Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Quote

We turn now to Stephen Hawking. He proposes M-theory, a variant of string theory, to explain the origins of the universe. The conclusion of his last book, The Grand Design, states:

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God.[54]

He added: "According to M-theory ours is not the only universe. It predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing."[55] Therefore, he claims, there is no need for God. 

https://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/the-delusion-of-atheists

Any thoughts on Stephen Hawkins statement and his argument of Natural  Laws? 

(Basic/Fundamental Concepts no mechanics)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

https://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/the-delusion-of-atheists

Any thoughts on Stephen Hawkins statement and his argument of Natural  Laws? 

(Basic/Fundamental Concepts no mechanics)

 

23 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

Where was gravity when there was nothing?

25 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God.[54]

What is that something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

https://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/the-delusion-of-atheists

Any thoughts on Stephen Hawkins statement and his argument of Natural  Laws? 

(Basic/Fundamental Concepts no mechanics)

 

27 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

Where was gravity when there was nothing?

27 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God.[54]

What is that something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is citing a Law in general sense and Gravity to be the particular law in this comment. But the basic/fundamental question is what about these Laws? that is what missing here /is usually missing in these kind of comments. 

This Particular Post in the Thread describes the process

Read the comments of the Experts( at the bottom) in this particular post in that Thread

 

You read an statement like the one Mr. Hawkins a SME (Subject Matter Expert) make an delusional comment with out any basic is mind boggling. This is like Aladdin his magic lamp and jenni situation. How did he go from a Theory  and citing a Law ( where did it come from) to making concrete claims(I should mention which is against the very definition  of what people term Science? Provide tangible and verifiable proof or its a double standard been utilized)

 

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

https://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/the-delusion-of-atheists

Any thoughts on Stephen Hawkins statement and his argument of Natural  Laws? 

You have posted a link that is typical of every apologist's fallacy: Cherry picking.

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy in which an individual presents a one-sided argument, overlooking and possibly ignoring competing arguments, in a situation where objectivity should be required.
 

1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

You read an statement like the one Mr. Hawkins a SME (Subject Matter Expert) make an delusional comment with out any basic is mind boggling.

I believe Mr Stephen Hawking knows a lot more about cosmology than you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
 

If there existed an Omnipotent God who wished everyone to know Him, it would be the case that everyone knows God exists An all powerful God does not need one preacher. God does not need one prophet. God does not need one book.
 

1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Provide tangible and verifiable proof or its a double standard been utilized

 

How about you do that for the God you believe in? I am sure you cannot.  :)

 

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Quisant said:

You have posted a link that is typical of every apologist's fallacy: Cherry picking.

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy in which an individual presents a one-sided argument, overlooking and possibly ignoring competing arguments, in a situation where objectivity should be required.
 

I believe Mr Stephen Hawking knows a lot more about cosmology than you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
 

If there existed an Omnipotent God who wished everyone to know Him, it would be the case that everyone knows God exists An all powerful God does not need one preacher. God does not need one prophet. God does not need one book.
 

How about you do that for the God you believe in? I am sure you cannot.  :)

 

*

It seems that you believe without investigation, only a degree is good enough for you to blindly believe in what is the product of his mind.

Having a Phd or few Phd's in one or two or three subjects and have same years of experience only makes you a SME(Subject Matter Expert) in that Particular Subject. Not an Expert or an Intellectual with Wisdom to understand Bigger Picture or Realities. 

Lets only Stick to the Subject at hand. ( We are not discussing the God or if there is one or not).

Pure Science( Investigation(s) into the Tangible Matter(s) with Solid Data and Facts, which could be  Tested via experiments in a  Lab . Not conjecture. Its its conjecture based system , then market  as much. Under the umbrella/disguise of "  Scientific methods" . This Stuff   Is been turned into a fairy tale story telling machine. 

Double standards - Are you asking the questions with the same intensity and objectivity here when it comes to Scientific prophets and their claims ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Quisant said:

If there existed an Omnipotent God who wished everyone to know Him, it would be the case that everyone knows God exists An all powerful God does not need one preacher. God does not need one prophet. God does not need one book

He doesn't need. Who said He needs? He wanted it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

It seems that you believe without investigation, only a degree is good enough for you to blindly believe in what is the product of his mind.

