaverse with infinite universes with different laws, etc.... There's also no doubt this is a very important topic.

But this does not indicates a need to explain things the way you assume.... to know that there can be vacuum flucuations and quantum effects IS to explain how our universe could come to be... there's no need for a 'second layer'... in fact, that's a theistic assumption.

Huh?? I made no assumption other then we need an explanation. You are the one providing the explanation. You are the one jumping off to make metaphysical proclamations about the nature of physical laws, which is all speculation based on faith. Just because atheist physicists like to wax poetic about how nature "just is" does not mean their words have any meaning about actual reality.


Jason Tannery (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
HAWKING'S THEORY CONTRADICT ISAAC'S & EISTEIN'S

Refer to the website address at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy pertaining to dark energy. The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’: According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity. As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter. The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’: The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the "cost of having space": that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect.. E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since 0 is multiplied by c2 always equal to 0. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance. Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy could exist even though there could not be any matter existed prior to the formation of the universe. Refer to the website address at: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html pertaining to the law of universal gravitation. The following is the extract of the definition of law of universal gravitation: Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)//r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant.  From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing. 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jason Tannery wrote:Refer to

Jason Tannery wrote:

Refer to the website address at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy pertaining to dark energy. The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’: According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity. As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter. The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’: The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the "cost of having space": that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect.. E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since 0 is multiplied by c2 always equal to 0. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance. Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy could exist even though there could not be any matter existed prior to the formation of the universe. Refer to the website address at: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html pertaining to the law of universal gravitation. The following is the extract of the definition of law of universal gravitation: Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)//r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant.  From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing. 

 

Nice of you to dig up an old thread. But could you the next time you post not post a huge wall of text and maybe break up your text.

Having said that,

Believers are so desperate to project human qualities on the cause of the universe that they do not ever consider that the easier and less complicated explanation to the unknown before the big bang is simple. Just like everything after, it too is the result of a process, not a thinking entity.

I am still freaked out by the thought of all the mass in the universe at one time was all in the same extremely quantum tiny space. That is awesome enough to think about without assigning it to a fictional super hero.

There is way too much after the big bang, as far as scientific observation, and even way more moral objections to such a concept, to think all this was put here for us and that we are special.

No, the universe was not caused by a who, but is the result of a "what". I see no good reason for a "who" to put us on an island we cant get off of, stick us in a home with horrible natural disasters, disease, and allow us to kill each other fighting over whom daddy loves best.

All the bad that happens on this planet and in the universe is just as natural as the stuff in it that benefits us.

I cannot buy into a fictional super hero(of any label, past or present) when tsunamis exist, or the fact it takes a ray of light 100,000 years just to travel the distance of our galaxy at the speed of light.

I cannot buy into a god concept, be it Thor or Jesus, knowing that their are Red Giant stars bigger than our own sun, that if in our suns place, their surface would extend past Saturn.

I cannot believe in Allah or Vishnu knowing gravity affects time, or the fact that I can beat the planet at a tug of war over gravity.(Being able to pull a pen or dime off the ground that gravity pulled it to when I drop it)

Nature, and the universe, with all its destruction and benefit, is far more interesting and filling than the childish myths written in an age of scientific ignorance.

Religion are the clubs of children who simply have not shed Santa for adults.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jason Tannery,you may have

Jason Tannery,

you may have missed the news, but Einstein's theory of General Theory of Relativity superseded Newton's Theory sometime last century, so quoting it is no longer relevant. It is now seen as only an approximation, adequate for much ordinary calculation, but not an accurate representation of reality.

Recent satellite-based measurements have confirmed Einstein's theory to a further high degree of precision.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Perhaps I am missing the concept here. Still, I think that the idea that nothing created everything works slightly better that the idea that something created everything.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The assumption that

The assumption that something can only come from something requires that something always existed, which is indeed as least as problematic as something simply starting to exist. Of course that distinction itself gets caught up, or perhaps lost, in non-linear or multi-dimensional theories of the nature of Time itself.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
BobSpence1 wrote:Jason

BobSpence1 wrote:

Jason Tannery,

you may have missed the news, but Einstein's theory of General Theory of Relativity superseded Newton's Theory sometime last century, so quoting it is no longer relevant. It is now seen as only an approximation, adequate for much ordinary calculation, but not an accurate representation of reality.

Recent satellite-based measurements have confirmed Einstein's theory to a further high degree of precision.

