Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 299
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the UniversePage 12 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe, yeah, and after all, he knows.

something to do with things is just the way they is, because.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 300
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:13:36 PM

Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe, yeah, and after all, he knows.
something to do with things is just the way they is, because.

You don't appear to realise that physics (and science generally) is built on a structure of, amongst other things, observation and evidence.

Perhaps this is why you omitted the crucial part in your summary - "something to do with things is just the way they is, because." of these reasons, this evidence supported by these repeatable observations, and these constants, etc etc.

As opposed to the ID/creationist version - "something to do with things is just the way they is, because." an invisible magic god did it.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 301
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:17:51 PM
so, now science has a way to show there is no god?

I don't think it's been published yet.

and

why would god be visible?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 302
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:36:52 PM

so, now science has a way to show there is no god?

I didn't make that claim.
Besides 'science' has no obligation to disprove something, it's for those making the claim to support it with evidence, in the absence of which there is no means to disprove it.
No evidence for the claim = nothing to disprove.


why would god be visible?

Why wouldn't he/she/it "be visible"? Are you suggesting there's some quality of 'godness' that necessarily requires invisibility? If so, what is it and what evidence you basing the claim of 'necessary invisibility' on.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 303
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:42:24 PM
you mean if you could really see 'him' you would believe 'he' existed?

you actually can't deduce it from all of creation??

there isn't a single empirical reason to believe god does not exist, if there is, what?
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 304
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:55:00 PM
"You don't appear to realise that physics (and science generally) is built on a structure of, amongst other things, observation and evidence."

-I just totally wanted to support this comment. This is absolutely true. Many people, when self-inflicting their beliefs, tend to forget that everything we know scientifically is based off of observation. (For the sake of example) Scientists recently found out, and assert the Moon creates the tides on Earth. Even though this is something I can technically see, there is no further evidence to support this. I can equally assume this is a natural coincidence. It has never been properly measured in a physical way. It has never been phscically tested nor has it been reproduced by humans. So what would it take for me to believe that the tides arent effected by themselves, or even the earth for that matter? I can see 2 harmonious patterns, therefore I believe it? (like i said this was just an example).


"you mean if you could really see 'him' you would believe 'he' existed?
you actually can't deduce it from all of creation??
there isn't a single empirical reason to believe god does not exist, if there is, what?"

-This is also a good comment. In a rational point of view, God is the most likely candidate to fill the void of the unknown answer/source. In science, we observe 2 effects, and deduce a cause. But what if there is no appearent cause, yet with the existence of effects, otherwise? Even if the big bang is true (not saying it is or isnt), then what initiated that? What started the initiation of the Big bang? God? In reality, from rationale to science and math, there must always be something. And when it is impossible to come up with a something for such a cause, God is all that is left.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 305
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 11:01:51 PM

you mean if you could really see 'him' you would believe 'he' existed?

Whether I would or not has nothing to do with your implication that 'invisibility' is some necessary quality possessed by 'god'. I asked you to support the claim, but all you've done is propose a question begging fallacy about what proof is.


you actually can't deduce it from all of creation??

The question marks on this ^^^ are misplaced. It's an inaccurately worded statement, not a question.


there isn't a single empirical reason to believe god does not exist, if there is, what?

There's too much to list. But in short - biology, cosmology, physics, paleontology, etc etc
Even without these though, the simple absence of evidence is sufficient reason to not believe in any number of things, including 'gods'.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 306
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 11:02:24 PM
"You don't appear to realise that physics (and science generally) is built on a structure of, amongst other things, observation and evidence."

ok, yeah, but in this context it's just dogma.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 307
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 11:07:27 PM
me? I'm not asking you to believe anything that you wouldn't first check out for yourself.

lets remember that from now on.

and no more dogma, if that's a reasonable request.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 308
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 11:27:23 PM
''There's too much to list. But in short - biology, cosmology, physics, paleontology, etc etc
Even without these though, the simple absence of evidence is sufficient reason to not believe in any number of things, including 'gods'. ''

don't waste typing dogma.

''There's too much to list.'' yeah I know.

well you can believe anything you want, we all do.
but,
majestic things happening randomly don't cut it in real science.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 309
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 11:59:31 PM

You don't appear to realise that physics (and science generally) is built on a structure of, amongst other things, observation and evidence."


ok, yeah, but in this context it's just dogma.

No it isn't. 'Dogma' is "a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
A core principle of science is falsifiability.

well you can believe anything you want, we all do.

Indeed, even psychotics have 'belief systems' that are often internally consistent. The important thing is the extent to which the 'belief' is consistent with reality.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Scientists recently found out, and assert the Moon creates the tides on Earth. Even though this is something I can technically see, there is no further evidence to support this. I can equally assume this is a natural coincidence. It has never been properly measured in a physical way. It has never been phscically tested nor has it been reproduced by humans. So what would it take for me to believe that the tides arent effected by themselves, or even the earth for that matter? I can see 2 harmonious patterns, therefore I believe it? (like i said this was just an example).

The mechanism of tides is (very) complex, but is well understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm
I remember reading years ago too that tides can be, and have been, detected in very small volumes of liquid in the laboratory, though unfortunately I can't find any links or references.
The effects of gravity (one of the causes of tides, along with inertia and centrifugal forces) have, of course, been demonstrated in controlled conditions - usually by bringing an object of high mass into close proximity with one (usually suspended) of low mass and measuring the deflection.


you mean if you could really see 'him' you would believe 'he' existed?
you actually can't deduce it from all of creation??
there isn't a single empirical reason to believe god does not exist, if there is, what?


This is also a good comment. In a rational point of view, God is the most likely candidate to fill the void of the unknown answer/source.

Not at all. Pixies is just as good an answer as 'god', as is 'magic tree sprites'. Or cunning mice for matter.
Any unsupported guess is as 'good' as any other.
Besides, if 'god' "is the most likely candidate to fill the void of the unknown answer/source" it leads, perfectly logically, to the question of which 'god' - recall that hundreds (if not thousands) have been, and are, posited. And recall that they all rest on the same evidential foundation, it necessarily follows therefore that they are all equally likely, or unlikely as the case may be.


In science, we observe 2 effects, and deduce a cause. But what if there is no appearent cause, yet with the existence of effects, otherwise? Even if the big bang is true (not saying it is or isnt), then what initiated that? What started the initiation of the Big bang? God? In reality, from rationale to science and math, there must always be something. And when it is impossible to come up with a something for such a cause, God is all that is left.

That we don't yet know, or understand, causes that led to effects is not sufficient 'reason' to posit magic, let alone the existence of omniscient beings capable of wielding it an omnipotent scale.

It's not true that "God is all that is left".

'Not knowing' is left. Investigating further is left. More study is left.
Inserting 'god' into things that aren't yet understood is just the 'god of the gaps' argument. It was once used, mistakenly as we now know, to explain why the 'heavenly spheres' revolved around the earth.
It was used to explain, mistakenly as we now know, the differences between species.
One still sees attempts to use it, as recently as this page in this thread -
you actually can't deduce it from all of creation??

Which is just the basic, but still senseless, 'the universe, therefore god' argument.
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 310
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 12:25:43 AM
"The mechanism of tides is (very) complex, but is well understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm
I remember reading years ago too that tides can be, and have been, detected in very small volumes of liquid in the laboratory, though unfortunately I can't find any links or references.
The effects of gravity (one of the causes of tides, along with inertia and centrifugal forces) have, of course, been demonstrated in controlled conditions - usually by bringing an object of high mass into close proximity with one (usually suspended) of low mass and measuring the deflection. "

-Lol i'm aware of that. I just made an example to point out the essence of science.
Edit: Also, just to add to my previous example- Forces have no physical bearing, since they are the mediators of things that bear physical existance. So, even in controlled studies, all they are doing is shrinking down the moon-tide scenario into a lab sized test. Nothing is actually diffent, forces cannot be measured in a directly observable manner, we must rely on the effects of a force to determine what it is doing. We must observe the material being affected. There for, we will connect something that contains enough natural coincidence, by watching cause and affect. This is not like counting money, or measuring a ruler. You cannot see a force, therefor, we have faith that one exists based upon its effects.

"Not at all. Pixies is just as good an answer as 'god', as is 'magic tree sprites'. Or cunning mice for matter.
Any unsupported guess is as 'good' as any other.
Besides, if 'god' "is the most likely candidate to fill the void of the unknown answer/source" it leads, perfectly logically, to the question of which 'god' - recall that hundreds (if not thousands) have been, and are, posited. And recall that they all rest on the same evidential foundation, it necessarily follows therefore that they are all equally likely, or unlikely as the case may be."

-Then pixies are the god. Perhaps magic trees sprites or mice initiated time. Lets call it 'X'. I call 'X' god since everything else seems to be shackled by space-time, which the initiator, a life or not, was not bound to. And God is an above all being. I'm not sure which 'x' from whatever religion, if there is a relevent one, you may want to consider, perhaps the one that initiated time. There for we will call it 'x1'. Certainly, 'x' is responsible for the initiation of time. We dont know who 'x1' is from 'x2' assuming 'x1' isnt even alone. Because our inability to agree on a common, proper name for 'x1', we have no way of Identifying, or talking about it with any relevence. But names dont matter, they dont change anything. It doesnt matter how many 'x's, 'y's, or even 'abc's, there are to figure out which one did it. It was 'x1'. Now, we need to find out how this 'x1' existed. So, perhaps a thousands years from now, someone may find 'x1' to be a magical pixie. Until there is a rational answer, a reason without doubt as to what caused the effects that led to the birth of our universe, I will continue to blame 'x1', and for the sake of common communication, I will call 'x1', god.

Perhaps there are a thousand religions with 10 thousand gods. They could all be 'x1'. Even that, though, is irrelevent.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 311
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 1:19:18 AM

Not at all. Pixies is just as good an answer as 'god', as is 'magic tree sprites'. Or cunning mice for matter.
Any unsupported guess is as 'good' as any other.
Besides, if 'god' "is the most likely candidate to fill the void of the unknown answer/source" it leads, perfectly logically, to the question of which 'god' - recall that hundreds (if not thousands) have been, and are, posited. And recall that they all rest on the same evidential foundation, it necessarily follows therefore that they are all equally likely, or unlikely as the case may be.


Then pixies are the god. Perhaps magic trees sprites or mice initiated time. Lets call it 'X'. I call 'X' god since everything else seems to be shackled by space-time, which the initiator, a life or not, was not bound to.

How do you know what 'X' is, or isn't "bound to"? Assuming 'X' has certain properties is a form of question begging that derives a prejudiced answer - which may or may not be valid.
Answers that may or may not be valid, without any way of distinguishing which, are functionally useless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


And God is tan above all being. I'm not sure which 'x' from whatever religion, if there is a relevent one, you may want to consider, perhaps the one that initiated time.
There for we will call it 'x1'. Certainly, 'x' is responsible for the initiation of time.

How do you know any of them "initiated time"? Supposing that a 'theoretical' agency has the built in qualities and abilities that lead to confirmation of the theory is just the circulus in probando (circular reasoning) variety of the 'begging the question' fallacy.


We dont know who 'x1' is from 'x2' assuming 'x1' isnt even alone. Because our inability to agree on a common, proper name for 'x1', we have no way of Identifying, or talking about it with any relevence. But names dont matter, they dont change anything.
It doesnt matter how many 'x's, 'y's, or even 'abc's, there are to figure out which one did it. It was 'x1'. Now, we need to find out how this 'x1' existed. So, perhaps a thousands years from now, someone may find 'x1' to be a magical pixie. Until there is a rational answer, a reason without doubt as to what caused the effects that led to the birth of our universe, I will continue to blame 'x1', and for the sake of common sommunication, I will call 'x1', god.