Having a Phd or few Phd's in one or two or three subjects and have same years of experience only makes you a SME(Subject Matter Expert) in that Particular Subject. Not an Expert or an Intellectual with Wisdom to understand Bigger Picture or Realities. 

Lets only Stick to the Subject at hand. ( We are not discussing the God or if there is one or not).

Pure Science( Investigation(s) into the Tangible Matter(s) with Solid Data and Facts, which could be  Tested via experiments in a  Lab . Not conjecture. Its its conjecture based system , then market  as much. Under the umbrella/disguise of "  Scientific methods" . This Stuff   Is been turned into a fairy tale story telling machine. 

For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

Consistent

Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see Occam's razor)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)

Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)

Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)

Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)

Progressive (refines previous theories)

Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

For instance, typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, progressive or provisional.

11 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Are you asking the questions with the same intensity and objectivity here when it comes to Scientific prophets and their claims ? 

I am asking that you 'provide tangible and verifiable proof (or its a double standard been utilized) for the God you claim exists.

*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

It seems that you believe without investigation, only a degree is good enough for you to blindly believe in what is the product of his mind.

Having a Phd or few Phd's in one or two or three subjects and have same years of experience only makes you a SME(Subject Matter Expert) in that Particular Subject. Not an Expert or an Intellectual with Wisdom to understand Bigger Picture or Realities. 

Lets only Stick to the Subject at hand. ( We are not discussing the God or if there is one or not).

Pure Science( Investigation(s) into the Tangible Matter(s) with Solid Data and Facts, which could be  Tested via experiments in a  Lab . Not conjecture. Its its conjecture based system , then market  as much. Under the umbrella/disguise of "  Scientific methods" . This Stuff   Is been turned into a fairy tale story telling machine. 

For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

Consistent

Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see Occam's razor)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)

Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)

Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)

Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)

Progressive (refines previous theories)

Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

For instance, typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, progressive or provisional.

11 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Are you asking the questions with the same intensity and objectivity here when it comes to Scientific prophets and their claims ? 

I am asking that you 'provide tangible and verifiable proof (or its a double standard been utilized) for the God you claim exists.

*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will defeat the purpose of this Thread to discuss Religion or get trapped into such conversation. Need to exercise patience, no matter what is been thrown at us and no matter how much we want to address it.  Or anything personal. It will be a very wise decision to have a very strict, focus on the Topic and its sub topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Quisant said:

For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

Consistent

Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see Occam's razor)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)

Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)

Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)

Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)

Progressive (refines previous theories)

Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

For instance, typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, progressive or provisional.

I am asking that you 'provide tangible and verifiable proof (or its a double standard been utilized) for the God you claim exists.

*

 

All you need to say is you agree with this statement, and provide you rational based on scientific methods( If you like). Beyond that, we do not need a science class in processes or basic knidergarden stuff. 

Quote

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God.[54]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

All you need to say is you agree with this statement, and provide you rational based on scientific methods( If you like).

Of course I agree with the statement, although nothing in this world can be proved with absolute certainty. Not even the most cutting edge scientists alive can't do more than just guess. But I have more respect for their guesses than assurances from clerics/priests, regardless of religion. I try to make a habit of listening to people who've done their homework. 

Unlike religion,  we need not "trust" the authority of "science" because we can check their work. Most science is  peer reviewed.
We can look at their data. Since we CAN do this, it is reasonable to trust them. 

Science works. Aeroplanes fly. Bridges built by engineers stay up. Treatment by doctors cures diseases. If science stopped working someday then scientists would have no more claims to authority than theologians.

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

سبحان الله

The faulty ones,

These are the disbelievers,

They purchased error,

Ye are fallible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Of course I agree with the statement, although nothing in this world can be proved with absolute certainty. Not even the most cutting edge scientists alive can't do more than just guess. But I have more respect for their guesses than assurances from clerics/priests, regardless of religion. I try to make a habit of listening to people who've done their homework. 

Unlike religion,  we need not "trust" the authority of "science" because we can check their work. Most science is  peer reviewed.
We can look at their data. Since we CAN do this, it is reasonable to trust them. 

Science works. Aeroplanes fly. Bridges built by engineers stay up. Treatment by doctors cures diseases. If science stopped working someday then scientists would have no more claims to authority than theologians.

*

This Magical Term that stops all arguments and puts all at bay so they can’t questions further. Is a Fallacy and should be outlined as a weak argument. As we have seen in the past that what was Peer reviewed was overwritten with new Theories. So, Peer Reviewed is kind of blind leading the blind and its is a function of Time. Future overrides the past here ...Nothing could be taken as Written in stone. 

I.e Static vs Expanding Universe etc…

Second all SME’s do not agree.

Key here is Data based system, which should stay as data based system.

Not become philosophy/religion.

I should have said Concept, instead of statement.

You agree, and your rational is what you wrote to prove your belief.

Do you question, the initial soup either of enzymes/chemical/quarks that gave rise to the Universe and life. In this particular case of the Universe and the Laws that govern them, what have these SME (Investigators) provided about the origin of these fundamental laws that makes you so confident of their final conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God.[54]

He added: "According to M-theory ours is not the only universe. It predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing."[55] Therefore, he claims, there is no need for God. 

I do not know how this mad scientist is given so much attention. A part of his contribution to science, I have not seen anything except analogies that have no relations with the logic, in his books.

1. If he says that because there is law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself our of nothing. Well, who is making law to exist there ? Since there is laws, there is intelligence. If there would not have existed any intelligence, there would not have existed any law. Law of gravity is itself an evidence that someone is holding this in place. 

2. The M-theory invalidates its argument by saying that that universes came out of nothing but admitting that intelligence came into being after the creation but was absent so how that activity begin in a well fashioned process. Even a child would know that footprints on the sand are left by some human whom he did not see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Do you question, the initial soup either of enzymes/chemical/quarks that gave rise to the Universe and life. In this particular case of the Universe and the Laws that govern them, what have these SME (Investigators) provided about the origin of these fundamental laws that makes you so confident of their final conclusions.

Of course I wonder about the initial soup of enzymes/chemical/quarks that gave rise to the Universe and life; I do not have an answer. 

I do not expect an explanation for something that happened over 14 billion years ago is something easy come by. We might, one day.

On the other hand there is no evidence whatsoever for anything supernatural and the conclusion that 'we don't have an explanation therefore God did it' is really a childish fantasy.

In the past people believed that God caused the sun to "rise", it was God who threw lightning bolts, He caused thunder and sometimes made the earth shake. Etc.etc. 

"God" was used as an explanation for phenomena countless times over, these were once listed among the unanswerable "mysterious ways of God".
Yet, once the actual answer to each question was found, it turned out that the answer was never "God". Never. Not once.  Naturalistic explanations have always been found.

Unless of course you can  show me how the supernatural (above nature) can be observed in the natural Universe.
*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Of course I wonder about the initial soup of enzymes/chemical/quarks that gave rise to the Universe and life; I do not have an answer. 

I do not expect an explanation for something that happened over 14 billion years ago is something easy come by. We might, one day.

Here is the complete question posted above

"Do you question, the initial soup either of enzymes/chemical/quarks that gave rise to the Universe and life. In this particular case of the Universe and the Laws that govern them, what have these SME (Investigators) provided about the origin of these fundamental laws that makes you so confident of their final conclusions."

*****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Here is the complete question posted above

"Do you question, the initial soup either of enzymes/chemical/quarks that gave rise to the Universe and life. In this particular case of the Universe and the Laws that govern them, what have these SME (Investigators) provided about the origin of these fundamental laws that makes you so confident of their final conclusions."

The Laws are descriptive of "what happens." they're not prescriptive rules. 

The Laws come from us, observing, experimenting, recording and finally saying we can make predictions about how energy and matter interact.

The notion that someone designed them to interact a certain way is an unnecessary hypothesis that only complicates things by adding a "designer" layer to the cake.

Particles interact the way they interact. We've observed those interactions and come up with "laws" that describe them.

Natural laws are not "laws" as in the judicial system; they are descriptions of observed regularities, not prescriptions "telling" physics how to work.

Scientific laws and inductive descriptions no more govern the behaviour or physical entities than the phrase "the door is open" governs a door being open. It's a description.

Your desire to assign agency to all things is not an argument. 

I am done for the day, the evening beckons ...Nice talking to you.

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Quisant said:

The Laws are descriptive of "what happens." they're not prescriptive rules. 

The Laws come from us, observing, experimenting, recording and finally saying we can make predictions about how energy and matter interact.

The notion that someone designed them to interact a certain way is an unnecessary hypothesis that only complicates things by adding a "designer" layer to the cake.

Particles interact the way they interact. We've observed those interactions and come up with "laws" that describe them.

Natural laws are not "laws" as in the judicial system; they are descriptions of observed regularities, not prescriptions "telling" physics how to work.

Scientific laws and inductive descriptions no more govern the behaviour or physical entities than the phrase "the door is open" governs a door being open. It's a description.

Your desire to assign agency to all things is not an argument. 

I am done for the day, the evening beckons ...Nice talking to you.

*
 

How is your personal understanding( any SME source you can cite)  relate to this concept of S. Hawkins?

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God.[54]"\

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

The Laws come from us, observing, experimenting, recording and finally saying we can make predictions about how energy and matter interact.

The notion that someone designed them to interact a certain way is an unnecessary hypothesis that only complicates things by adding a "designer" layer to the cake.

Are you trying to negate the existence of knowledge outside of yourself?

Edited by Salsabeel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

How is your personal understanding( any SME source you can cite)  relate to this concept of S. Hawkins?

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God.[54]"\

I think it is an interesting opinion from a brilliant mind... but no rigorous proof has been given. 
It is just an opinion.

P.S. it is difficult for me to partecipate meaningfully to discussions during week days, I apologise for lengthy delays in responding. 

14 hours ago, M.IB said:

Hi @Quisant, I just want to ask about your views of the origin of the Universe, is it infinite or finite? Thanks.

Our universe is around 14 billlion years old.
I believe that the raw material/matter that makes up this universe always existed. 
ws.

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 3:48 AM, Quisant said:

I think it is an interesting opinion from a brilliant mind... but no rigorous proof has been given. 
It is just an opinion.

P.S. it is difficult for me to partecipate meaningfully to discussions during week days, I apologise for lengthy delays in responding. 

Our universe is around 14 billlion years old.
I believe that the raw material/matter that makes up this universe always existed. 
ws.

*

Here is a little more in his delusions, he apparently changed his mind - not sure he was a brilliant man then or now. Obviously Newton is a brilliant man so as Eisntian in their respective fields. There personal and uneducated opinions on matters not directly related to their field of study needs to be kept separate. Obviously all three and many other past and present Brilliant minds have differing views on this subject. So, Brilliance can't be the decisive factor here in non related fields.

Here he had a view and now changed it. First of all , his concept/inderstanding of god is questionable second basing his opinion on Judeo-Christian views-Read is arguments.

There are more holes in his argument then swiss cheese.Read it carefully to see that he is uneducated in the subject he is commenting on...

Quote

 

Wednesday 1 September 2010 20.56 EDTFirst published on Wednesday 1 September 2010 20.56 EDT

God did not create the universe, the man who is arguably Britain's most famous living scientist says in a forthcoming book.

In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary".

The Grand Design, an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you

 

Read more

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.

"The fact that we human beings – who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature – have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph."

Hawking says the first blow to Newton's belief that the universe could not have arisen from chaos was the observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions – the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass – far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, he said: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."

Hawking resigned as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University last year after 30 years in the position.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Read it carefully to see that he is uneducated in the subject he is commenting on...

He is much better educated than me, for sure.

I find it interesting that science should be attempting to answer deep questions of fundamental human curiosity. Unfortunately,up to now, it has only been able to determine the truth in the Physical.
*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Salaaam Alaykum,    So I have a SoundCloud for my fav latmiyah for Farsi, Arabic and Urdu. InshaAllah i might even go for a premium account in the future and let me know how they are For Arabic and Farsi -  click below   For Urdu - click below   THANK YOU AND TAKE CARE YA'LL 
    • Salam. Umn al-Baneen AS is well known for her love and loyalty toward the Holy Prophet SA, Fatima Zahra AS, Imam Ali AS, Imam Hassan AS, and Imam Hussein AS. No doubt that Imam Ali AS loved her because she loved Ahlul Bayt AS.  http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/37432-umm-al-baneen-sa/
    • Members are unaware of many inappropriate posts that banned members made in the past, because Moderators removed those posts from the forums. 
    • Guest Zahra
      Salam! Did Imam Ali (as) love Um al baneen like he loved Fatima al zahra? Or did he marry her just so that she could take care of Imam Hussein and imam Hassan? 
    • Hi Mosa, Thanks for your reply! Sorry to say we have not received your email, might be due to a maintenance that our SMTP server was running. Please Contact me on my temporary email for any urgent issues : techie.world99@gmail.com Thanks
×