The more I see theists confusing scientific method with some sort of Nostradamus, the more I agree with Dawkins saying that Plato is the most responsible for fucking up human progress with the false ideas of "essence " and "perfection". Dawkins rightfully points out that ever since, religion especially took off with this bad idea and made superstitious comic book clubs based on the idea that a utopia does or can exist if you just seek it.

The goal of scientific method is not to seek a perfect answer, but point to the most accurate direction according to the best data at hand. It may, depending on the issue, come up with a pinpoint answer, depending on the issue at hand, but that is not starting point of method.

On the contrary, religion assumes a pinpoint answer by proxy of naked assertion without any prior data that can be empirically tested and independently verified.

This is why when you see a hurricane path it is never one line, but a range in a graph of a swath. Scientific method should never be viewed in the same vein as an oracle or deity. It is merely a gauge, a compass to point us in the most accurate direction.

The other false thing I often get accused of is being a "know it all" simply for using the words "scientific method".

I am NOT a scientist, nor if you asked me to do a physics problem today, could I remember any of that.

BUT, there is a huge difference between a field, and the tool of method itself, and the two are not the same. That would be like confusing the auto mechanic as being the simple wrench he uses to undo a bolt. You don't have to know how to build a car engine to know what a wrench  is.

Just like you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know it doesn't run on pixie dust.

Scientific method is so fucking simple. It is the idea of following universal steps to insure quality control. Just like a car mechanic does not start by default taking the entire engine apart simply because the engine wont start. The first step the mechanic will take is to check the battery cable and battery fluid. If that is not the case, then they move onto more possible complex problems.

Scientific method is SIMPLE.

1. First you collect data

2. Then you set up a model to test that data. The model itself too, must be based on prior proven models.

3. Then you test the data, repeat repeat repeat, even with blind control groups to have something to compare the data to.

4. Once you do that, you hand your data and model over to independent parties in the same field to see if they too can repeat and falsify what you have done.

5. This too has to have an abundance of repetition to build a consensus amongst the community.

6. Ethics in method demands the ability to discard bad data. If you cannot do this, you have no fucking business in any science lab.

This is plain English. This is as simple as knowing what a wrench is, even if you cannot build car from scratch.

I know scientific method works even if I am not a doctor or neurosurgeon. It works because it is the simple idea of testing and comparing and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

It is why I am typing on this computer. It is why we have medicine and doctors. It is why we have put humans on the moon.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jason Tannery (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
CREATION OF SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING

 

Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.  Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change.  Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing. If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.   Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly put quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quoting Newtons laws puts

Quoting Newtons laws puts your scientific interpretation a few centuries out of date.
And quantum fluctuations can literally come from nothing. Your casual dismissal of quantum theory shows how unfamiliar with it you are.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quoting Newtons

Vastet wrote:
Quoting Newtons laws puts your scientific interpretation a few centuries out of date. And quantum fluctuations can literally come from nothing. Your casual dismissal of quantum theory shows how unfamiliar with it you are.

If you think you understand quantum theory you don't understand quantum theory.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
4 years later, Hawking wrote

4 years later, Hawking wrote a book to push an agenda and claim that we are on some sort of verge of a major conclusive scientific discovery(!!!), and I am still as unimpressed as ever.

I don't think I will be any more impressed 4 years from now, or 8 years, or 16 years from now. Namely, a brilliant scientist had the chance to make some sort of contribution to either science or the public's understanding of science, and instead stooped to more bread and circus shows.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Vastet

Watcher wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Quoting Newtons laws puts your scientific interpretation a few centuries out of date. And quantum fluctuations can literally come from nothing. Your casual dismissal of quantum theory shows how unfamiliar with it you are.

If you think you understand quantum theory you don't understand quantum theory.

Where did I say that? I certainly know more about it than this guy, and you if you're trying to disagree with me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quantum Theory and Gravity

Quantum Theory and Gravity are simply attributes of reality, it makes no sense to say they need something to 'cause them to be at work'.

You would need a major disruption of reality to stop them from being in effect.

According to Quantum Theory, a zero level of energy cannot exist, so there will always be some propensity for action.

Our Big-Bang Universe is thought to have zero net mass energy, when the positive equivalent of mass and atomic/electromagnetic forces is offset against the negative nature of gravitational potential energy are accounted fo. So there is no violation of Conservation Laws either.

The mix of randomness and basic order, ie quantum theory and chaotic non-linearity acting on a massive population of particles of a few discrete, simple kinds, is just what you need for emergent complexity.

No fundamental problem.

Now explain God... you really do have a problem.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Now explain

BobSpence1 wrote:

Now explain God... you really do have a problem.

It seems their explanation simply boils down to "God is"...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris