In their new book, The Grand Design
Why not?
After all, if you look at the universe it looks suspiciously like it has been deliberately designed with us in mind. This is something that Harking and Mlodinow go into in some depth. They point out, as have many theistic apologists, that the laws governing our universe seem finely tuned to allow the existence of life. There are any number of constants—the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, etc.—that are set at just the value needed to allow life to exist. If any of these constants were off by even a small amount, life would not be possible. It therefore appears that our universe has been intelligently designed to allow for life, which implies the existence of an intelligent designer.
In apologetics, this argument is sometimes called the argument from design from cosmological constants.
In their book, the two authors try to provide an alternative account of the universe’s origin that does not require an intelligent designer.
In the account they sketch they claim that ours is not the only universe. In fact, ours is only one of a vast number of universes, all of which pop into existence out of nothing as spontaneous creations. What’s more, the laws of physics take on every possible permutation in these universes, so there are vast numbers of them out there where the cosmological constants are different. So there isn’t a single uni-verse but a multi-verse in which every possible flavor of individual universes occur.
We just happen to be living in part of the multiverse where the cosmological constants are set right for life—which would be hardly surprising. We couldn’t exist, or at least couldn’t have arisen, in parts of the multiverse where the constants are set wrong for life.
This argument parallels one that operates on a somewhat smaller scale: that of our solar system. Some apologists, such as Hugh Ross, have noted that not only does it appear that our universe has been designed for life, it appears that our solar system has as well. Our sun is of the right type to last long enough for life to arise. There is no pesky companion star to mess up planetary orbits. Earth just happens to be in the right distance from the sun to allow liquid water. It happens to have lots of liquid water. It’s big enough to hold an atmosphere. We’ve got our big buddy Jupiter in the outer solar system soaking up comets for us. Etc., etc. All in all, we live in a pretty sweet spot.
But the thing is: There’s lots of solar systems out there. Lots and lots of stars and—we now know—lots and lots of planets. Hawking and Mlodinow point out that the numbers are so large that, at various points in the universe, there are bound to be planets with conditions like those we have here on Earth. So it’s no surprise—given that we exist—that we happen to exist at one of those oases in the cosmic desert. We couldn’t have arisen in a place that was inhospitable to life (or at least we’d be very much less likely to).
I’m prepared to say that Hawking and Mlodinow are right about that. At least, at the present state of our knowledge, I can’t rule out that there are other places in the universe where the local solar system is set up right for allowing life. In fact, I’d like to think there are such places. So I don’t think the argument that our solar system has been intelligently designed is particularly strong. At least that’s my impression.
But there’s a difference between the argument from local constants and the argument from cosmic constants: We can see that there are other solar systems (and a vast number of them); we can’t see that there are other universes (much less a vast number of them).
The existence of other solar systems is as plain as the night sky—once you’ve figured out what the stars are. And now we’re starting to get information about the planets that circle them. Soon we may have decent statistical understanding of the kinds of solar systems that exist and of how common or uncommon our own solar system type is.
Nothing like this is remotely true regarding other universes. We have no observational evidence that even a single alternate universe exists. We certainly do not have evidence of a large or even an infinite number of them. And, even if such universes exist, why shouldn’t they all obey exactly the same laws? What makes Hawking and Mlodinow think that the laws in each one are reshuffled like the results of a cosmic slot machine?
Their book—startlingly—does not contained any sustained argumentation for this idea. They do point to the work of Richard Feynman—a physicist who in the 1940s suggested that, in some experimental situations, subatomic particles behave as if they are taking every possible path between one point and another. But even if you take this appearance literally, it is one thing to say that particles take every possible path as they move and it is quite a different thing to say that every possible universe unfolds. The analogy between the behavior of a subatomic particle and the behavior of an entire universe is about as weak as can be imagined (particularly when one of the foundational observations of modern physics is that large scale phenomena in the universe do not display the same behaviors as small scale phenomena).
I don’t have a problem with the idea that there might be other universes. I think it would be cool if there are. I wouldn’t even have a problem with it if, at moment of creation, God said, “Let there be every logically possible combination of events!” That would only illustrate his creative ability in an even more robust way than what we see in our corner of creation.
