E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
More than a decade ago, British physicist Stephen Hawking said there was a 50-50 chance that a unified "theory of everything" would be discovered in 20 years' time. Now Hawking thinks the theory has been found.
In "The Grand Design," he and co-author Leonard Mlodinow explain why a concept called M-theory offers the only path they can see to understanding the universe's grand design. Hawking got a lot of click traffic earlier this week for his observation that God wasn't needed to explain the origin of the universe. But his claim that "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find" could be, if anything, more scientifically controversial.
"Stephen often overstates the case, and that's fine," said Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University who's coming out with his own book about the ultimate questions of physics next year. "That's by virtue of the fact that it's hard for him to go into detail because of his medical condition. Because of that, he makes brief, blunt statements. It's almost like the Bible. Whenever he says anything, people jump on it."
M-theory is a key jumping-off point for "The Grand Design." The string theorists who came up with the term have never agreed on exactly what the "M" stands for, although the words "membrane," "matrix," "mystery" and "magic" have all been floated as possibilities. My favorite explanation is that M-theory is the "mother of all theories."
Pulling strings
String theory suggests that the fundamental constituents of reality are not pointlike particles (such as the concepts we have for protons, neutrons and electrons) but are more like tiny strings vibrating at different "frequencies." Such ideas can be used to make linkages between gravity and the other fundamental forces in physics, but only if you build 10 dimensions into the picture.
Theorists found that five different strains of string theory explained how the universe worked, from five seemingly irreconcilable perspectives. But if you added one more dimension to the picture, effectively turning the dimensional dial up to 11, everything made sense. The five perspectives could be seen merely as different ways of expressing the same super-theory. That's what's known as M-theory.
Hawking and Mlodinow may make it sound as if M-theory has to be the theory of everything, but Krauss says it's too early to declare "M-Mission Accomplished." One big issue is that M-theory makes more than one prediction about the nature of the universe. In fact, the number of predictions it makes is somewhere around 10 to the 500th power. That's a 1 followed by 500 zeroes.
"On the surface, that sounds like a bad thing," Krauss said. He has observed that this kind of string theory isn't so much a theory of everything as it is a theory of anything (or a theory of nothing). But most scientists have come around to the view that the multiplicity of M-theory's predictions is actually a virtue. Seen from this perspective, it may be that anything is possible when it comes to creating universes. We just happen to be in a universe where all the lottery numbers have added up to win what astrobiologist Paul Davies calls the "cosmic jackpot."
"Interestingly enough, what people are hanging onto is the lack of ability to make predictions," Krauss said. "It turns a wart into a beauty mark."
What Krauss finds exciting is that there could be ways to verify that something can come from nothing -- which is the point behind Hawking's claim that God isn't necessary to explain the universe's creation.
Physicists have noted that the positive energy contained in particles and the negative energy represented by gravitational attraction appear to balance out precisely. "Empirically, we can actually have evidence that the universe came from nothing. One of the key things is that the total energy of the universe is zero, which is only possible if the universe came from nothing. It could have been otherwise. It could have been not zero," Krauss said.
The concept of a zero-energy universe and getting something from nothing may sound crazy, but this article from Mercury magazine and this video of one of Krauss' lectures, both titled "A Universe From Nothing," show that the ideas has been percolating among scientists for years. Such ideas are central to "The Grand Design," as well as to the book that Krauss is currently in the midst of writing.
"This is very premature, because we still don't know what M-theory is," Krauss told me. "The interesting question for me, ultimately, more than this metaphysics, is whether we'll be able to empirically answer these questions. Science has gotten to the point where there's the hope that we'll be able to turn some of this metaphysics into physics."
Judith Croasdell
Physicists Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking work together in Hawking's office in Cambridge, England.
Mlodinow agrees with Krauss that M-theory still has miles to go, but he says it may be as close as science can get to the fabled theory of everything. The Caltech physicist has collaborated with Hawking for years -- not only on "The Grand Design," but also on "A Briefer History of Time," a streamlined version of Hawking's classic work. Mlodinow has also done science writing as a solo act, as the author of "Feynman's Rainbow" and "The Drunkard's Walk."
During a telephone interview, Mlodinow told me that "The Grand Design" was truly a joint effort, in which he and Hawking traded, debated and restated each other's prose. "Everything was pretty much passed back and forth, so actually it would be hard to identify which one of us wrote what," he said. "In fact, at times where I've tried, I've gone back to my computer to see -- and sometimes I'm wrong."
Thus, Mlodinow is as good a source as Hawking for insights into the meaning of "The Grand Design." Here's an edited transcript of our Q&A:
Cosmic Log: In the past, Stephen has talked about the quest for a theory of everything. The book makes it sound as if it's not so much one theory of everything, but a series of theories for different model-based views of reality. Do you get a sense that it's going to be possible to come up with one unified theory of physics?
Leonard Mlodinow: Well, the book is about why the laws of nature are what they are, and where the universe came from. We do say in the book that we believe the unified theory is M-theory. So we not only believe that it's possible, but we believe that it's here.
Q: But M-theory is an array of different perspectives on reality, and one of the things about that approach is that one model works for one scale, or one sphere of physics, and perhaps another theory -- I don't know whether you'd call it a subtheory, or another perspective -- works for a different one.
A: M-theory is the most general quantum theory that would include gravity, using the constraints that we feel need to be employed -- for example, that it's finite and would make reasonable predictions. Whether it's a single theory or a network of theories is not yet known. I think Stephen feels that there's a good chance it's a network of theories, which is what we see today. Where they overlap, they agree. In other areas where they don't overlap, they make their own predictions. Stephen believes that's OK, and we shouldn't be disappointed if the final theory is a network of theories. According to model-dependent realism, all that is OK. It's just the way reality is. You can't ask which of the theories in that network is more "real."
Q: Do you have a slightly different point of view? Because it sounds as if you're presenting Stephen's view as distinct from your own.
A: No, I agree with Stephen. We debated this idea of model-dependent realism over quite a period of time. I'm saying that just because I'm assuming you were interested in Stephen's opinion more than mine. But I'm happy to jump in as well.
Q: In the latter part of the book, there's some discussion about how God does or does not play a role in the big questions about the universe....
A: Well, people have always wondered about the big questions: Where did the universe come from? Why is nature the way it is? At first we had mythology to answer that question. I suppose people just made up stories, and they became the myths. Or they evolved. Later we had the religions that we have today, and philosophy grew up. People used applied reason, intuition and some small amount of observation as well -- and came up with their own concepts on the answers to these questions.
Bantam Books
"The Grand Design" delves into subjects ranging from M-theory to God's role.