Whether you apply a naming convention of 'X1... X9000', or refer to them all as unsupported and irrational superstitious myths made up by primitive people makes no difference. The support is still lacking.
In the above passage you make a series of assumptions leading to the conclusion that 'X1' created the universe. There is no reason to suppose the universe was even 'created', let alone that X1 alone was responsible for it.
It may have been X2 and X3 working together, or X10,11,12,13... to X7805 combined, perhaps they divvied up the 'creation' to make it fair, perhaps some are planet specialists while others excel at landscape 'creation'.
Perhaps it was tribes of pixies competing and they produced half each, which led to them using up all their magic so they died out which explains why there aren't any magic pixies now.

It's easy to generate endless 'explanations' that all lead to the same conclusion, because they all amount to no more than 'The Universe, therefore god' or 'The Universe, therefore pixies' or 'The Universe, therefore thousands of gods' or 'The Universe, therefore X1'.
What they all have in common is a complete lack of rational foundation.


Perhaps there are a thousand religions with 10 thousand gods. They could all be 'x1'. Even that, though, is irrelevent.

Indeed, and "perhaps" there are none, so it's only "irrelevant" if one considers rationality and logic are of no consequence.
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 312
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 2:46:04 AM
"How do you know what 'X' is, or isn't "bound to"? Assuming 'X' has certain properties is a form of question begging that derives a prejudiced answer - which may or may not be valid.
Answers that may or may not be valid, without any way of distinguishing which, are functionally useless."

-Simple, in order to initiate time, you must exist before it does.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question"

-Im not asserting the premises. Nature is. Time has initiated, there for it was initiated. I myself, am not asserting that fact by my own question, but by our own existence in time, including your own experience of it. Im trying not to be captain obvious here.

"How do you know any of them "initiated time"? Supposing that a 'theoretical' agency has the built in qualities and abilities that lead to confirmation of the theory is just the circulus in probando (circular reasoning) variety of the 'begging the question' fallacy."

-Them? Who's them? All I know is that 'x' did it. I'm not being theoretical with the agency. Im being mathematical. Could you say an agency or 'x' that lacks the qualities to initiate time has the ability to do so? If it does not have the qualities, it cannot confirm. This is not circular reasoning. It's more or less mathematical, and to some extent you could even say logical. Existence is founded upon physical logic (such as a material, energy, or force being completely mathematical and nothing more than 'digital' disruption of space), therefor initiation was to. Something had the capability to create that? No? How is this begging the question, when we already know how fermions and bosons exist in space? The all-too-proven higgs mechanism proves this notion. The realm of whats physical is only an experience. The realm of what exists lies in the dimension of information. Information is indeed a quantity in existence. To deny this, is denying your own existence, therefor you become your own fallacy, begging your own quesition. In order to not beg your own question, you must accept the fact that you exist, and just how you exist.

"Whether you apply a naming convention of 'X1... X9000', or refer to them all as unsupported and irrational superstitious myths made up by primitive people makes no difference."

- You misread what I said. Naming doesnt make a difference. 'x' is not a name. Philosophically, it is a thing. When you put every thing into math, the entity in question becomes a variable, correct? Therefor it is 'x', further, 'x1' to distinguish it from anything related.

" The support is still lacking.
In the above passage you make a series of assumptions leading to the conclusion that 'X1' created the universe. There is no reason to suppose the universe was even 'created', let alone that X1 alone was responsible for it.
It may have been X2 and X3 working together, or X10,11,12,13... to X7805 combined, perhaps they divvied up the 'creation' to make it fair, perhaps some are planet specialists while others excel at landscape 'creation'. "

-Well, you could say the universe was not created. But then we would not exist. This is a reality check. Space itself does after all occupy void/dimension. I could say myself, I may have not been created, despite the fact that my creation depended on an existence before me, all because I can imagine the rhetoric of it. If you deny the existence of a religious god because he was not founded upon physical sources, then you cannot deny that physical existence itself was created by something that had the power to do so. And sure, you can say multiple entities took a part if it makes you happy, but those entities would be spurs of the first one, existence happened without time, and multiple instances of it would be impossible because there was no dimension. Much like a singularity. You take away every dimension in existence, youre left without even a measurement or distance or event. You have but the idea a human is capable of, a singularity. A dimensionless point of nothing. Because singularities exist, I do have support. Because we exist, we are the *result* of a material creation, whether you want to believe in creation or not.

"Perhaps it was tribes of pixies competing and they produced half each, which led to them using up all their magic so they died out which explains why there aren't any magic pixies now."

-Sure, ask their creator.

"It's easy to generate endless 'explanations' that all lead to the same conclusion, because they all amount to no more than 'The Universe, therefore god' or 'The Universe, therefore pixies' or 'The Universe, therefore thousands of gods' or 'The Universe, therefore X1'.
What they all have in common is a complete lack of rational foundation."

-What they all have in common is an answer. Listen to that. Try to put the answers together, you may see that it is all the same thing. You cannot prove something, unless you can figure out the answer. You might not like the idea of putting an apple and orange together, but force that idea, and you may have a new idea. The rational foundation is our existence, and everything we know about it. We just need the answer to prove it. You cannot achieve a rational foundation or even a question, if you dont have an answer, and visa versa.
 Balsamica
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 313
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 6:04:09 AM
I suspect that Hawking is wrong and that science will prove the existence of God, just not the God we imagine.

A new frontier of science now says that the three-dimensional universe we live in is an "illusion" in the sense that it is a hologram projected from a two-dimensional source. That two-dimensional source would be God and the three dimensions is in the "mind" of God, just like Bishop Berkeley used to say (or something like it).

I saw a movie about metaphysics that said the more we've explored matter the more we find it is mostly just space....even subatomic particles are just mostly space with little neutrinos and such spinning around so quickly they give the illusion of being solid.......and the real substance, it said, is actually thought...or perhaps, Mind.

Another one on PBS said that in black holes, a whole star might be engulfed but all the information about that star somehow is retained on the surface of the black hole ...ageless and indestructible.

Something else I read said that after the Big Bang, the universe found order surprisingly quickly, as if there already were physical laws that predated matter, which seems an impossibility but possible, perhaps, if it were only a three-dimensional projection from a two-dimensional source?
 mccullough64
Joined: 11/11/2006
Msg: 314
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 6:38:12 AM
The Illusion is that TimeSpace 3-D exists and and that it stretchs and dilatesin it there are 6 directions and you need at lest two locations before you can locate any thing within it. and in addition to photon traveling at different speeds through different physical medium, they are part of the Electro-magnetic spectrum and the speed and vector is control by electromagnets and this is observed in particle accelerators.
and by gravity the intensity of which vary and lessens in inter stellar space which is why the Voyager probe is losing mass and speeding up as it leaves the solar system.
these are the factors all of which prove that the speed of light is not a constant.

and thae fact that an atom loses mass when it emit a photon pretty well prove they have mass as all particles do. and that means Maxwell equations were faked. As was Galilian Relativity
Feynmen said it was all particles, particles, particles, particles. and it is, even if that not what he meant. Even waves, are particle waves made up of supersmall particles just like an ocean wave is made of atoms. (I recommendthe book "Waves and Beach's)and photons exhibit features of both because they are made up of smaller particles like a drop of rain
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 315
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 7:40:01 AM

How do you know what 'X' is, or isn't "bound to"? Assuming 'X' has certain properties is a form of question begging that derives a prejudiced answer - which may or may not be valid.
Answers that may or may not be valid, without any way of distinguishing which, are functionally useless.


Simple, in order to initiate time, you must exist before it does.

Not only are you assuming 'time' didn't always exist, in the familiar format or otherwise, you also assume it required an 'initiator'.
Q - How do you know these things?
A - You don't. You are assuming, presumably because the assumption requires an 'initiator/creator/god' thing, which only reveals the prejudiced prerequisite you started from rather than revealing anything useful about time, or the universe.


How do you know any of them "initiated time"? Supposing that a 'theoretical' agency has the built in qualities and abilities that lead to confirmation of the theory is just the circulus in probando (circular reasoning) variety of the 'begging the question' fallacy."


Them? Who's them? All I know is that 'x' did it.

'Them' are the thousands of 'gods' you allowed have equal weight.
How do you know 'x' did it? Your argument boils down to - 'The universe/time, therefore X/god'.

It's an irrational premise whether 'X' allegedly did it, a 'god' allegedly did it, thousands of 'gods' allegedly did it, or magic pixies allegedly did it.


I'm not being theoretical with the agency. Im being mathematical. Could you say an agency or 'x' that lacks the qualities to initiate time has the ability to do so? If it does not have the qualities, it cannot confirm. This is not circular reasoning. It's more or less mathematical, and to some extent you could even say logical. Existence is founded upon physical logic (such as a material, energy, or force being completely mathematical and nothing more than 'digital' disruption of space), therefor initiation was to. Something had the capability to create that? No? How is this begging the question, when we already know how fermions and bosons exist in space? The all-too-proven higgs mechanism proves this notion. The realm of whats physical is only an experience. The realm of what exists lies in the dimension of information. Information is indeed a quantity in existence. To deny this, is denying your own existence, therefor you become your own fallacy, begging your own quesition. In order to not beg your own question, you must accept the fact that you exist, and just how you exist.

Conflating pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo with real scientific concepts doesn't mask the hole in the argument.
The fact that I exist is not evidence that a 'god' created or initiated me.



We dont know who 'x1' is from 'x2' assuming 'x1' isnt even alone. Because our inability to agree on a common, proper name for 'x1', we have no way of Identifying, or talking about it with any relevence. But names dont matter, they dont change anything.
It doesnt matter how many 'x's, 'y's, or even 'abc's, there are to figure out which one did it. It was 'x1'. Now, we need to find out how this 'x1' existed. So, perhaps a thousands years from now, someone may find 'x1' to be a magical pixie. Until there is a rational answer, a reason without doubt as to what caused the effects that led to the birth of our universe, I will continue to blame 'x1', and for the sake of common sommunication, I will call 'x1', god.


Whether you apply a naming convention of 'X1... X9000', or refer to them all as unsupported and irrational superstitious myths made up by primitive people makes no difference. The support is still lacking.
In the above passage you make a series of assumptions leading to the conclusion that 'X1' created the universe. There is no reason to suppose the universe was even 'created', let alone that X1 alone was responsible for it.
It may have been X2 and X3 working together, or X10,11,12,13... to X7805 combined, perhaps they divvied up the 'creation' to make it fair, perhaps some are planet specialists while others excel at landscape 'creation'.
Perhaps it was tribes of pixies competing and they produced half each, which led to them using up all their magic so they died out which explains why there aren't any magic pixies now.


You misread what I said. Naming doesnt make a difference. 'x' is not a name. Philosophically, it is a thing. When you put every thing into math, the entity in question becomes a variable, correct? Therefor it is 'x', further, 'x1' to distinguish it from anything related.

I didn't misread you. I was pointing out that if the only support your theory has is an assumption snatched out of thin air, it makes no difference whether it's a name, a variable, or a 'thing'. It's still just a chimera.


Well, you could say the universe was not created. But then we would not exist.

We self evidently exist and so does the universe, but you've offered no evidence that either were 'created' other than your own incredulity expressed in the form of circular arguments.


If you deny the existence of a religious god because he was not founded upon physical sources, then you cannot deny that physical existence itself was created by something that had the power to do so.

None of this ^ ^ ^ follows. It's just concealed question begging and circularity.


And sure, you can say multiple entities took a part if it makes you happy, but those entities would be spurs of the first one...

Do you have a citation for this?


...existence happened without time, and multiple instances of it would be impossible because there was no dimension. Much like a singularity. You take away every dimension in existence, youre left without even a measurement or distance or event. You have but the idea a human is capable of, a singularity. A dimensionless point of nothing. Because singularities exist, I do have support. Because we exist, we are the *result* of a material creation, whether you want to believe in creation or not.

This is just pseudoscience with a dash of creationist assumption.



Perhaps it was tribes of pixies competing and they produced half each, which led to them using up all their magic so they died out which explains why there aren't any magic pixies now.

Sure, ask their creator.

Or the creator of their creator? Or the creators of the creator who created their creator perhaps?

Do you see the problem with your reasoning?



It's easy to generate endless 'explanations' that all lead to the same conclusion, because they all amount to no more than 'The Universe, therefore god' or 'The Universe, therefore pixies' or 'The Universe, therefore thousands of gods' or 'The Universe, therefore X1'.
What they all have in common is a complete lack of rational foundation.


What they all have in common is an answer. Listen to that. Try to put the answers together, you may see that it is all the same thing. You cannot prove something, unless you can figure out the answer. You might not like the idea of putting an apple and orange together, but force that idea, and you may have a new idea.

That's all very well, but the point still stands. It's irrational to use the universe as proof of 'god' since there's not only no causal link, there's no evidence that any 'gods' exist.
To use your example of apples and oranges - put them together and they are proof of cameleopards? No causal link... check. No evidence that cameleoprds exist... check. It must be true then hey?
Do you need more proof? The only reason we haven't found any apple plus orange created cameleopards is because they exist outside space and time in another dimension, and they are invisible anyway.
Gosh, sounds like incontrovertible proof that surely no one could possibly doubt for a second...



The rational foundation is our existence, and everything we know about it. We just need the answer to prove it. You cannot achieve a rational foundation or even a question, if you dont have an answer, and visa versa.

Contrary to your assertion, it's perfectly reasonable to pose a rational question without having an answer.
Certainly, it may be that you have a possible answer, but the rational thing to do at that point is investigate, test, observe, and verify. Then you publish, announce your testing protocols, supply results, establish the unarguable or at least probable link between the proposition and the conclusions, and invite others to repeat the process.

Wild guesses supported by circular arguments built on assumptions aren't quite in the same league.
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 316
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 12:30:31 PM
"Not only are you assuming 'time' didn't always exist, in the familiar format or otherwise, you also assume it required an 'initiator'.
Q - How do you know these things?
A - You don't. You are assuming, presumably because the assumption requires an 'initiator/creator/god' thing, which only reveals the prejudiced prerequisite you started from rather than revealing anything useful about time, or the universe."

- Ok, well first you must break away from the anciently held notion that time was a dimension itself. It has been hypothesyzed, and found, that time is the relationship between space, and matter. More understandably, either space-time, or motion. Therefor, you dont have space, or matter, you dont have time. You think I am making an assumption, which you are clearly assuming yourself, since your argument is imagined, mine is scientifically based.
1000 years ago, you would have been able to perpetuate a never ending argument.

"'Them' are the thousands of 'gods' you allowed have equal weight.
How do you know 'x' did it? Your argument boils down to - 'The universe/time, therefore X/god'.

It's an irrational premise whether 'X' allegedly did it, a 'god' allegedly did it, thousands of 'gods' allegedly did it, or magic pixies allegedly did it."

-Whether I allow the to have equal weight or not, does not matter, because what I say doesnt change anything, they are nothing more than variables. To assume otherwise, is biasing the assumption. And it's a completely rational premises: your basing your understanding of the mechanisms of existence based solely upon your own experience, not that of a mathematical nature, so your not seeing how something would exist in a lesser dimensional existence. In three dimensions of information preservation, you can have multiple instances... take those 3 away, and you are left with a singularity, including but certainly not limited to space and gravity. A singularity is a single instance of anything. I cant make you understand or see how this works, i can only help.

"Conflating pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo with real scientific concepts doesn't mask the hole in the argument.
The fact that I exist is not evidence that a 'god' created or initiated me."

-If you think im pioneering pseudiscientific mumbo jumbo, that may be your misunderstanding right there. You need to catch up on current findings of physical science. Information preservation is a measurable dimension, that does propagate faster than light. The higgs mechanism is required to conduct further scientific studies, it has moved from being proven, to being used. Your right too. There is no evidence that god made you. That's because, clearly, he didn't. Something more earthly did. 'X' started the universe, he didnt start you.

"I didn't misread you. I was pointing out that if the only support your theory has is an assumption snatched out of thin air, it makes no difference whether it's a name, a variable, or a 'thing'. It's still just a chimera."
-So your saying a 'thing' would be an assumption, yet it is a chimera? Great! So our understanding of the entity has evolved into something more meaningful! I'll call it 'x'.

"We self evidently exist and so does the universe, but you've offered no evidence that either were 'created' other than your own incredulity expressed in the form of circular arguments."
-Ok, this may be easier to understand: If you were not around before the time you were born: why do you assume you were born in the first place? Do you base your belief on other sources of information? How do you know existed as you know it didn't start at the time of your birth? Now, relate this question, with you argument. I would assume you rely on what others have told or taught you, which is what a scientist does with nature. There is much that we know.

"None of this ^ ^ ^ follows. It's just concealed question begging and circularity."
-Well im not going to hold your hand with it, you'll understand eventually. It's purely logical.

"Do you have a citation for this?"
-Here is an excellent place for you to start:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=55

"This is just pseudoscience with a dash of creationist assumption. "
-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210173609.htm
There is no form of 'pseudo' being used here. And sure, if you want to negate my statement that you need a dimension more the existence of more than one thing.. I guess your imagination is as free as you will allow it.

"Or the creator of their creator? Or the creators of the creator who created their creator perhaps?
Do you see the problem with your reasoning? "
-Yes, your trying to point out a perpetual logic. Only problem is, that's a classical understaning. In existence, nothing is infinently perpetual, or our existence itself would somehow reflect that, no? Your assuming the impossible to be possible.


"That's all very well, but the point still stands. It's irrational to use the universe as proof of 'god' since there's not only no causal link, there's no evidence that any 'gods' exist.
To use your example of apples and oranges - put them together and they are proof of cameleopards? No causal link... check. No evidence that cameleoprds exist... check. It must be true then hey?
Do you need more proof? The only reason we haven't found any apple plus orange created cameleopards is because they exist outside space and time in another dimension, and they are invisible anyway.
Gosh, sounds like incontrovertible proof that surely no one could possibly doubt for a second..."
- If you cannot conjure up an Idea more advanced and comprehensive respecting the inclusion of multiple possible answers, than your ability to comprehend the answer itself is limited. I cannot help you there. A hint though, is that it may not be an object of singular manifestation: look up dualism. A great way to understand dualism in a singular instance, would be learning about quantum spin, especialy boson integers 0,2, and 4. This is evidence that such thought applies in existence.

"Contrary to your assertion, it's perfectly reasonable to pose a rational question without having an answer.
Certainly, it may be that you have a possible answer, but the rational thing to do at that point is investigate, test, observe, and verify. Then you publish, announce your testing protocols, supply results, establish the unarguable or at least probable link between the proposition and the conclusions, and invite others to repeat the process.
Wild guesses supported by circular arguments built on assumptions aren't quite in the same league"

- Your comment is totally valid, only no one is going to do that here, people are at work to do this. The largest hurdle to overcome is human imagination. "establish the unarguable ", Human imagination will not make this possible for every, or that not everyone will accept this notion.
The only way to prove something like this in a convincing manner, would require alot of work, especially in the disciplines of psychology and science. Something truly inapropiate here. I just hope the ones convincing are going to be honest. I dont like wasting my time.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 317
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 4:44:36 PM
we are feeble humans with feeble science [it can decipher very little empirically].
and nothing outside of this materialistic universe.

so whats magic?

the big bang, so far, is magic. [unguided, that is].

any unguided constructive improvement is magic.

relying on the man made definition, ''natural laws'' is a cop out, as is believing randomness did it.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 318
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 5:00:10 PM
to message 294
''But if he's affected this universe, then he is. If he is, or was, he will leave traces.''

traces????????????????????
does ALL of existence count??????????

oh, and a natural law implies a causer.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 319
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 6:09:09 PM

...time is the relationship between space, and matter. More understandably, either space-time, or motion. Therefor, you dont have space, or matter, you dont have time. You think I am making an assumption, which you are clearly assuming yourself, since your argument is imagined, mine is scientifically based.

This ^ ^ ^ is a straw man, since I wasn't arguing about the nature of time. The assumption I pointed to was the sudden appearance of a magic 'initiator' who is apparently required to start it (time).
Nor am I the one producing supernatural beings capable of large scale magic out of nowhere to fulfill an imagined difficulty in a pseudo-scientific theory, that would be you, so the last sentence in the above quote is almost comical.



It's an irrational premise whether 'X' allegedly did it, a 'god' allegedly did it, thousands of 'gods' allegedly did it, or magic pixies allegedly did it."


Whether I allow the to have equal weight or not, does not matter, because what I say doesnt change anything, they are nothing more than variables. To assume otherwise, is biasing the assumption. And it's a completely rational premises: your basing your understanding of the mechanisms of existence based solely upon your own experience, not that of a mathematical nature, so your not seeing how something would exist in a lesser dimensional existence. In three dimensions of information preservation, you can have multiple instances... take those 3 away, and you are left with a singularity, including but certainly not limited to space and gravity. A singularity is a single instance of anything. I cant make you understand or see how this works,
(my emphasis)
So what.
Note the word I've emphasised - that's your problem right there. Substitute 'could' or 'might' and you're still on shaky ground, but asserting 'would' is reckless. Particularly considering that you're applying that "would exist" to a supernatural agency for which no actual evidence exists.


I didn't misread you. I was pointing out that if the only support your theory has is an assumption snatched out of thin air, it makes no difference whether it's a name, a variable, or a 'thing'. It's still just a chimera."

So your saying a 'thing' would be an assumption, yet it is a chimera? Great! So our understanding of the entity has evolved into something more meaningful! I'll call it 'x'.

Call it what you like, assign properties to it all you like - it makes no difference. A chimera is either a monstrous fire-breathing female creature with the body of a lioness featuring the head of a goat on her back at the center of her spine and a tail ending in a snake's head. or 'an impossible and/or foolish fantasy". Calling it 'X' and inserting it into a 'mathematical' model doesn't change anything.


And sure, you can say multiple entities took a part if it makes you happy, but those entities would be spurs of the first one...

Do you have a citation for this?

Here is an excellent place for you to start:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=55

The link is to a definition of 'singularity', it makes no reference to "entities", let alone to "entities" that would be "spurs of the first one".
So, do you have a reference to a scientific paper or discussion, or any reputable source at all, that supports your 'spurred theory of entities'?


Perhaps it was tribes of pixies competing and they produced half each, which led to them using up all their magic so they died out which explains why there aren't any magic pixies now.

Sure, ask their creator.


Or the creator of their creator? Or the creators of the creator who created their creator perhaps?
Do you see the problem with your reasoning? "

Yes, your trying to point out a perpetual logic. Only problem is, that's a classical understaning. In existence, nothing is infinently perpetual, or our existence itself would somehow reflect that, no? Your assuming the impossible to be possible.

R i g h t . . . but wait a minute... I'm not the one proposing a 'spurred entity theory' or a 'great initiator' that exists outside space and time.
Nor am I asserting that "nothing is infinently perpetual", except 'the initiator' apparently, who can only ever be represented as a single instance because of 'dimensional precepts mathematically conforming to quantum theory bosons originated by Higgs string cosmology fields in dark matter... something something...'

That would be you.

Ergo -
That's all very well, but the point still stands. It's irrational to use the universe as proof of 'god' since there's not only no causal link, there's no evidence that any 'gods' exist.

If you cannot conjure up an Idea more advanced and comprehensive respecting the inclusion of multiple possible answers, than your ability to comprehend the answer itself is limited. I cannot help you there. A hint though, is that it may not be an object of singular manifestation: look up dualism. A great way to understand dualism in a singular instance, would be learning about quantum spin, especialy boson integers 0,2, and 4. This is evidence that such thought applies in existence.

None of that ^ ^ ^ has anything to do with the point, but it's informative nonetheless. Particularly the phrase I've emphasised, because that's the key to unlocking the method you are using to generate your theories.
Instead of producing a rabbit out of a hat though, out pops an 'initiator of time'. Or shall we call Him 'X'? hahahahaa


Contrary to your assertion, it's perfectly reasonable to pose a rational question without having an answer.
Certainly, it may be that you have a possible answer, but the rational thing to do at that point is investigate, test, observe, and verify. Then you publish, announce your testing protocols, supply results, establish the unarguable or at least probable link between the proposition and the conclusions, and invite others to repeat the process.
Wild guesses supported by circular arguments built on assumptions aren't quite in the same league.


Your comment is totally valid, only no one is going to do that here, people are at work to do this. The largest hurdle to overcome is human imagination. "establish the unarguable ", Human imagination will not make this possible for every, or that not everyone will accept this notion.
The only way to prove something like this in a convincing manner, would require alot of work, especially in the disciplines of psychology and science. Something truly inapropiate here. I just hope the ones convincing are going to be honest. I dont like wasting my time.

Indeed, it does require a lot of work, and sometimes a lot of money - I'll believe in 'X' if they find one in the tunnel at the LHC.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
 lagoda
Joined: 11/20/2009
Msg: 320
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 7:06:47 PM
Oh my! Is Plato's Republic?

Someone here is getting so badly beat up by his own shadow, it doesn't look hopeful they're ever getting out of the cave.
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 321
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/21/2012 10:29:24 PM
"This ^ ^ ^ is a straw man, since I wasn't arguing about the nature of time. The assumption I pointed to was the sudden appearance of a magic 'initiator' who is apparently required to start it (time).
Nor am I the one producing supernatural beings capable of large scale magic out of nowhere to fulfill an imagined difficulty in a pseudo-scientific theory, that would be you, so the last sentence in the above quote is almost comical."

-Well your positing that an initiation would be magical, requiring supernatural existence, derived entirely from an imagination suggesting no scientific support, and disregarding such because it sounds comical. Initiation is not a magical occurance, its very natural. It involves the physical foundations of existence. Your personifying an initiator, you need to get over that brick wall and see how something can initiate without the judgement to do so. Your declaring the material world to be made of magic, therefore anything that would initiate it would require magical powers, with a magical existence relating to the supernatural. If the material world was argued not to be of magical substance, initiation would thus have to be in natural substance too. Your disposition of evasiveness is not letting you accept the image of initiation being natural. When you say 'large scale magic', that could very well be translated into the near infinite amounts of mass and energy stored in this universe, which is very natural.


"So what.
Note the word I've emphasised - that's your problem right there. Substitute 'could' or 'might' and you're still on shaky ground, but asserting 'would' is reckless. Particularly considering that you're applying that "would exist" to a supernatural agency for which no actual evidence exists."

-I said 'would' to signify the present tense of occurence for the sake of communication. I'm also taking it from your point of view. Your rebuking this 'happening' as a reckless idea. Who says an entity has to be supernatural? Why must it be personified in the first place? Further, how could you posit that there is no evidence, if you could not understand how existence in singularity would occur in the first place? If there was (appearently I need to specify that im taking your point of view that it is not likely) evidence, you would not be able to understand it, and you would rebuke it again, since an existence in nature could not exist in your imagination or understanding. If you could understand it, you wouldn't be rebuking it in the first place.

"Call it what you like, assign properties to it all you like - it makes no difference. A chimera is either a monstrous fire-breathing female creature with the body of a lioness featuring the head of a goat on her back at the center of her spine and a tail ending in a snake's head. or 'an impossible and/or foolish fantasy". Calling it 'X' and inserting it into a 'mathematical' model doesn't change anything."

- Using 'x' as a variable, does have a difference. If a chimera is an impossible or foolish fantasy, then it certainly isn't 'x'. To make this one simple and short, can you supply contrary evidence that would assert 'x' as being a foolish or impossible idea? If not, than clearly it's derived from your dispositional bias, and not that of nature or mathematical supplementation.

"R i g h t . . . but wait a minute... I'm not the one proposing a 'spurred entity theory' or a 'great initiator' that exists outside space and time."

-I mentioned entities being spurred to supplement your idea of possible simultaneous instances. Why does an initiator have to be shackled to the fabric of spacetime? Why is it that you view an existence not relient on spacetime to be such a bogus idea? Do you have evidence in any remote way shape or form to rebuke the subject as not worth proposing? Why I could supply evidence to show that things already exist with out the need for spacetime... Shall I recieve credit in doing so?

"Nor am I asserting that "nothing is infinently perpetual", except 'the initiator' apparently, who can only ever be represented as a single instance because of 'dimensional precepts mathematically conforming to quantum theory bosons originated by Higgs string cosmology fields in dark matter... something something...'
That would be you."

-Well I sure hope you would assert that nothing is infinently perpetual, to show your competence in physical science. And I appreciate you for pointing out that I introduced a scientific basis to this process. I do find it surprising though how you find scientific support to be unnessecary in understanding our distant past, or existence in any case.

"None of that ^ ^ ^ has anything to do with the point, but it's informative nonetheless. Particularly the phrase I've emphasised, because that's the key to unlocking the method you are using to generate your theories.
Instead of producing a rabbit out of a hat though, out pops an 'initiator of time'. Or shall we call Him 'X'? hahahahaa "

-Yes it does. You were clearly asserting that there must be a casual link between two things to provide evidence of existence of one of those things, which is impossible to begin with. Not only is that wrong scientifically, where nothing is found on a casual basis, where scientists for decades have been trying to ward people from classical perception of science because there are faults in it, but a link itself does not prove the existence of something, because it may be irrelevent to what your trying to link it to. You also assert that the universe cannot be used as evidence for an entity (as you brush it off as personifying a god), therefore, you perpetuate the idea that there is no evidence for one because it cannot be linked to the universe. This is what you brought up earlier, begging the question. Why can't the *result* of a creation be (*atleast* potentially)evidence for creation itself? And why are you connecting magic tricks with natural occurances? Wheres the appearent connection in that? And why are you assuming that I have solely generated theories of natural creation bymyself? Are you fabricating now?