But while these ideas are nice to think about—and write science fiction stories about—they are not things for which we have evidence.
And even if we did have evidence for a vast number of universes, with every possible set of natural laws governing them, it would only raise a further question that Hawking and Mlodinow don’t even touch in the book: If there is multiverse with every possible combination of natural laws in the universes it contains . . . what is driving the change of laws in each universe? If there is a cosmic slot machine, whose innards cause the constants to come up different in each universe, why is that the case?
Even if you grant (for the sake of argument) that the local laws vary in different universes, it only points to a higher set of laws, that must be governing (and driving) the differences among the local laws. Why does that higher set of laws exist? Hawking and Mlodinow don’t even venture a guess.
(And we won’t even go into the fact that certain cosmological constants appear to change across our own universe.)
So even if you grant that these higher laws would allow universes to come into existence on their own, we still need an explanation for the set of higher laws, why there is something (the higher laws and the universes that they entail) rather than the nothing that would be if they didn’t exist.
When all is said and done, it still looks like our universe was designed for life to exist. Conjecturing the existence of other universes with every possible combination of laws amounts to building your case with evidence you don’t have.
If I were walking along a beach and found a message written in the sand—say, “Hi, Jimmy! Isn’t the beach fun?”—I could explain it as something written by an intelligent being. Or, if I postulate an infinite number of other beaches where the grains of sand are arranged randomly, I could say it was just coincidence. The problem is that I don’t have evidence for the existence of an infinite number of beaches, and to conjecture them to get around the implication of intelligent design is to build one’s case with non-evidence.
Hawking and Mlodinow deny that they’re postulating a multiverse just to avoid intelligent design, but they don’t offer any sustained arguments for its existence. Nor do they explain the higher set of laws that would be needed to generate a multiplicity of universes with their own local laws.
Ultimately The Grand Design is long on assertion and short on argument. The authors also fail to inform the reader of just how tentative, hypothetical, and debatable a lot of the concepts they are using are.
While the book may try to get across concepts in physics that are deep, its reasoning on philosophy and theology are shallow, and the book fails to offer convincing reasons why we should not take the apparent intelligent design of the universe at face value and conclude that there is, indeed, an Intelligent Designer.
Comments
Post a Comment
I also have no problem with the idea that there are stars in the universe that also have planets. I do have a problem with the “evidence” of specific examples. There are a few cases in which we have actually observed the presence of a planet on another star but just a couple. However, the vast majority of these proposed planets have not been seen but are believed to be there because of effects on their stars. Now there is a good chance that these are also planets but I object to the certainty where there isn’t any. The problem is that there might be something going on out there that produces the same effect and which we know nothing about. Astronomers have come up with ideas like dark matter which we cannot see based only on the fact that there is an effect they can’t account for which needs a cause.
I think you touch on this in your ante-penultimate paragraph, but I’d like to make it more explicit:
Even if we grant the multiverse hypothesis, all that does is kick the ontological can further down the block, without explaining how the multiverse came into existence, or why there should be a multiverse at all. It still doesn’t answer, but rather only punts for one iteration, the fundamental question: why is there _something_ as opposed to _nothing_?
It’s actually worse than this.
If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times and get “heads”, a reasonable person would assume that the coin is rigged in some way. An unreasonable person would say, no problem we just happen to live in a universe where the coin will come up heads. Such reasoning makes any form of understanding based off of statistics meaningless…especially science. And if science is undermined, so is Hawking’s argument.
Also, if something can spontaneously come into existence from the universe containing the multiverse of all universes, then I can say a pink unicorn popped into existence and ran away into the hills and you’d have to believe me since such things are possible according to Hawkings. Again, the foundations of science are undermined.
Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are theists in many of the other alternate universes.
On the serious side, isn’t saying that there are many universes an oxymoron? I think of “universe” as everything that is—even if that be the entire collection of what Hawking/Mlodinow call “universes”. There cannot be something that exists outside of the collection of all that exists.
We are still no closer to solving how the universe began, and if there are indeed multiple “universes” we are actually even farther away.
Jimmy,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful analysis of the book. I wish that Fr. Spitzer would have had more of an opportunity to express similar views on Larry King Live last night, but sadly most of the time was given to Hawking, Mlodinow and Deepak Chopra (who couldn’t stop gushing out nonsense and compliments to Mlodinow who he hopes to write his next book with). It is obvious that the deck was stacked heavily against Fr. Spitzer.
At any rate, your 2 blog postings on this subject really hit the nail right on the head with the problems of this book. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this and I will certainly recommend these posting to others!
“Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are theists in many of the other alternate universes.”
Hahahahahahahaha! Best. Combox. Quip. Ever.
Stephen is just sour because God has made him a disabled Junk.
He should read Gaia Theory and the recent BP oil slick taken care by the microbes.
He is being given undeserved attention out of pity by everybody!
God might not have created the World but Hawking is ‘likely’ to destroy it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90WTDnvYqpA
Wonderful article! I can’t really improve on what everyone else has had to say, but I have one small correction to make: the argument from design is different from the cosmological argument. The former, as you state, argues from cosmological constants, from order in nature, etc., whereas the latter argues that there must be some cosmic Sufficient Reason, First Cause, Unmoved Mover, or the like. The technical term for the argument from design is the “teleological” or “physico-theological argument.” (If you’re curious, the names “cosmological argument” and “physico-theological argument,” as well as “ontological argument,” come from Kant.)
What if you found a portal to a parallel universe? What if you could slide into a thousand different worlds — where it’s the same year, and you’re the same person, but everything else is different? And what if you can’t find your way home?
If every possible combination of universes does exist, then many of these universes will allow for the concept of gods in their natural laws. Granted, this is lesser sort of god than what most Christians believe in, but nevertheless the point stands that this argument does not rid us of theology—it requires it.
Iowander, i was thinking more along the lines of alternate realities in Stargate, but I suppose Sliders is closer.
*pulls slot arm*
“Cherry…cherry…CHERRY!!!”
“I won a universe that supports sentient life! Woohoo!”
“Sir, we need to see some ID.”
“Darn it.”
““Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are theists in many of the other alternate universes.”
Hahahahahahahaha! Best. Combox. Quip. Ever. “
I second this comment!
It takes more faith not to believe in a Creator than to believe in a Creator.
(Master Hawking: D+ . Lacking proficiency in research skills. In addition you have not demonstrated a grasp of logical reasoning in argumentation that is worthy of your education level. Credit is granted for effort however. Respectfully, Professor Donovan)
Hawking has presented a belief statement on the absence of a God. The origin of belief is to wish or desire something as true. No proof is needed in a belief statement and in Hawking’s announcement, no proof is given. Instead, he has shown us that he has no “complete theory” ,only that he does not know and is therefor an unknowing Agnostic.
As academic research, Hawking has made a claim about the the absence of a God and the universe but has failed to justify his claim with specific evidence.
In referencing Physics, he cites the laws of gravity as proof for an absence of a God. His premise is problematic in that he does not prove how or why God is or is not related to gravity.He claims that math is the method of his proof but fails to demonstrate his proof through the utilization of mathematical deductive reasoning. Reiterating, Hawking fails to demonstrate a math proof that shows us that his hypothesis is true in all cases… and that is the very definition of a proof.
What he does do is truncate ( and take out of context) the ideas and work of others, such as Einstein and Aristotle, in a failed attempt to prove his own beliefs.
His research is therefore akin to qualitative and not quantitative. But even as qualitative research, he falls short in the absence of correctly cited case studies. Instead, he simply references disciplines outside of Physics and Mathematics, such as Philosophy and Sociology and goes on to denigrate these disciplines with wipe sweeping and unsupported claims; in claiming that Philosophy is intuitive and anthropomorphism (sociology) is belief based, he leaves only dangling comments that are unfettered to own his belief based argument.
Ultimately, his claim is not research, nor is it science…its just another faith.
Prove god exists.
Show all work.