A few hundred years ago we developed this thing called the scientific method, where we come up with theories phrased in mathematics, and we require that they not only describe what we're looking to describe but also make further predictions that can be tested. Then we do experiments, and if we find that the predictions are not right, if they're not verified, then we alter or discard the theory.
In the book, we argue that this is a better method. It's led to the modern society that we have today -- to vaccinations, computers, electricity, television, telephones, everything else. When you understand nature to that extent, you can apply it. Since you really understand what's going on, you can create all this technology, which you don't create based on mythology, philosophy and religious explanations.
As far as God goes, we describe our theory of where the universe came from, and why the laws of nature are as they are. And we show that with this theory, there's no need for a God to create the universe or to create the laws of physics as they are. All of this can come purely from physics, from science, from nature.
Q: There's always a question about "what happened before the big bang," or about the nature of time. Stephen dealt with that in "A Brief History of Time," and you helped with that vision through your work on "A Briefer History of Time." How does this book advance the ball?
A: One of Stephen's big ideas in this book is called "top-down cosmology." It's the idea that we should trace the history of the universe from the present time backwards -- and that the universe has many histories because it's a quantum system. In "normal" physics, we work in a laboratory and we do experiments. We set up the experiment in an initial state, then we let it go for a while, then we do measurements on its final state -- and we check predictions. The theory tells us how the initial state should develop, and then we make predictions about the final state.
We can't do that with the universe as a whole. We don't set up the initial state. We don't have a laboratory where we can control what's going on. We can't repeat the experiment and take the data. Also, the universe -- since we believe in quantum theory now -- is a quantum system.
In normal cosmology, people start with the initial state as if it were a laboratory -- which it's not -- and they use classical ideas, meaning that there's one history of the universe which they trace forward. Stephen believes that we should start from our observations now, because that's all we can do, and trace it backwards, taking into account the fact that the universe has many histories and not just one.
Q: Right, there's a discussion in the book about how the past is as much affected by quantum mechanics as the future is. So there's uncertainty about the past -- which is counterintuitive. That must be a hard sell with normal people who say, well, I remember specifically what I had for dinner yesterday. We know for sure what happened in the past because of things ranging from human memory to the fossil record to the process of baryogenesis at the beginnings of the universe. So how can you say that there's a factor of uncertainty about past events?
A: Well, if you happened to have experienced all possible aspects of the universe for all of time, there would not be uncertainty. Quantum theory doesn't say that if you ate an egg, you might not have eaten the egg. Let's get that straight. What quantum theory says is that in between the times when we observe and measure, and interact in that way, these properties that we talk about have no meaning.
For instance, in classical theory, if you push a billiard ball down the table, and if no one is interacting with it or measuring it, it still has one path with a well-defined position at every time. Those properties exist. In quantum theory, if you push it and then no one interacts with it, you cannot in general say that it has a particular position and velocity at any time. In classical theory, we say that it has those properties, and when we measure it, we're just reading off those properties. In quantum theory, it's not correct to say that a measurement is merely reading off those properties. Rather, it doesn't have those properties when we don't measure it.
Now, if you had an egg yesterday, you interacted with the egg, and there's an egg there. When we look at the universe today, with top-down cosmology, we don't allow for the possibility that the moon is made of green cheese -- because we already know that the moon isn't made of green cheese. We put in all the data of all our observations, and that prunes down the number of different histories that have to be taken into account. But where observations haven't been made, we don't.
So the vagueness of the past is the vagueness of things unmeasured in the past.
Q: Does that imply then that there will be no way to answer that classic question, "What happened before the big bang"? Because the uncertainty goes to an indeterminately high level?
A: No, it's not that. As you go backward in time, quantum theory, combined with general relativity, tells you that if you go back early enough in the universe, time ceases to have the meaning that we assign to it today. It ceases to act as we know it. So it's not a well-posed question to say, "What happened at the beginning of time?" -- because time doesn't go back to the beginning.
According to general relativity, time and space exist under certain conditions. Quantum theory tells you that there are always fluctuations in empty space, and if you make the universe small enough, the fluctuations are great enough that the matter is squashed down enough that this affects the character of space and time itself. Time doesn't exist at that point. So the question doesn't make any sense.
Q: I know we're coming to end of our time -- speaking of that -- but do you hold out hope that humans will at some point understand the totality of the grand design? Or is the grand design something that our brains aren't just big enough to hold? Or is it something that is unknowable, because that's just the nature of the universe?
A: No, we believe that humans can understand it. That's the great triumph and the great miracle of the universe.
More about Stephen Hawking and the cosmos:
- Hawking says God's not needed. So?
- Video: NBC News' Brian Williams on "The Grand Design"
- Do we need to get off Earth by 2110?
- Hawking goes zero-G: 'Space, here I come'
- Aliens may pose risk to Earth, Hawking says
- Up close with Dr. Hawking
- Interactive: Beyond the Big Bang
- Interactive: The Symphony of Everything
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
Really?? Science can't seem to find a way to believe in God, but a 6 dimensional space knot is totally acceptable.
I think I'll defer to my Scientific 'Theory' of God..
You forgot to ask him about time travel!!!!
I'll be buying this book on Tuesday. I've been looking forward to reading it.
All of you religious loons need to read this book as well. You need to read lots of books, apparently. But you won't. None of you do. You just go around and attempt to spread your ignorance and contempt for modern science and enlightened thought. It's pathetic. Stop it. Please just keep your idiocy to yourselves.
It's very naive to assume that a Theory of Everything is going to be simple and easy to understand. But, then again, Christians are raised on fairy tales about how a bearded man in a white robe created everything in six days. I've never understood why he needed the seventh day to rest, though. If he's omnipotent, why would he need to rest? Maybe it was so the fairy tale of Creationism would have a happy ending.
It's interesting that these theories continue to be proved through observation. Religious types look to their faith as the only thing and it trumps observable results. They claim it's impossible that something can exist without a "higher power" but won't explain how their beloved "higher power" got there. Their own mortality clouds their objective judgement simply because we as humans can't live forever.
So here's a question for the religious (pick a religion - I'll say Christianity to ponder: If "God" sees us as his most important creation, why are we on a minor planet in a solar system, flung out on a spiral arm of just one galaxy, in a universe with a billion billion galaxies?
We aren't at the center of "anything". Why all that space just for us? Certainly we can't use it all.
Yet, it's so easy to believe in a creator who has temper tantrums, is available in over 1000 different cultures, and yet, hasn't spoken to anyone (well, besides the common "God spoke to me last night").
The whole concept cheapens life as unimportant - which it is important to each of us - because we are alive at incredible odds. That our understanding of the universe grows in each passing hour, while proof in God's existence is stagnant and completely unobservable.
Religion was created to help us explain nature when we lacked the capacity to do so on objective grounds. Now we can and continue to do so - learn about the universe and do so accurately.
It's an amazing thing. I for one feel much better in know what actually caused our universe to appear and evolve and not have to believe in the silly "6-day work week", "turtles with civilization on their shells", or believe in a crazy, self-centered God throwing lightning bolts at mere mortals below.
It is exciting to know we can conceive of our own existence, how it began, how it will end, objectively - without throwing crazy mythology at it. The truth is far more fantastic than anything we've imagined up to this point.
I thrilled to live in such a time where mankind is self-aware of his universe in such a profound and exciting way.
TPokey's asked: "If "God" sees us as his most important creation, why are we on a minor planet in a solar system, flung out on a spiral arm of just one galaxy of billions of galaxies? We aren't at the center of "anything".
Our position in the galaxy, the position of our solar system and the size of our planet are extremely important to our survival. Our unique solar system is located in the ideal region of the stable Milky Way. What scientists call it is a "habitable zone". This location has just the right concentrations of the chemical elements needed to support life. Farther out, those elements are too scarce farther in there is a greater abundance of potentially lethal radiation. The size of our planet is important because if it were bigger the rotation would go awry and Earth would be uninhabitable. So it is very important that we be on this arm of this galaxy and on this minor planet in this particular solar system.
Returning to the topic of M-theory: There's really nothing to discuss about M-theory. Whenever one tries to talk about it to a scientist they freely admit that they have no idea what they're talking about.
I believe the M is for MOOT-theory.
Bah-dum-bum.
I can't pretend to say I know for certain that there is a God or not but what I am certain of is that the Big Bang Theory is a bunch of Hog Wash! They can't explain explain it mathematically because it never happened! Anyone that believes in the Big Bang is an idiot, pure & Simple.
Theory of everything ?- oh you simple minded baboons!
Steven Hawking is nothing more than a Einstein wanna-be and a fraud!
"But if you added one more dimension to the picture, effectively turning the dimensional dial up to 11, everything made sense." Good sense of humor on the part of the author - reminds me of the scene from the movie Spinal Tap when the band leader explained how their amplifiers had custom dials that go all the way to 11.
You know I have not heard so much double talk and vagueness since about 1978, when I used to sit around in Denny's, Sambo's and Country Kitchen restaurants with my friends and listen to them philosophically discuss all the problems of the world and religion. Nothing was ever settled or proven just a lot of what if and even more double talk like I just read in the article. Supposition upon supposition clouded by inconclusive answers about nothingness.
Genetic Drifter,
You, too, need to read a lot of books on philosophy and, specifically, on the philosophy of science. Like many people in our modern world, you are overawed by science, chiefly because of the technological innovations that science has made possible. Many people simply accept any theory that comes along in the name of science without asking themselves the question: What is science? What are the ultimate assumptions scientists make about the nature of reality? Science itself is based on certain philosophical assumptions that are neither proven nor provable. Here is a small list of some of the philosophies that science is based on: materialism, naturalism, pragmatism, empiricism, probabilism, objectivism, skepticism and many other philosophical assumptions underlie what we call modern science. You should investigate each of these philosophies and their relationship to science in order to better understand science and the ultimate assumptions about the nature of reality that all scientists make.
@ TPokeys:
Really? You know what actually caused our universe to appear and evolve...? Please sir, let the rest of us in on the secret!
Someone once said that when physicists finally reach the summit of the mountain of knowledge where they finally understand how the universe was created, etc, etc., as they are coming over that last rise to the top, they will be surprised and astonished to find that a band of theologians have already set up camp there.
Hey Daylight2000, if it's logically undeniable that we were created (such an arrogant statement), than who created God? If it's impossible for something to come from nothing, than God must have been created too.
Scott:
One of the things that scientists including Hawking agree with is that the universe had a beginning. The majority also agrees that before that beginning, something real had to exist. Some speak of an eternal energy. Others supposed that there was some sort of primeval chaos as the preexisting condition. No matter what they call it, most assume the existence of something that did not have a beginning and that stretches infinitely back through time.
It is impossible for "something to come from nothing" because never at any point in time was there "nothing".
Therefore the issue is reduced to the following: Do we presume that there is something eternal versus someone eternal. Once what science has discovered about the origin and the nature of the universe has been analyzed, people choose one or the other. Which do you choose Scott? That an inanimate object could somehow form itself into an ordered and habitable universe? Or that someone made the universe ordered and habitable?
Daylight2000, Seriously...! Like you I believe in a God - but unlike you the God I imagine is a big as geological spans of time! As big as time spans nearing the infinite as seen from are very limited perspective and moment of existence. Time enough for shifting continents and evolution and second and third generation suns (we are all made of star dust). You somehow reduce the miraculous down to the mundane while all along it is the mundane crawling like a snail across the ages that is the miracle. God made the universe to work along certain physical laws that your prayer, bias, lack of imagination and religiosity will never reverse or break! And as to "repeatability" and Evolution - you and I and all the scientist don't have the privilege of watching the proverbial culture dish for millions and millions of years. I know your type - for you God is a small town god, he bowls, hunts and goes fishing, he is a Republican and he can be reduced down to a manual book (Bible). Funny, a Scottish theologian determined through the limited filter of his time that the Earth was a mere 6,000 thousand years of age and funnier still that people like you are still wearing his sun glasses.
Cop-out answer. That's tantamount to saying "It's really complicated, I don't understand it, so it must be magic or nonsense - so instead I'll believe in an invisible man in the sky who did it all and I need no explanation of that OR of God himself!"
99octane:
The so-called scientists that made this ridiculous 11 dimensions of invisible string theory don't understand it either. All they can say is "We don't understand what these strings are what they do or even if they're real but... trust us on this no God."
I wouldn't be surprised if they made up some evidence to support their theory too. They can make some atoms wiggle around and say, "See? This supports M-theory." For all we know, they could support M-theory by experimenting with diet Coke and Mentos.
After all, they are continually testing their hypotheses. OR for lack of a better explanation, making it all up as they go along.
Genetic Drifter - Those of us who believe in God do not need to read book after book after book. The Book of Books The Bible is really all we need. It's been around longer and read more than any other book in History. Science fiction has never really interested me. You go on and read what you wish but you could save alot of money and just buy Comic Books. Have a nice day.
I didn't see any mention of Edward Witten, the brilliant physicist/mathematician who first proposed M-Theory in 1995.
It would be nice to give credit where credit is due.
daylight2000
Interesting quote from the Bible. It's a shame that so many people feel that religion and science are incompatible. I find that view to be very narrow minded, and held by people with little knowledge of what the Bible actually says. They have their "faith" and we have ours.
Any religious tenet that depends on ridiculing science is pretty much bankrupt. The "leap of faith" is pretty much a false construct for those whose religious understanding is so shallow that "no explanation" becomes an explanation in itself.
Science is science. It seeks to explain how things work. Religion is religion. It seeks to explain why things work. Both have their roots in man's attempts to understand his environment and both are equally valid ways of approaching the search.
The horrible shame comes when people seek to use religion to "repudiate" science. This is akin to using a road map to explain why your car won't start.
And in order to refute science, religion often uses straw dog arguments that show only how misinformed and naive "religious" people can sometimes be. A good example is the Darwinian evolution that is so fervently opposed by the religious right as some hair-brained "theory." Well, 1) Darwinian evolution has not been the current theory in at least 40 years. The current theory is "Punctuated Equilibrium." 2) Darwinian evolution was always in a significant degree of doubt within the scientific community because the fossil record did not support it. The fossil record does support "Punctuated Equilibrium." 3) There is no theorist (including Darwin) who ever proposed that man descended from apes. 4) Any cattle or horse breeder will tell you that Darwin was right (as far as he went.) Selective breeding for new or different characteristics goes back for at least 30,000 years or more. 5) The idea that a person can state with certainty that God worked only within a blueprint fully known to them is a way of "humanizing" God and bring Him down to human levels. This is not theologically sound.
It often strikes me as strange that "Christians" so often do not believe the activist theology of the Bible, but prefer instead to cherry-pick passages to support hate and deception and white superiority and many other morally and ethically bankrupt concepts. Methinks Christ would not be welcome in most modern Christian churches and that most fundamentalist Christians would be the first to "cast stones" at him.
99octane, The notion that God and science are mutually exclusive is an argument not so much based on matters of faith or atheism but an unbending even brittle orthodoxy proposed by some in either or camp. In affect, some atheist have made their "non-belief" a religion - and some who are religious have made their faith a science. There is not one tenant, paradigm or law of physics currently accepted that likewise excludes or disproves God. Simply, stated, God if he truly exists may have created science and the physical world. Scientist are not necessarily atheist and likewise many people of faith see God in science and in the machinery of the physical universe!
Question? Before anything there must have been absolutely nothing. Not even a container for the nothng so, who or what created God?
"Really?? Science can't seem to find a way to believe in God, but a 6 dimensional space knot is totally acceptable."
Why do you find it objectionable? You choose direct intervention of a deity that's alleged to be completely beyond our ability to understand, over something that's merely very difficult to understand? Quantum physics alone, should be enough to show that the Universe is not required to work in a way that humans find easy and intuitive.
"I think I'll defer to my Scientific 'Theory' of God.."
So, does your theory make any predictions that might be verified or, more importantly, falsified? (many physicists are unsatisfied with String Theory, because it seems not to offer the same...without which it's philosophy, not science)
Do you offer anything better than 'God did it.?' The devout think that's the end. The curious, do not. So, and are you willing to then at least ask how or why He/She/It/They (as an agnostic, I make no assumptions about those things) did it? Are you willing to try to know the means and psychology of an all-powerful, but inaccessible entity?
At some deep level, perhaps there's no alternative than conscious intervention of some kind, but you don't know that this is it. Failing to look for every possible non-divine explanation first, is intellectually lazy.
If you think anything you can't understand doesn't exist, you must be really confused by the bright thing in front of you with the words, and the strangely humming box to which it is attached. And when you step outside, a dragon! A metal dragon in the sky! Leaving a trail of white steam behind it from it's angry nostrils! And what are these monsters growling and rolling down the street?
I guess the bright side to revolutionary scientific ideas like Hawking's is that it pushes out the window of what you superstitious medieval idiots will question. Time was, you'd just be doubting the moon landing because there was no cheese. Now you've moved up to questioning string theory. Progress!
jabbausaf:
M-theory is not an airplane or a computer, which are tangible objects. It's an unproven theory that does not even have a description. It's meant tie together several other non-descript and equally unproven theories.
In other words, it's science fiction.
So was rocket science once upon a time. For that matter, so was flight. You sound like somebody from 150 years ago.
I agree the guy is obviously a open atheist. Though, he is incredibly intelligent in physics. The work they do, the numbers they crunch, and the theories they wrap their heads around would make most of us cry. I don't agree with the constant war between science and religion and I think he should have refrained from several of his pointless comments.
The "truth" of the matter is that no one can prove either side of that argument. So we should all just accept the possibilities of either one or both being right. Because honestly, we may never know the "truth".
Please stop making arbitrary comments for either side of this argument. No one knows what people think as a whole. It's not a collective thing we all differ in mind and body, which is why we are in this predicament in the first place. E=mc^2 started as a theory. Don't write things off immediately because they don't sit well with you.
People are much more "comfy" in believing that no one holds any power or rule over them, they feel that to be held under the rule of someone that is better then them is utterly insane. If you think with what most people call "logic" you'll see that a true "scientist" is just someone who is more out to think for him/herself rather then think there is someone out there that has far more powerful brain power. It's more basically a ego thing. Because if the "scientist" isn't right then no one is right (speaking as a fool). Ah the life of lies in which we love to weave to one another, it's as silly as thinking that we all came from slime.
You forgot to ask him about time travel!!!!
What a shame that so far, I'm the only person to leave a comment. Is there truly so little interest in this amazing field?
If one believes that everything must have a creator, then who/what created the creator?
Apparently, you didn't read OR understand the article.
A belief in gawd is for the intellectually dishonest...demanding proof and answers from Science ( and getting them over time) but, not demanding and providing proof of your gawd. Intellectually dishonest.
Using the bible as proof of anything, other than it being proof of a book, is circular reasoning.
If you believe the Universe was created by a big bang - then who or what caused the big bang?
Where did the matter come from that caused the big bang?
How could a big bang take place in a Universe that didn't exist?
Simple questions for simple minded people!
And the same could be said for those that worship science! When science provides positive proof then I believe but coming up with nonsense theories like the Big Bang is no better than saying God Created the Universe! Neither can be proved!
You people need to quit acting like you are some superior intelligence when in fact you are not!
The difference is that scientific theories make predictions that can be observed. For instance, the big bang theory predicts an expanding universe and background radiation.
Barry-NJ
And I would say that God is observable, if your heart is in the right place. Blessed are those who are pure in heart for they shall see God. And 'If you seek him with all your heart then he will be found by you.'
Belief is not a matter of mind but of heart. We won't believe in God because we are in spiritual darkness. We actually don't like the idea of a creator because it would rock our world too much, not because there isn't evidence of design in the Universe. Strange - we would rather believe that we are a product of blind chance, living lives without meaning or ultimate purpose beyond some social consensus, than accept the idea there might be a mind with personality behind it all. The more we learn about the Universe, the more it appears to have mind or consciousness behind it - the more levels or layers (dimensions) there appear to be. What makes us think any God who created this would exist on one of the visible created layers? How could he if he is the source of all the layers?
But scripture tells us that our heart matters. The psalmist says that God sees the proud from afar, but is near to the humble. Could that be why some people find it easier to 'believe'? They are less proud, hence they can hear his voice and 'see' the signs of his presence more easily? Don't expect to 'see' God through a telescope. But you will find him if you humble your heart and turn from what you know to be evil, and ask on a personal level for him to reveal himself. You will find he is not some stereotypical thunder God, but a person waiting to relate to you.
Daylight2000, Seriously...! Like you I believe in a God - but unlike you the God I imagine is a big as geological spans of time! As big as time spans nearing the infinite as seen from are very limited perspective and moment of existence. Time enough for shifting continents and evolution and second and third generation suns (we are all made of star dust). You somehow reduce the miraculous down to the mundane while all along it is the mundane crawling like a snail across the ages that is the miracle. God made the universe to work along certain physical laws that your prayer, bias, lack of imagination and religiosity will never reverse or break! And as to "repeatability" and Evolution - you and I and all the scientist don't have the privilege of watching the proverbial culture dish for millions and millions of years. I know your type - for you God is a small town god, he bowls, hunts and goes fishing, he is a Republican and he can be reduced down to a manual book (Bible). Funny, a Scottish theologian determined through the limited filter of his time that the Earth was a mere 6,000 thousand years of age and funnier still that people like you are still wearing his sun glasses.
If Christians could support Christianity without using the Bible I'd still be a Christian.
Yes, of course the Rome-produced book intended to give validity to Christianity, the (at the time) state religion of the Roman Empire, has many verses saying that the Bible and Christianity are totally true. Everything you read in the Bible today, especially in the New Testament, was specifically approved at the Council of Nicene by a bunch of influential bishops and Roman politicians.
And if you really want me to, I can bring up the specific verses in the New Testament that support slavery and the oppression of women, or the specific verses in the Old Testament that support genocide, infanticide, and all manner of barbarism.
The creator, by definition, always was and always will be....so the creator created the universe...we just do not have the knowledge to determine why, how, what, etc.
But this article suggest that we do. And scientific observation continues to prove that the "Big Bang" is how things came about. The M-Theory continues to prove why things are the way they are and that "the next time" it will be completely different.
Saying we don't have the knowledge would suggest we cannot harness the atom, electricity, time (through speed), space, and many other things. We have and will continue to do exactly that - "determine why, how, and what".
Nor do you require any knowledge. (Blind) Faith is all that is required to complete your cosmology. Questions about this cosmology are fervently discouraged unless you are a child, but as a child you will be required to adopt your parent's faith in order to be acceptable in their eyes. You derive all of your "knowledge" and "reasoning" about Nature from one of several Bibles from which you can pick and choose phrases to rebut scientific thinking about the same . . . something you feel compelled to do as it threatens your faith-based cosmology because there is nothing more upsetting than to learn that everything you believed in (because you were told to) is a fairy tale derived from Stone Age reasoning about the Universe and Man's place in it. You accept notions of talking snakes, but not of speechless snakes that evolved from lower forms of life trying to find a niche in a violent world. You would and have gone to war or suspended the intentionally secular Constitution over clashing faith-based ideologies (again threatening you way of life) but do not applaud the activities of others who are trying derive a universal idea about our Origins and our inter-relatedness with ALL things instead of amplifying our differences. I do not begrudge your faith-based reasoning as long as it doesn't deny my rights to prefer The Church of Reason, which I would admit is NOT all knowing and ALL wise, but just wish that is was more omnipotent.
Robert Wall
First, you speak as though there were some mechanism within 'evolution' that has a bent toward higher complexity as in 'trying to find a niche in a violent world.' This is a common mistake among those who believe in evolution and it would imply purpose or teleology, would it not? This is found nowhere in the actual theory. Time, chance and inanimate matter do not have purpose or will toward higher complexity. A microbe does not boot-strap itself into a multi-celled organism because it 'knows' it will have a greater chance of survival. Under the theory, Natural Selection does all the work, and there is no romanticizing the poor organisms' desire to survive or advance to a higher level. It is all happening by accident and luck (according to the theory). If anything, physical law tells us that matter is tending toward increasing entropy or chaos, not toward complexity. This is the great problem evolutionary theory faces. There is no inherent drive toward complexity.
Second, I will believe in 'speechless snakes that evolved from lower forms of life' when someone - anyone in the scientific community can (addressing the above) provide the following concerning the theory of evolution:
A. a well-conceived, detailed hypothetical mechanism explaining how the rise of genetic instructions sufficient to give rise to life as defined in "Definitions" below might have occurred in Nature by natural processes, and an
B. empirical correlation to the real world of biochemistry and molecular biology - not just mathematical or computer models - of how the prescriptive information characteristic of all known living organisms might have arisen.
The mechanism must address four topics:
The simplest known genome's apparent anticipation and directing of future events toward biological ends, both metabolic and structural;
The ability of the genome to convey instructions, deliver orders, and actually produce the needed biological end-products;
The indirectness of recipe-like biological "linguistic" message code - the gap between genotypic prescriptive information (instruction) and phenotypic expression. How did the first genetic instruction arise in its coded format prior to phenotypic realization of progeny from which the environment could select? If a protobiont's genetic code and phenotype were one and the same, how did such a simple system self-organize to meet the nine minimum conditions of "life" enumerated below under "Definitions"? How did stellar energy, the four known forces of physics (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and gravity), and natural processes produce initial prescriptive information (instruction/recipe) using direct or indirect code?
The bizarre concentration of singlehanded optical isomers (homochirality of enantiomers) in living things - how did a relatively pure population of left-handed amino acids or right-handed sugars arise out of a chemical environment wherein reactions ordinarily give rise to roughly equal numbers of both right- and left-handed optical isomers?
http://www.us.net/life/
A. a well-conceived, detailed hypothetical mechanism explaining how the rise of genetic instructions sufficient to give rise to life as defined in "Definitions" below might have occurred in Nature by natural processes, and an
B. empirical correlation to the real world of biochemistry and molecular biology - not just mathematical or computer models - of how the prescriptive information characteristic of all known living organisms might have arisen.
