Do you want me to give you a name? I'll have to go dig out of "The Fire in the Equations" again. Stephen Hawking has a Christian friend (but I forget his name) who continually refutes Hawking's atheistic agendas.
Hawking himself takes a very muted approach. I've got no problem with the guy, and think he asks very intriguing and legitimate questions. But he is on a definite and openly stated path to find a system that eliminates the need for God.
I find it interesting that Hawking is the superstar who gets all the attention, but his friend is virtually unknown (heck, even I can't remember his name). You could state that his friend is unknown because his work isn't worth noting, but that would be wrong. Why do you think Hawking keeps pressing on? Because this guy continues to find the problem with each idea he puts out there.
And they are "out there". Of all the three areas I'm posting about, cosmology contains the most speculation and the least evidence. The thing is, it's the one that has the coolest ideas and the ideas I have the least problem with. Oh well.
OK, so one of Hawkings later attempts was to prove that there is no beginning, and yet time is not infinite. He has an equation showing that time can collapse to a physical dimension. So, at some point in the past, existence was physical without time. It existed, but had no beginning. That is a COOL idea.
The reply from his friend (the math is bit beyond me, so I have to use the analogies) uses a circle as an example. A circle has no beginning or end. BUT. When the person drew it on the paper, the act of drawing had a beginning. So, the claim is that Hawking only worked out the math for the circle, and not the act of drawing the circle.
Well, Before Big Bang cosmology is a bit of a toss up in the physics field.
There are actually hosts of theories which seem to work perfectly fine on paper: Hawking's Theory is only one of them.
The physicists in that field look at each others' work to see if it's internally coherent, but once internal coherence is reached, there's not much you can do. The Holy Grail right now, in this field, is forming a theory with a testable portion: one which not only explains all current data, but also gives up a prediction for what we'll find next.
But yes, I'll fully agree that there's no really good idea for something "Before the Big Bang". In fact, I'd have to say that there's an objection against those theories at the academic level, because many physicists are questioning the value of many of those theories since they don't add any predictive power.
This is one reason why the LHC is generating some excitement. There are pockets of theoretical physicists which have their theories being tested when the switch is thrown. The real problem with this question is that there are many, many viable atheist answers out there. It's still not the binary "If we don't have a good answer, it must be God!"
There are actually hosts of theories which seem to work perfectly fine on paper: Hawking's Theory is only one of them.
The physicists in that field look at each others' work to see if it's internally coherent, but once internal coherence is reached, there's not much you can do. The Holy Grail right now, in this field, is forming a theory with a testable portion: one which not only explains all current data, but also gives up a prediction for what we'll find next.
But yes, I'll fully agree that there's no really good idea for something "Before the Big Bang". In fact, I'd have to say that there's an objection against those theories at the academic level, because many physicists are questioning the value of many of those theories since they don't add any predictive power.
This is one reason why the LHC is generating some excitement. There are pockets of theoretical physicists which have their theories being tested when the switch is thrown. The real problem with this question is that there are many, many viable atheist answers out there. It's still not the binary "If we don't have a good answer, it must be God!"
This doesn't even make any sense....
Hawking is a champion of the Big Bang, because it fits with all known information.
However, Big Bang Theory was actually rejected by many prominent physicists BECAUSE it seemed to have religious implications. Big Bang was actually a mocking term that stuck.
I never really understood the reason that Creationists like to complain about the big bang. It was a theory that scientists HATED because it has more religious implications than a static universe theory, however they accepted it because it was true. They didn't want it to be true, but they conceded that it was true....
Hawking is a champion of the Big Bang, because it fits with all known information.
However, Big Bang Theory was actually rejected by many prominent physicists BECAUSE it seemed to have religious implications. Big Bang was actually a mocking term that stuck.
I never really understood the reason that Creationists like to complain about the big bang. It was a theory that scientists HATED because it has more religious implications than a static universe theory, however they accepted it because it was true. They didn't want it to be true, but they conceded that it was true....
I'm not sure who you're replying to Puck, because I wasn't complaining about the Big Bang. I didn't even mention it.
I was pointing out that Hawking has, in a sense, moved beyond the Big Bang. My memory is fuzzy on whether he continues to support the idea or not. I know he has reversed himself on various topics from time to time, but I forget which ones he reversed himself on.
I was pointing to how he has moved on, and has tried to address what happened "before" the Big Bang. That's a time laden phrasing that doesn't really capture the nature of his idea, but hopefully you get what I mean.
I actually like his idea. Like I said, it's got a nice elegance to it. But, as some have pointed out, it still doesn't answer the "but what caused that to happen?" question, that can be repeated ad-nauseum. I don't see how you'll ever prevent that question - and I don't mean because people are being facetious. It will forever remain a legitimate question.
I was pointing out that Hawking has, in a sense, moved beyond the Big Bang. My memory is fuzzy on whether he continues to support the idea or not. I know he has reversed himself on various topics from time to time, but I forget which ones he reversed himself on.
I was pointing to how he has moved on, and has tried to address what happened "before" the Big Bang. That's a time laden phrasing that doesn't really capture the nature of his idea, but hopefully you get what I mean.
I actually like his idea. Like I said, it's got a nice elegance to it. But, as some have pointed out, it still doesn't answer the "but what caused that to happen?" question, that can be repeated ad-nauseum. I don't see how you'll ever prevent that question - and I don't mean because people are being facetious. It will forever remain a legitimate question.
I'm somewhat familiar with the topic, as far as a layman is, anyway.
I think I know what you're talking about: equations that have "time" only significant in our current universe (or other side universes) but that the "true" universe doesn't have a sense of time.
The current problem is that these equations don't add any explanatory value that's testable. I'm fond of the idea, though.
I think that the idea "everything needs a cause" is actually a semantic error, but we're so used to cause 'n effect that we can't really see past it.
I think I know what you're talking about: equations that have "time" only significant in our current universe (or other side universes) but that the "true" universe doesn't have a sense of time.
The current problem is that these equations don't add any explanatory value that's testable. I'm fond of the idea, though.
I think that the idea "everything needs a cause" is actually a semantic error, but we're so used to cause 'n effect that we can't really see past it.
QUOTE
I think that the idea "everything needs a cause" is actually a semantic error, but we're so used to cause 'n effect that we can't really see past it.
Hmm. That's an interesting statement. Please explain.
It sounds deep, doesn't it? 
I don't really have much to work with, except an intuition.
Do you notice that ALL prevalent theories of our Universe's origin include an unCaused Cause? My suspicion is that we're just running into a cognitive or semantic deficit: our experience in the world has left us poorly equipped to deal with theories that don't include a 'cause'.
I don't really have much to work with, except an intuition.Do you notice that ALL prevalent theories of our Universe's origin include an unCaused Cause? My suspicion is that we're just running into a cognitive or semantic deficit: our experience in the world has left us poorly equipped to deal with theories that don't include a 'cause'.
Hawking supports now " vacuum fluctuation," wherein matter arises from a perfect vacuum, in which radom electromagnetic oscillations are present, which are really a form of energy called vacuum fluctutation energy. So, in accordance with the laws of conservation of matter-energy, Existence is eternal, God need not apply for work.
To my dismay Victor Stenger and others call that process nothingness.
Now how does the Big Bang fit into this is the question. Is it bounce to bounce or bud to bud? Only scientific questions and answerss are possible; theological ones are just guesses as deist Miklos Jako recognizes in "Confronting Believers." And Clifton Richard Dawkins well notes that scientists, not theologians, are capable of giving meaningful answers.
To my dismay Victor Stenger and others call that process nothingness.
Now how does the Big Bang fit into this is the question. Is it bounce to bounce or bud to bud? Only scientific questions and answerss are possible; theological ones are just guesses as deist Miklos Jako recognizes in "Confronting Believers." And Clifton Richard Dawkins well notes that scientists, not theologians, are capable of giving meaningful answers.
Some here may find this page interesting...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...sics-forums.htm
g.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...sics-forums.htm
g.
As Lee Smolin notes, as Existence is all there is, there can be no divinity beyond it. Quentin Smith notes that as each section of the Universe causes other sections to come about, thus,, in a sense, the Universe is self-caused Thus ,we do have a naturalistic answer why there is indeed Existence: it is eternal in one form or the other.The question is how does Existece so change: is it a bud or a bounce that causes any universe?.
Stenger shows how naturalistic forces make for the present Universe.
Please, try the new thread the problem of Heaven to see how we naturalists quash what theists see as their two main reasons for the horrors.
Stenger shows how naturalistic forces make for the present Universe.
Please, try the new thread the problem of Heaven to see how we naturalists quash what theists see as their two main reasons for the horrors.
QUOTE
El_Machinae Posted: Mar 4 2008, 10:13 AM Do you notice that ALL prevalent theories of our Universe's origin include an unCaused Cause? My suspicion is that we're just running into a cognitive or semantic deficit: our experience in the world has left us poorly equipped to deal with theories that don't include a 'cause'.
the cognitive or semantic deficit can be overcome if ...
the cause and effect relation could be considered a feature of the physical universe. if the physical universe has not always existed then we could say that the creation of the universe does not need to follow the cause and effect relation ie cause and effect is a property of the universe and not a property of something that existed which then caused the universe to exist .
the idea that events provided a generative force that lead to the creation of the universe is obsolete.
Time and cause presuppose infinity, thus eternal Existence. The regressive argument shows that. Ponder Peter A.Angeles's " The Problem of God: a Short Introduction."
As the presumption of naturalism shows, one finds natural causes and explanations to be the sufficient reason, contrary to God being so as Gottfried Wilherm Leibniz maintains. And his why is there something rather than nothing is his big blunder as how could there be nothing? It is a pseuo-question with a pseudo-answer as the ignostic-Ockham shows.
Aquinas begs the question in stating that if one removes the First Cause, one removes the intermediate ones. William Lane Craig with the Kalaam, begs the question in assuming a starting point when as Aquinas notes it is from day to day. And the argument from contingency begs the question of Necessaary Being.
Logic is the bane of theists: they ever beg questions!
As the presumption of naturalism shows, one finds natural causes and explanations to be the sufficient reason, contrary to God being so as Gottfried Wilherm Leibniz maintains. And his why is there something rather than nothing is his big blunder as how could there be nothing? It is a pseuo-question with a pseudo-answer as the ignostic-Ockham shows.
Aquinas begs the question in stating that if one removes the First Cause, one removes the intermediate ones. William Lane Craig with the Kalaam, begs the question in assuming a starting point when as Aquinas notes it is from day to day. And the argument from contingency begs the question of Necessaary Being.
Logic is the bane of theists: they ever beg questions!