You thiests make a claim with no proof.
Nonsense, “dch”. We just use evidence (like the Bible and tradition and philosophy and logic and reason and arguments based on these) that you reject by assertion. That’s your prerogative, but that DOESN’T mean we have NO evidence.
And I could just as simplistically insist that you prove God does NOT exist. We at least ADMIT that our position requires some leap of faith, unlike the materialists (even though THEIR position is every bit as much a faith assertion).
It seems to me that Hawking’s argument is not unlike the following:
“I have counted every number from 0 to a million, I have examined each and every one of those numbers carefully, I have studied them thoroughly and I can now say that the color green is not necessary for the existence of those numbers. The color green does not need to exist, and furthermore, art is unnecessary.”
That’s a pretty sad argument for such a smart man.
“Prove god exists.”
What do you mean by “prove”? How do you know that proofs tell you anything about reality?
Maybe the inhabitants of one of these other universes can prove God exists with evidence.
Just because man doesn’t know whether or not this is the only universe, God knows.
“And I could just as simplistically insist that you prove God does NOT exist.”
Logically I cannot prove conclusively that God does not exist, nor can I prove unicorns do not exist. One cannot prove a negative, we would need to test a null hypothesis for god and do experiments and observations.
Believers are the ones making the positive claim without any proof.
Dr. Hawkings makes no claim other that a supernatural god is NOT REQUIRIRED to have the universe we can observe. Thesists immediately flipped that into a negative claim against god.
There is a big difference and disntiction here - Hawking never says “god does not exist.” Physcics has reached a level of understanding that they is explain any of the observable phenomena of the universe with predictable natural process and forces. They simply dont need a magic actor. Just like we don’t need a magical force to make new chemical compounds using chemistry (ask Dupont). Chemistry was thought to be magical (Alchemy) until science systematically revealed the natural processes at work. Its the exact same thing but with astronomy this time.
Does that mean there is no magic god (biblical God, Vishnu, Thor, Mythra? No. It just means we don’t need a magical god for our universe to exist as it does. That is a completely different question.
Its just the way it is. I do not expect anyone to stop believing in God because of a book by a physicst.
Well, “dch”, if you had said _that_ in your original post, then I would have replied quite differently (if at all). As it was, though, you simply demanded that we prove God exists. BIG difference intellectually and rhetorically from your most recent post.
@dch:
Dr. Hawking appears to claim more than is correct from the theory of quantum creation. The theory of quantum creation does not offer an explanation of the origins of existence from nothing, which is what theists ascribe uniquely and necessarily to the First Cause we call God.
To the best of my understanding, quantum creation posits a change from one quantum state to another. But quantum states are not nothing. They are defined and governed by laws of quantum mechanics that make quantum state changes possible. This does not explain why a complex system of quantum states and mathematical laws exists in the first place.
And Dr. Hawking himself admitted as much, as Dr. Stephen Barr pointed out over at First Things, in his book A Brief History of Time. Thus Hawking:
Note that by “universe” Hawking here seems to mean not a particular quantum state for which we can at least mount a proposed mathematical explanation within the framework of quantum mechanics, but the larger framework that makes different quantum states possible. As Dr. Barr asks,
Hawking was right to say that science cannot answer this question, and it is this question that the theist believes is uniquely satisfied by a necessary being, one that cannot not-exist, and upon which systems and laws that make our universe possible depend.
Don’t we have an equally large responsibility to discuss why God exists? I’ve never heard that.
@dch:
“Dr. Hawkings makes no claim other that a supernatural god is NOT REQUIRIRED to have the universe we can observe.”
Realistically, he can’t even PROVE this, either. Unless he can KNOW and demonstrate/document where the material (whether energy or matter) for the beginning of the universe/multiverse/physical-material-that-comprises-the-sensible-objects-we-perceive came from, his assertion - and that of every other about scientist or creationist/ID-adherent - has to jump to a conclusion that is not physically/scientifically document-able.
The key question that has been asked over and over is: How is there something rather than nothing? In the end, the atheist says, “It is because it is” where the believer will say, “It is because of the I AM”.
Only one can be right, though.
Why God exists? No. The question is meaningless. By definition, God is a necessary being; he cannot not-exist. Perhaps you mean we have a responsibility to discuss why we believe that God exists? In which case, yes, certainly, but how can any adult believer not have heard that?
@Steven D. Greydanus: Au contraire, mon frère! God does have an explanation, as anything must given the Principle of Sufficient Reason. God is unique, not because He requires no explanation or because He does not exist by virtue of anything, but because He is His own explanation and exists by virtue of Himself. Since His essence is being itself, to deny Him of being is as absurd as denying a triangle of its triangularity.
So if we accept the multiverse notion for the sake of argument, could we be living in one of the infinite number of universes where the stories of Jesus walking on water, feeding multitudes, rising from the dead, and ascending to heaven are all true?
Or more to the point, does the multiverse guarantee that such a universe exists?
Another question: does Hawking still believe he subscribes to the principle of Occam’s Razor?
Hawking is simply delusional, passing his time writing fables. He lurks in the shadows of randomized possibilities knowing there is no physical way to disprove him. So he descends into the madness of selling “something from nothing” and sells it as science, tho it would be well for him to sell it simply as science fiction.
His ideas are entertaining, but not enlightening. Simply, intelligence does not derive from randomness as Hawking implies. And given his fine mind, he most surely recognizes the same.
@Leo Carton Mollica: Without contravening the principle of sufficient reason, precisely because in God being and essence are identical, I’m not sure that the statement “God exists by virtue of himself” offers any additional noetic value beyond the statement “God exists.” To say “God exists by virtue of himself” seems to boil down to “A necessary being exists necessarily,” or “A necessary being is a necessary being.” Once the terms are properly understood, it’s a tautology, a definition rather than a proposition. Your analogy makes the same point: To ask “Why does God exist?” is like asking “Why does a triangle have three sides?” That is what a triangle IS, just as being is what God IS. Therefore to ask “Why does a triangle have three sides?” is like asking “Why is a triangle a triangle?” so to ask “Why does God exist?” is like asking “Why is God God?” I’m not sure either question is meaningful or can be answered as a question; all that can be done is to explain the terms clearly.
Jimmy,
Thank you for your article. It is quite enlightening and will be a wonderful conversation topic for dinner tomorrow with my children. :)
In regards to our solar system not displaying an argument for Grand Design, I would have to say I disagree with you. While the existence of life in other solar systems is a very real possibility, I would suggest that the existence of intelligent, God knowing life, is most likely quite extraordinary and unique. Given the current diversity of life on our planet I don’t think it out of the question to believe complex life, may exist outside our own solar system. However, I think the possibility of intelligent, God knowing life existing outside our solar system is something all together different.
Consider the events required to give rise to us as home sephians (Adam and Eve if you will). We have our lead centered planet, created by an impact from a mass nearly as large as the Earth. It give rise to a nearly earth sized moon (Which is an oddity in our solar system). Then, multiple extension level events. Eventually, the last of these ELE’s gives rise to mammals and finally, the presence of the God knowing homo sepians species. (I’m missing about 3 million other unique events, but I’ll keep it brief….jk). In a real sense, the Earth acts as God’s incubator, preparing for the exact and precise conditions to give rise to creations that have the ability to know God, which is very unique, even on our own planet.
Granted, locating intelligent life in the universe will not disprove Gods existence, but I think looking at the complexity and intricacies of His creation process here on earth helps me personally to appreciate how very unique we are as his creations. He sure went through a lot to get the conditions right to cook us up :).
God Bless
Prove God exists? Why, Am I not alive? Is this not prove enough for an uneducated simpleton like me? Does not a void become filled when you ask Christ into your life. Is this not enough proof that a God exists? We ask and He is there. Does He not ping our conscious when confronted with the choice to lie or steal? For this simpleton that is all the proof I need that my creator exists. Thank God we are all given the free will to believe what we choose to believe whether we are right or wrong in our choice of belief.
Jimmy Akin, qoute> “Hawking and Mlodinow deny that they’re postulating a multiverse just to avoid intelligent design, but they don’t offer any sustained arguments for its existence.”
When you make this proclamation, you are in fact showing to the world that you did not understand the arguments they actually made. And that’s ok, you are undoubtably not a theoretical physicist. However, it undermines your conclusion to the point that this entire article becomes irrellevant.
their book is irrelevant,(with one L) When a self proclaimed genius can not prove that God does not exist he must be further postulating that God does exist. I need no proof of God from an agnostic or theitist. My faith is enough. This in no way proves me right, but it makes my life seem worth living.
theists
There are also theological issues to multiverses… Would this mean that in one I’m a sinner, and if in another I’m saved, so no matter what I do I’m probably never going to change and I’m going to hell? So what exactly happened when Christ died? Did He do it in each one and is there one where everyone believed in Him and He wasn’t crucified?Is there one where the Fall never happened? And if hell, heaven etc. are outside of time and in eternity, then will I see a bunch of other ‘me’s in hell or heaven??? A lot about this multiverse idea does not compute… I don’t believe it exists at all. There is one universe God created and this is it. Eveerything else is speculative nonsense to escape facing the reality that God exists, He created us, we are sinners, we will be judged, and we could very well be sentenced to hell.
How does one prove there is a God? I’ll reply with this… Do you believe in the laws of logic and reasoning? You must if you want to carry on this conversation. But you cannot scientifically prove abstract ideas like logic and reason. You must take them for granted. And if you choose by default to believe in logic and reason, then only a Theistic worldview offers an explanation as to their existence. Because logic and reason come from an eternal source that never changes and is fixed forever and is the Prime cause and mover of all things. Only the Christian worldview uses this foundation, therefore one must believe in it if they wish to believe in logic and reason. I’ll point you all to a very interesting lecture in the video link here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/ultimate-proof-of-creation/ultimate-proof
Multi-verse uni-verse Bible-verse, the word universe seems to include all that there is. but I think our universe could be much bigger than what we see. There could be galaxies bigger than our Milky Way so far away we can’t see them until God removes the Vail from our eyes. this may account for the so called dark matter. But that is just this simpletons thought. Even if there are other ‘universes’ Gods laws of physics would still apply. God is the one constant in the universe. The laws and commands God has put on all things would still be in effect and would not be changed in a multi-verse. You would not exist in that space. No parallel multi-verse, no parallel uni-verse. There are only parallel Bible-verses.
Disclosure: I only adhere to natural theology.
There may be a critical logical flaw to Stephen Hawkin’s book but I’m afraid that Jimmy Akin’s critique may have its own. Backward causation is an open philosophical question and has attracted attention from a few scientists. Depending on how it comes to be ultimately understood, the causal regression argument may not apply. Certain kinds of circular causation may also hold, also making said argument a dud (at least in the sense that people might hold to different intuitions about how causation can occure).
My suspicion is that Stephen Hawkin as well as the “new atheists” would be quite open to natural theology. In natural theology, at least the kind I adhere to, God would be, to put it in quasi-scientific terms, a fundamental part of the universe, that personal being which wills all the good that be present in all the universe (or multiverse). Whether there be a universe or multiverse does not change one’s conception of God, as a natural theology adherent. The philosophical or even scientific motivation for positing and believing that there be such a being is the self-evident experience we have of our own personhood, our subjectivity which the coauthor of the book said was NOT explained by their theory. Since something basic or fundamental as subjectivity cannot arise out of gravity, etc, subjectivity must pre-exist the evolution of intelligent life—exist as fundamentally as gravity, etc—thus it must be an incorporeal personal being whose being is in harmony, if not love, with all that exists in the cosmos.
My BIBLE claims that with God all things are possible.Here is a question more important than whether there can be a multi-verse in God’s universe.If: in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. That implies that Jesus and God had a beginning. If Jesus and God had a beginning was it in the beginning when God Created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is? Or was the heavens and the earth and all that in them is created in the beginning when the word was with God. Either way does this mean from a Bible standpoint that Jesus and God have only been in existence for six thousand years?
The importance of our extraordinarily large (in a relative sense) moon is more important to conditions favoring the development of life on earth than most people realize. It both stabilized the rotation of the earth and slowed the rate of rotation, giving our ancestors time to adapt to changing climactic conditions sufficiently to survive and prosper, and under just the right amount of stress to encourage evolution.
In the same way, the presence, size and relative location of Jupiter is sufficient to ensure relative safety against catastrophic impacts, but not so powerful a shield that extinction events never happen.
I am really beginning to think that Hawking or his publisher realized that odds of a non-fiction book on theoretical physics becoming a best-seller were a long-shot. Non-believers, agnostics, the devoutly religious, etc are very interested in the existence of God. So let’s present the new “Theory of Everything” as a theological challenge. Pretty ridiculous when the same scientists fight tooth and nail to keep religion out of science. Then turn around and force science to modify religion? If creation doesn’t belong in science class, than theoretical physics ought to stay out of religion. Especially on the biggest, most fundamental level: whether God exists.
For me personally, natural processes are God’s technology. Human scientific endeavors are slowly proceeding to reverse-engineer the universe. Each discovery brings up even more questions. The more we know, the more we realize we don’t know. Was the Earth flat or round? Then was the universe geo-centric or heliocentric. Well, neither. Oh, wow! It’s a solar system, of which there are billions. Where is the center of the universe? And how do we accurately determine it’s location. Or is there a center? Now supposedly there is something called dark matter we can’t detect, measure, or directly observe. Only the most brilliant minds figure out the complexities. So why assume no intelligent source developed the processes when even the brightest scientists can only solve the puzzle, one tiny, bitty piece at a time?
Laura: {qoute}
For me personally, natural processes are God’s technology.{/qoute}
.
ok, but you’re painting yourself into a corner where you can never demonstrate that your claim is true.
observe: how do you distinguish a universe where god acts through natural processes from a universe where natural processes occur naturally. you can’t, of course, which illustrates the problem you create with this approach. so your position is irrelevant as to the question of god’s existence, and thus not only a position of faith, but irrelevant faith.
.
what Hawking and Mlodinow have done is show that there can be natural explenations for the origin of the universe. and as of right now their theory has at least as much evidence as the “god did it” hypothesis. so then, origins becomes a mute point in the discussion about god’s existence. effectively the very ideas that they present mean that “first cause” arguments as well as arguments from design are now dead in the water. and THAT is where their real contribution is.
@ Bjorn: “ok, but you’re painting yourself into a corner where you can never demonstrate that your claim is true. observe: how do you distinguish a universe where god acts through natural processes from a universe where natural processes occur naturally. you can’t, of course, which illustrates the problem you create with this approach. so your position is irrelevant as to the question of god’s existence, and thus not only a position of faith, but irrelevant faith.”
But why is there a universe instead of a random mess of chaos? And where did the energy and particles come from that eventually formed matter? Is it possible to completely start from scratch and first create the ingredients (for lack of a better term)necessary to work with out of NOTHING? Recently biologists announced a significant scientific break-through by artificially creating a living cell. But this was only possible using intelligently designed biotechnology with existing cell structures and DNA. If you replace the engine in your car with one engine after another, then finally find the one that gets the car running so you can drive it, that doesn’t even come close to developing all the technology that went into designing every part, manufacturing each piece, then correctly assembling them into functioning automobile. Just successfully replacing the engine requires mechanical skill, deliberate effort, and human intelligence. Someone else created the body and the engine.
Even if you completely understand and can explain how the car was created, it is not logical to conclude that it just happened to emerge by cosmic chance and coincidentally has a useful purpose. What if we could send a 2011 model, hybrid, special edition auto loaded with every available option from air condition to GPS navigation, back in time 10,000 years. The homo sapiens would probably conclude that somebody with more advanced ability produced it for transportation. They begin with figuring out the wheel by crudely replicating it to adapt the technology for their own uses. Eventually, they determine how to manufacture steel. After several millennium of intense study and painstaking experiments, they figure out how to make the equivalent of a Model T. At this point, they get the sense that one day entirely possible to understand how the highly complex vehicle from the future was made. How does mechanical comprehension of how the car was manufactured prove that nobody made the 2011 version? Knowing how it was made tells you almost nothing about who made it, except that it probably wasn’t a magician. The evidence clearly indicates that a tremendous amount knowledge is required.
So what if Hawking might have figured out how the universe was created? Figuring out that it didn’t require magic doesn’t disprove a creator.
Man is unable to overpower the laws of physics or alter these natural processes. We can’t all jump at the same time and alter the orbit of the earth. We can’t negate the gravitational effect of the moon on ocean tides or stop the waves from crashing on the shore.
I don’t even know what you mean by irrelevant faith. It’s your position that God is a cosmic magician, not mine. Why is there something instead of nothing? If Hawking is basically asserting the possibility of a DIY universe, then it still requires materials, mechanical technology, dependable natural law, and most of all, “you.”
It’s not a god of the gaps position because gaps are illogical. An intelligent designer doesn’t leave gaps.I know you perceive this as a debate, not an open-minded discussion. The atheist rarely cares about understanding the logical reasons the majority of mankind believes in God in some form.
@ Laura
you: “But why is there a universe instead of a random mess of chaos? And where did the energy and particles come from that eventually formed matter? Is it possible to completely start from scratch and first create the ingredients (for lack of a better term)necessary to work with out of NOTHING?”
me: ok… for the sake of argument i’m gonna say that we don’t know. now how is that lack of knowledge an argument FOR god? if your answer is that god is responsible for that which we don’t yet know, then that IS a god-of-the-gaps argument, by definition. absence of evidence can never be proof for anything, all-powerful deities included. now, if you can find a tag-marker on the collar of our universe that says: “made by god, from 100% cotton”, then you would have a case. all other “proof” invariably is a form of god-of-the-gaps.
me: your car analogy is cute, but flawed. the universe is not a car. cars are just reconfigurations of matter, like yourself. the universe did not arise as a reconfiguration of matter. but i could even turn your argument around. if the universe is like a car, i.e. produced by god using whatever technology or mechanism, then it follows that we should be able to decode exactly how it was done. in other words, we too would be able produce universes (at least theoretically), eons from now. reducing god to just a really really clever car maker, not a deity. so which is it? is god a clever scientist/car maker or an actual deity?
you: “We can’t all jump at the same time and alter the orbit of the earth”
me: actually… we could :p :)
you: “I don’t even know what you mean by irrelevant faith. It’s your position that God is a cosmic magician, not mine. Why is there something instead of nothing? If Hawking is basically asserting the possibility of a DIY universe, then it still requires materials, mechanical technology, dependable natural law, and most of all, “you.””
me: no, you’ve misunderstood. i would only use your definition of “god”. i wouldn’t define him, after all i disbelieve his existence. i assumed that your definition was from deism, i.e. a creator of the universe, but that don’t physically interact with it (no miracles). which brings me to why it is irrelevant. a universe that was created by god and then left alone (deism), would look exactly like a universe that arose like Hawking describes (in that it too would be left alone, as the deity in question would not exist). so, when you define god as such, it becomes irrelevant whether he actually exists or not.
Look up “Pale Blue Dot.” Then, after that moving paragraph, look up the “Ann Druyan Experiment” a chapter later.
I digress. So, our universe was created for one species on one planet near one sun in one solar arm in one galaxy? Look around! If the universe was made for us, with such ‘fine tuned’ constants, then why are we alone? Why is our little rock the only place, right now, that we can live? Wouldn’t the Lord God be able to make other planets when that ‘be fruitful and multiply’ thing destroyed this one?
Or will he just wipe out a few billion more people?
You scream that we were designed. If this universe is the work of a god that loves us, then it’s one shoddy work. Near-persistent vacumn. Frail bodies that only operate in a very shallow temperature range, no to mention pressure and respiratory needs. One planet out of thousands that can support life, simply because it won the slots?
This isn’t the work of a grand designer. At best, this is the work of a bored office temp with a bad attitude.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.