"- I'll believe in 'X' if they find one in the tunnel at the LHC."
-Why does the LHC have to prove something more, to prove that matter is created? The higgs mechanism is already proven. They are just looking for a particular type of particle. If the higgs boson exists, then the higgs mechanism is indeed a part of spacetime itself, spacetime being the *fuel* to reversably create energy, and making spacetime a a thing that was created. If not, then the higgs mechanism is independent of spacetime, showing more evidence of existence before spacetime itself, and the manner in which material was created. So far, it appears the boson does not exist. Scientists dont like that because it feels too magical for them, since it proves existence before even the theorized big bang. This just gave me an epiphany.... what if this 'magic' you keep describing really turns out to be an abstract of the higgs field, which you immediately deny because you reject certain aspects of reality?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 322
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/22/2012 7:24:50 AM

Your personifying an initiator, you need to get over that brick wall and see how something can initiate without the judgement to do so.

Ahhh... I'm not the one who wrote this -


In a rational point of view, God is the most likely candidate to fill the void of the unknown answer/source. In science, we observe 2 effects, and deduce a cause. But what if there is no appearent cause, yet with the existence of effects, otherwise? Even if the big bang is true (not saying it is or isnt), then what initiated that? What started the initiation of the Big bang? God? In reality, from rationale to science and math, there must always be something. And when it is impossible to come up with a something for such a cause, God is all that is left.

Or this -

Lets call it 'X'. I call 'X' god since everything else seems to be shackled by space-time, which the initiator, a life or not, was not bound to. And God is an above all being.
...and for the sake of common communication, I will call 'x1', god.

Or this -

If you deny the existence of a religious god because he was not founded upon physical sources, then you cannot deny that physical existence itself was created by something that had the power to do so. And sure, you can say multiple entities took a part if it makes you happy, but those entities would be spurs of the first one, existence happened without time, and multiple instances of it would be impossible because there was no dimension. Much like a singularity. You take away every dimension in existence, youre left without even a measurement or distance or event. You have but the idea a human is capable of, a singularity. A dimensionless point of nothing. Because singularities exist, I do have support. Because we exist, we are the *result* of a material creation, whether you want to believe in creation or not.

Though I did write the first part of this -

It's easy to generate endless 'explanations' that all lead to the same conclusion, because they all amount to no more than 'The Universe, therefore god' or 'The Universe, therefore pixies' or 'The Universe, therefore thousands of gods' or 'The Universe, therefore X1'.
What they all have in common is a complete lack of rational foundation.

What they all have in common is an answer.

And the answer is? God / the initiator/ X? pfft.

It's transparently disingenuous to pretend it's me who is trying to 'personify' the great 'initiator' when you've used 'god', 'the initiator', and 'X' interchangeably in a thread inspired by a well known scientists dismissal of 'GOD' as being necessary to explain the existence of the universe.

I'm not saying the universe doesn't exist, I'm not saying we understand the format it took before the big bang, I'm just saying, as Hawking did, that there's no implied requirement in the universe for a god, or an initiator called god, or a god called X.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 323
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/22/2012 7:29:45 AM

we are feeble humans with feeble science [it can decipher very little empirically].
and nothing outside of this materialistic universe.
so whats magic?
the big bang, so far, is magic. [unguided, that is].
any unguided constructive improvement is magic.
relying on the man made definition, ''natural laws'' is a cop out, as is believing randomness did it.

All of that ^ ^ ^ is either untrue, not relevant, or vaguely misrepresents reality.


oh, and a natural law implies a causer.

No it doesn't.

It's interesting that the alleged necessity for this 'causer' equates to the requirement alleged by the another prominent poster for an 'initiator'.

One suspects you are both getting your information from here -

The universe obeys certain rules—laws to which all things must adhere. These laws are precise, and many of them are mathematical in nature. Natural laws are hierarchical in nature; secondary laws of nature are based on primary laws of nature, which have to be just right in order for our universe to be possible. But, where did these laws come from, and why do they exist? If the universe were merely the accidental by-product of a big bang, then why should it obey orderly principles—or any principles at all for that matter? Such laws are consistent with biblical creation. Natural laws exist because the universe has a Creator God who is logical and has imposed order on His universe (Genesis 1:1).

The Word of God
Everything in the universe, every plant and animal, every rock, every particle of matter or light wave, is bound by laws which it has no choice but to obey. The Bible tells us that there are laws of nature—“ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.

God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is not haphazard or arbitrary. It obeys laws of chemistry that are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created. The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/god-natural-law


For some balance, check this out -


Some of the more famous laws of nature are found in Isaac Newton's theories of (now) classical mechanics, presented in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Other examples of laws of nature include Boyle's law of gases, conservation laws, the four laws of thermodynamics, etc.

Compared to pre-modern accounts of causality, laws of nature fill the role played by divine causality on the one hand, and accounts such as Plato's theory of forms on the other.

In all accounts of causality, the idea that there are underlying regularities in nature dates to prehistoric times, since even the recognition of cause-and-effect relationships is an implicit recognition that there are laws of nature.

Progress in identifying laws per se, though, was limited by the belief in animism, and by the attribution of many effects that do not have readily obvious causes—such as meteorological, astronomical and biological phenomena— to the actions of various gods, spirits, supernatural beings, etc.
Early attempts to formulate laws in material terms were made by ancient philosophers, including Aristotle, but suffered both from lack of definitions and lack of accurate observations (experimenting), and hence had various misconceptions - such as the assumption that observed effects were due to intrinsic properties of objects, e.g. "heaviness," "lightness," "wetness," etc. - which were results lacking accurate supporting experimental data.

The precise formulation of what are today recognized as correct statements of the laws of nature did not begin until the 17th century in Europe, with the beginning of accurate experimentation and development of advanced form of mathematics (see scientific method).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >