No Possibility of God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

FWIW, I think the framing introduced by Hawking's statement is an improvement over normal discourse about gods.

Whether you accept his statement or not, hopefully you can agree that the question "could God even be possible?" is a better reflection of where the line of rational discourse is than "does God exist?" or "which religion's ideas of God are correct?"

 

[Polymath257]

According to thermodynamics....energy has always existed.

Meaning, it has always existed *when there was time*.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not scientifically well-versed, but I am fairly sure Newton's law of gravity violates special relativity, yet it is accepted in scientific community. Scientist use Newton's theory when dealing with microscopic level and Einstein relativity when dealing with macroscopic level.

Actually, Newton's theory of gravity has been superceded by Einstein's theory of General Relativity, with includes Special Relativity locally.

 

[Thief]

FWIW, I think the framing introduced by Hawking's statement is an improvement over normal discourse about gods.

Whether you accept his statement or not, hopefully you can agree that the question "could God even be possible?" is a better reflection of where the line of rational discourse is than "does God exist?" or "which religion's ideas of God are correct?"

ok....

in the scheme of superlatives.....yes
Someone would be at the top of any and all superlatives....collectively
hence the notation.....Almighty

in the scheme of creation.....Sprit First
otherwise....substance is 'self' creating
'self' motivating
and ….no to that

 

[Polymath257]

Then explain how all of the matter in the universe in a single location is not a massive black hole? Good luck with that.

That isn't what the BB theory says. Matter and energy are always present in all of space throughout all of time. But space itself is expanding.

The bb idea says that space is expanding? Correct. So the space and matter would be moving outward from a single point with a center of empty space.

Wrong. That isn't how the theory or the math from GR actually work.
The universe is expanding into the future, not into space.

Unless you are saying that the space moved along with the matter and left behind the initial singularity location as void and not space, then you are going to have to explain how space leaves an area and it goes back to being a non-space void. Good luck with that.

The singularity is NOT a point in space. That is a common misunderstanding, but it is NOT what the BB theory actually says.

In fact, the singularity is in the past of *every* point of space.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ok....

in the scheme of superlatives.....yes
Someone would be at the top of any and all superlatives....collectively
hence the notation.....Almighty

in the scheme of creation.....Sprit First
otherwise....substance is 'self' creating
'self' motivating
and ….no to that

I'm sure this seems like compelling reasoning to you.

 

[Thief]

I'm sure this seems like compelling reasoning to you.

I find denial.....pointless

 

[Thief]

The universe is expanding into the future, not into space.

now there's a twist

expansion.....not getting bigger

just older

 

[blü 2]

In fact, it is currently viewed as dark energy.

A hypothesis about a hypothesis! Wonderful!

 

[Polymath257]

A hypothesis about a hypothesis! Wonderful!

More specifically, the cosmological constant term in Einstein's equation, if taken to the other side, describes a non-zero energy density of the vacuum. This energy density stays constant through expansion, and so is very different than either 'matter' (where the density decreases as the cube of the length scale) or radiation (where it decreases as the fourth power of the length scale).

There are more complex formulations where the dark energy *can* vary in density under expansion, just at a very reduced rate. This leads to the concept of 'quintessence'.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Actually, Newton's theory of gravity has been superceded by Einstein's theory of General Relativity, with includes Special Relativity locally.

Thanks for correcting me. Does it prove Newton's theory to be wrong? Is it no longer accepted in scientific community? Isn't it true that Newton's theory is still used for most application, while Einstein's theory is used in another context?

 

[Nakosis]

Based on what we know about black holes Hawking concluded "time begun at the moment of singularity".

No time - - > no cause.
No cause - - > no creation.

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in."

"For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator..." (Hawking)

At first glance it seems science doesn't support creation. But the "cause" Hawking wrote about is not the same as "cause" in philosophy and theology... Hawkins doesn't refute the possibility that God created the laws and singularity. He just thinks "science has a more compelling explanation."

Does Creator have anything with our universe? In Hahwking's view even if God started BB, it has no (further) role in our universe - deism. Seriously? Laws of physics describe the whole of cosmos? I think he pushed this too far.

Particles seem to appear "out of nowhere". I don't see how this leads to BB appeared from nothing. I mean we are now in temporal universe. No time existing before BB doesn't automatically mean nothing at all existed/exists. It can be something atemporal.

Not that I particularly agree with him, but I don't know how something could occur without time. With any event, you have a before and an after so time before/after.

 

[Nakosis]

It seems Hawking has great faith in himself, even though he has not existed always. If Christians would have that much faith in God, I think they could do many miracles.

But, why should we believe Hawking?

I suspect he had a lot of trust in relativity. Math and physics led him to conclude that God was not necessary to explain the universe.

 

[Nakosis]

Hawking's theory which I've read at his site first many years ago, and he revised it a little, and I read it again --

The Beginning of TIme -- Hawking's own writing at his own website.

(I think this direct reading is accessible even without a physics degree (I'm guessing, since I do have an engineering physics degree))

Regarding "God", Hawking really has then a substitute, a 'god in the machine' so to speak. For believers though, like me, God isn't affected by time, and not even by our physics. This is pretty obvious if you consider God would not be subject to Nature, if He is understood to be the creator of it. (2 different states of being, subject to Nature vs. being the ruler of Nature)

That's fine. People can imagine God to have whatever attributes they feel would be necessary for God to exist. In Hawkin's case, I think he just didn't see a need for a God.

 

[Nakosis]

Mr Hawking had armies of medical problems. He allowed this to corrupt his view.

Much of what I say Mr. Hawking knew but ignored. Quantum physics is showing the possibility of many dimensions. Would not a dimension without time fit into the realm of possibilities? Next, the assumption that nothing existed before the BB is no more than an assumption. There is far more that we do not know than we do. Making broad assumptions based upon what Mr. Hawking believed do not translate into truth. Until one gets the entire picture, real truth is out of reach. Can one really rest on mere Beliefs? I think not!!

Let's don't accept. Let's Discover the Real Truth!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Physically, mathematically, the truth is God is not necessary. That doesn't mean you can't still believe in one.

 

[blü 2]

More specifically, the cosmological constant term in Einstein's equation, if taken to the other side, describes a non-zero energy density of the vacuum. This energy density stays constant through expansion, and so is very different than either 'matter' (where the density decreases as the cube of the length scale) or radiation (where it decreases as the fourth power of the length scale).

There are more complex formulations where the dark energy *can* vary in density under expansion, just at a very reduced rate. This leads to the concept of 'quintessence'.

Does that imply that as the universe expands, additional 'dark energy' appears from somewhere and maintains a minimum density, a minimum energy of the vacuum, everywhere? Or is there only a strict ration that keeps getting thinner till it can no longer resist the Big Rip?

 

[Nakosis]

What's impossible is you and me. Nevertheless...

Well, we can't be impossible as we exist right?
So your understanding of the word "impossible" must be different from mine.

 

[Nakosis]

Except that, logically, something cannot have resulted from nothing.

Perhaps at this point of the singularity, not even logic can be applied.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps at this point of the singularity, not even logic can be applied.

Yes, but if that's the case, "God" is as valid as anything else is. More-so, really, in that at least it's definition is in keeping with the absolutely inexplicable mystery.

 

[Nakosis]

Time is only relevant to finite beings. If God is limited by time, He would not be eternal, for one, and indeed He could not be omnipresent. If one can argue that the Big Bang existed from nothing, then: What is Nothing?" If Nothing is something, no matter how it is defined, then that something has preexisted and must have power. (He) cannot be defined either in form or structure. Hawking was a very smart man, but, as a human, he had his limits.

I think for Hawkin, he felt the universe had a satisfactory explanation without adding a God into the equation.