The mechanism must address four topics:
The simplest known genome's apparent anticipation and directing of future events toward biological ends, both metabolic and structural;
The ability of the genome to convey instructions, deliver orders, and actually produce the needed biological end-products;
The indirectness of recipe-like biological "linguistic" message code - the gap between genotypic prescriptive information (instruction) and phenotypic expression. How did the first genetic instruction arise in its coded format prior to phenotypic realization of progeny from which the environment could select? (How did ever more complex genetic code arise in succeeding generations from which Natural Selection could select? The code that might survive Selection had to appear before Selection could Select it!) If a protobiont's genetic code and phenotype were one and the same, how did such a simple system self-organize to meet the nine minimum conditions of "life" enumerated below under "Definitions"? How did stellar energy, the four known forces of physics (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and gravity), and natural processes produce initial prescriptive information (instruction/recipe) using direct or indirect code?
(In other words, how did the software coding for life arise without an existing compiler, and in the absence of a programming language?)
The bizarre concentration of singlehanded optical isomers (homochirality of enantiomers) in living things - how did a relatively pure population of left-handed amino acids or right-handed sugars arise out of a chemical environment wherein reactions ordinarily give rise to roughly equal numbers of both right- and left-handed optical isomers?
(See 'Definitions' on left hand panel at this page)
http://www.us.net/life/
No evolutionist has come close to answering these basic issues. If they had it would be big news. The field of Biogenesis has been stalled for years. Until these issues are answered, believing that a first living cell somehow arose by chance from non-living matter requires a gigantic leap of faith in anyone's book. It is as if a Volkswagen Beetle assembled itself from parts lying around and somehow started its own engine and turned on the lights and radio, before there were roads, service stations, petroleum plants, tire factories, car battery factories, radio stations, light bulbs - or car factories. And as a bonus, it came with a set of plans for a future car factory stashed in the trunk.
The problem of the origin of life is really the problem of the origin of Information. Software does not write itself. Yet evolutionary theory says that the software of life wrote itself onto a blank page - what did the original writing and how were the language conventions established?
WH-187...,
Well stated! Many people suffer under the erroneous assumption that only religious fundamentalists object to the theory of evolution. This is not the case. There are many perfectly rational, philosophic and scientific objections to the theory, as you have pointed out. A good example is the book by David Stove, "Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution". The author, David Stove, was not religious nor was he a "creationist", but he was able to see the many flaws in Darwinism, as can any person who really thinks for himself and does not simply swallow whole the dogmas of the evolutionary biologists. One of the stupidest comments I ever heard from an evolutionist was concerning the development of the rib cage. He said it was because apes wanted to be able to swing from tree branches which they were unable to do without a rib cage, so they developed a rib cage for this purpose. What absurdity! I thought the man was surely crazy!
He also expoused: "The Intellectual Capacity of Women" and "Racial and Other Antagonisms". Even his supporters wondered about his credibility at times.
Darwinism and Evolution are not the same things. Evolution is what happened and happens. Darwinism was an early attempt to explain how evolution works. It's like somebody studying lightning, they know that lightning occurs, they may come up with some theories for how it happens, and those may or may not be true, but the lightning still occurs.
Evolution happens. Even if we haven't nailed down 100% how it works, there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of the evolutionary process. This compares to the Creationism process, which has exactly 0 evidence. It's funny that Christians and science deniers attack evolution for not being 100% proven and lab-verified, but if you ask them to do the same thing for Christianity, all they have is faith. If you don't think evolution is a real biological force, look up MRSA.
jabbausaf,
I think from a practical, everyday point of view, evolution is irrelevant. It satisfies the intellectual curiosity of some concerning our origins, but has no practical bearing on everyday life. Whether man is the descendant of simian creatures or a specially created child of God, we are here. We exist, however we got here.
From a practical, everyday point of view, evolution is vitally relevant. If you look into this, it'll be obvious.
Science is superior to god because theories can be proven or disproven. Show a full set of fossils from a modern rabbit that shows up in the Pre-cambrian era and you will have effectively disproven evolution.
On the other hand no matter how many times people try to prove items within the old testament/bible/quran wrong the religious types keep saying it's the word of god or it needs to be read with a grain of salt. Such as the story of the Ark, even though it's physically impossible to house two of every animal that ever existed on a single boat without any conflicts, religious people still believe in it. Or the story from Genesis of the massive inbreeding that must have occurred if there truly was only Adam and Eve in the beginning.
Ok see this is the exact thing I was talking about, You try to prove god by using a bible quote, and in essence becomes a circular reference. And again you did not even read the whole comment, Evolution is and observable natural process. We see it in bacterium, viruses, flowers, insects, etc.
And you are confusing facts with theories. There are actually very few "Facts" in science, it is not a "Fact" until it is proven in every possible scenario or arithmetically proven. As the oort cloud that you mention has not been seen let alone proven, it is still only a hypothesis, but it's a decent one at that. And plus if you actually bothered to look it up, it has nothing to do with the creation of comets, it just states that there's probably a bunch of space rocks floating past where we can actually see them. As we are using the scientific process for this, if we one day are able to take a space ship to where the oort cloud should be and only see 2 rocks there, then the hypothesis will be disproven.
And again even though we do not have a time machine to be able to actually observe the evolution of fish to man as you state, we can disprove the evolutionary theory if you can find fossils that are out of place. And so far every fossil has been found pretty much where they should be.
You should watch Futurama (Season 6 Episode 9 "A Clockwork Origin") for a nice in depth look at how I feel about people like you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhnN54tHjkI&feature=related
On another note why are you so sure of your Christian god? How are you sure it's not someone say Amaterasu, or Shiva, or Kukulkna? Go pray to Zeus it'll be just the same as praying to your current one.
Obvious? Where? Did he drop by with his wallet and driver's license? You cannot equate faith to observable fact. They are not the same. One is repeatable and can be understood. The other is based on a person's own personal belief. One is objective - the other subjective. "Obvious" is subjective. Imperical fact and/or observation can always be objective (yes, some can apply subjective thinking, but then someone else can strike it down as irrelevant or wrong based on some set of observable data).
There are so many holes in the above argument I'm not even going to bother listing them all unless the poster asks for them or insults me into posting them.
Good idea.
Ok hate to burst your bubble here daylight, but if you study other world religions, you'll see that their predictions have come true also. The Bible doesn't come with specifics on any predictions, it doesn't say in the year 2011 the earth will end. The predictions have only come true because given a long length of time any set of nonsense put together will come true in some form if their are enough idiots to look for justifications in believing the nonsense. Same with the Mayan predictions, same with the predictions of Nostradamus, Heck even Star Trek had some predictions come true. I really think it would benefit you to read other books besides the Bible, if you're so interested in theology then I suggest you read up on other older religions first and you'll see a lot of the stories in the Bible have actually been stolen and recycled from the Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, Buddhists, etc. And you should also look up the Council of Nicaea and see the huge amount of editing, by those with a vested interest in bastardizing the religion, the Modern Bible has had. Also look up the Gnostic Gospels, The Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Judas, What you believe to be your religion's history has all been made up.
Daylight2000, Seriously...! Like you I believe in a God - but unlike you the God I imagine is a big as geological spans of time! As big as time spans nearing the infinite as seen from are very limited perspective and moment of existence. Time enough for shifting continents and evolution and second and third generation suns (we are all made of star dust). You somehow reduce the miraculous down to the mundane while all along it is the mundane crawling like a snail across the ages that is the miracle. God made the universe to work along certain physical laws that your prayer, bias, lack of imagination and religiosity will never reverse or break! And as to "repeatability" and Evolution - you and I and all the scientist don't have the privilege of watching the proverbial culture dish for millions and millions of years. I know your type - for you God is a small town god, he bowls, hunts and goes fishing, he is a Republican and he can be reduced down to a manual book (Bible). Funny, a Scottish theologian determined through the limited filter of his time that the Earth was a mere 6,000 thousand years of age and funnier still that people like you are still wearing his sun glasses.
@TPokeys
You ninjad me--I was talking about daylight.
daylight, someday when you and I stand before the throne of Thor and he sits over us in judgment, after Ragnarok and the end of all things, I rest assured that I will go to my place in Valhalla and you will be cast into Hel by Thor's mighty hammer, because I hold the one extra-true faith of Odinism, and you are merely a heathen Christian.
The earth is 4000 years old. Science is for retards. I don't use medicine, because if God wants me to live then he will save me. I also don't brush my teeth, because if the lord wants me to have a cavity who am I to complain? If he gives me an illness or infection we can just pray it away.
Fundamentalists. Do us all a favor, go back into the wilderness and let God take care of you. We'll see how long your praying can keep the bears and wolves away.
Sigh* I wish I could have commented on the article without all of these idiots around to confuse the issue. BTW. If you people hate science so much give up your GPS, it works because of relativity. Give up all your technology that blasphemes your god and go be a hermit.
Boy I hear you Gary! As a self described agnostic, I have rejected the religious fables I was told while being raised as a catholic, but have not been able to completely dispel the possibility of the existence of a god-like intelligence.
To hear contemporary physicists suggest that the full nature of the universe is probably knowable to us at our present level of development, with perhaps millions if not billions of years ahead of us, or some other civilization in the universe, just makes that possibility seem more plausable. Add in theories like the M-theory with it's hidden dimensions, and you also provide a mechanism for "supernatural", or apparently non-causal effects.
To suggest that such an intelligence would be so vain as to threaten us with "eternal damnation" for not blindly believing it's childish fables, as most of these ignorant fools do, is blatantly ridiculous. It is far more likely that these threats, along with the fables, were designed by people intent on controlling the moronic masses.
I keep praying for the Islamists to go away, but they never do.
If you want to strawman I will equally strawman you, as you cannot deny that any of what is contained in the below link about Christianity is untrue.
http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/christianity-thumb.jpg
Daylight2000, Seriously...! Like you I believe in a God - but unlike you the God I imagine is a big as geological spans of time! As big as time spans nearing the infinite as seen from are very limited perspective and moment of existence. Time enough for shifting continents and evolution and second and third generation suns (we are all made of star dust). You somehow reduce the miraculous down to the mundane while all along it is the mundane crawling like a snail across the ages that is the miracle. God made the universe to work along certain physical laws that your prayer, bias, lack of imagination and religiosity will never reverse or break! And as to "repeatability" and Evolution - you and I and all the scientist don't have the privilege of watching the proverbial culture dish for millions and millions of years. I know your type - for you God is a small town god, he bowls, hunts and goes fishing, he is a Republican and he can be reduced down to a manual book (Bible). Funny, a Scottish theologian determined through the limited filter of his time that the Earth was a mere 6,000 thousand years of age and funnier still that people like you are still wearing his sun glasses.
By definition, God is supernatural--transcending the scope of the universe as we comprehend it. Scientists like Mlodinow, with their vacuous ideas about the "need for a God", fail to comprehend the very concept they are discussing. They strain so very hard to comprehend the complexity of the creation around us, yet they cannot comprehend anything beyond it. They laud physics as though it were some governing principal, yet in reality it is merely our admittedly limited, flawed attempt to describe the majesty of the universe. Such individuals invariably make the foolish mistake of believing that the myopic human perspective is somehow truly objective and sufficient to explain all matters. MSN might as well post an article detailing a monkey's opinion of the sun. It will carry just as much value.
What you see is the words. What they see is the mathematics that underpin the words. That is what you strain to comprehend.
Yeah Dave, I'm sure a handful of guys making a living going from town to town telling stories thousands of years ago got it all right and our scientists today don't have a clue. Too bad the prophets weren't inspired to create television back then so that they could more efficiently spread the word.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few monkeys have pondered the nature of the sun, and it would be fascinating to know what they thought. It would probably be closer to the thoughts of the prophets thousands of years ago than it would be to a modern human scientist.
Then explain why the evidence does not lead back to a god?...to the contrary...
Incorrect. What they "see" is mathematical theory that is still in conflict with itself. They are not basing their work on physical analysis and testing. M-theory is actually more of a mathematical argument than a theory. It is a collection of attempts to describe our reality based on our feeble understanding and number systems. Those who engage in such conjecture and recognize it as such are at least being honest with themselves. Anyone playing such a guessing game with theories based on theories based on theoretical mathematical constructs and coming away believing they are on the path to not only understanding reality but explaining it are quite likely dillusional.
For those that honestly don't comprehend the difference between an apple and an orange, it's important to realize that the Bible is not a book of theoretical math. It does not address the fundamental nature of matter, time or the universe. It does state that the universe had a specific beginning--something scientists themselves have come to recognize. Who knows what else they may come to recognize, given enough time?
The evidence that the universe is intricately complex and yet is so orderly that it can be not only described but predicted mathematically? That it appears to be order created from disorder, as quantum theory envisions it? That the earth is perfectly balanced for life in so many different ways (distance from the sun, angle of rotation, stabilizing moon, correct size to retain oxygen but not hydrogen, protective atmosphere, water, self-sustaining chemical cycles, etc., etc.)? There is plenty of evidence of a "grand design" all around us. The question is not whether the evidence exists but, rather, whether individuals will allow themselves to realize it for what it is. People generally have no trouble recognizing that relatively simple human creations must have had a designer. Why is it so difficult for some to realize the same concerning the infinitely grander creation all around us?
Virtually every religion has a belief that the universe had a specific beginning, so that's not proof that the Bible is correct or that we have a single God. We might, in fact, have hundreds. However, I would expect early man to come up a beginning since such a concept would logically fit into their mindset and personal experiences.
Many of the posters here fail to understand that physics is work and the work is hard and slow. Just because modern science cannot explain a phenomenon does not mean it will not explain it in the future, but it equally does not mean the phenomenon will be explained in the future, if you catch my drift.
In other words, any arguments about how science happens to not explain something is null. However, arguments against God not explaining something is not null, as God is omnipotent and scientists are not. You cannot possibly try to hold the standards of proof equally to both sides unless you equate Hawking and Co. to omnipotent cosmic beings, which they aren't as far as we can tell.
No - it's the other way around. Holding God to an observable standard. Not scientists to a "godly" standard.
God cannot seem to hold a simple, global conversation with his creation, even though mankind can do that with mankind. That alone suggests there's a problem with God's interest in his own creation - failing to find a "standard" by which he can communicate with his creation he so dearly loves.
Well stated! The notion that God and science are mutually exclusive is an argument not so much based on matters of faith or atheism but an unbending even brittle orthodoxy proposed by some in either or camp. In affect, some atheist have made their "non-belief" a religion as some who are religious have made their faith a science. There is not one tenant, paradigm or law of physics currently accepted that likewise excludes or disproves God. Simply, stated, God if he exists may have created science and the physical world. Many scientist are not atheist and likewise many people of faith see God in science and in the machinery of the physical universe!
Generic Name
I agree that I think many people posting here don't really understand the laws of physics. I have no problem believing that the universe came to be due to random interactions in the cosmos that came to a point of balance. However that is my BELIEF, the same as a God created universe may be someone elses BELIEF. However, creationists want to hold science to a different standard than they hold for themselves. Many people on this thread (and the world at large) say that they want science to prove everything with complete accuracy before they will believe any of it. However when it comes to God it's "logically obvious " that he is the answer to everything. Some people don't understand the vast mountain of knowledge that has been accumulated through scientific process. At least I understand that science may not have ALL of the answers to lifes mysteries but is always finding new pieces to the puzzle. I do however tend to by skeptical of anyone who claims to have all of the answers ie: god did it.
There is no grand design, why should there be. What a bunch of space aliens running around putting a galaxy here or some cosmic dust there? They'd be god to us eh? what would we care anyways? There a lot of theories about everything but no one has any idea just what everything is! Of course the meek will inherit the earth, and a lot more...I can see three dimensions and percieve four, if you tell me I will be kicked out of eden for eating an apple from the tree of knowledge, well show me the apple tree and the exit...but somehow, the same snake is telling us that there are five dimensions, six, seven and more!..same story but the nouns are changed around a bit...we are very imaginative, like rehashing the same news story, it don't matter what is said, as long as they mention the new SH book. No god would tell anyone to kill, lest by mans' proxy. No universe could hide 5 dimensions. There was no single big bang...just a lot of pops...since we can't see farther than x billion of years ago, the universe did not exist before that, but x changes every so often as a product of light gathering ability, the universe is not contracting or expanding and it is not standing still...it is oscillating. Time travel does not exist because there is no time, that is just a property WE assigned moving matter, everything happens sequentially wheter we like it or not. Tachyons DO NOT move backwards in time. still I hope they keep watching for them, it is such a cool experiment. God exists only in the minds of those who believe in thier god...just ask any viking. Science can be a religion. Ask any self professed climatoligist. To be your own god is the most difficult thing you can do. In the meantime, bow to no king, queen or self professed god...and be damn weary of physics professor that are not willing to show you the math and provide a little demonstrative experiment followed by a question and answer session. I wish SH well. I hope he sells lots of books. I wish I knew which ones were fiction. Where do I find KJ bible in the library? fiction or non fiction? and exactly why is that? where do I find the book of buddah in the library? fiction or nonfiction? and exactly why is that?...I have my religion, I like it, but I try to avoid reading fiction, I just don't have the time anymore. Lucky I am not the space czar, I would doubly trounce this kind of jounalism, and all the people who hold up science with out data. Global Warming? sure. Happens right now on mars, jupiter, titan, venus and possibly even pluto...all caused by man?...and what about that high temp plasma that has been drifting into the sol system for about a decade now? sure cows fart. and car exhaust is...aw what the heck you all ain't listning...hail whatever,yea sure, bill us now and then just go away.
Great article! You know this all started when Galileo took the lens caps off his telescope. Since the religeous nuts of the time had never conceived of a telescope, they couldn't conceive of a lens cap. Thus if someone handed you a telescope, and you looked through it without removing the lens caps, you would see "nothing". Mathematics, and the theories of science have allowed for the development of more advanced technologies, be they telescopes or computers, and with more and better observations, more and better theories. Mathematics is the "telescope" to look at these theories, and if you know little or less about math, in essence you're leaving the lens caps on the telescope. I'm not suprised that we have reached the level we have reached in our understanding of the universe, but I hardly see this as ' the end of the game'. I'm sure if Galileo's house keeper of the day had run across an unattended telescope, she might have used it to stir the laundry, being more concerned that Galileo looked good, than thought well.
If I take a picture of a street corner that is a forest, and ten years later I take another picture and it is a shopping center, the "vagueness of the past" at this particular point in space is all the pictures that I didn't take in between.
Who's paying these guys?
Seriously, look at the bible humpers quoting scripture here. I've got a question for them, which religion is the correct one? Which interpretation of the bible is right? There are 34000 sub groups of Christianity alone. You fools need to open your eyes and read something other then the bible. I'm glad headlines like these are springing up. I like the fact that were throwing science in your face. Its about time! Go do your homework before you come to a science article and talk nonsense. No one here cares. Were to interested in actual facts and learning then superstitions and books written to control the masses. Its time for religion to take a back seat and I'm happy to see society moving away from it. Let science rein and let people learn unrestricted and free of religion.
Religion was created thousands of years ago to control the ignorant masses. Obviously it is still working for the most part. In most cases, I would suggest that those of us who know better just smile and nod approvingly at those who are still controlled in this way. We should also encourage them to pass their beliefs on to their children as most of them will turn out to be ignorant as well.
Theists seem to have some fundamental misconceptions about science. Science does not deal with facts. Mathematics deals with facts. Science does not. Science deals with theories and observations. Theories are refined on the basis of observation. When science stops being refinable, it becomes a religion.
So.. what if the universe sprang out of nothing? Doesn't 'that nothing' fascinate anybody?
We get these amazing concepts - spoken like facts. For example, some scientists have claimed that the singularity existing pre-big-bang was about 'the size of a grapefruit.' Well, ain't that fascinating - in an arena where there is no space or time - suddenly we can measure and compare? What are we measuring 'in', folks? The universe didn't just start expanding into time and space - the big bang started creating the time and space that the universe expanded into.
So... that 'nothing' that sponsors 'the grapefruit'... THAT'S worth contemplating, n'est pas?
Read the post above yours, tyvm.
Did just that, Generic,
"When science stops being refinable, it becomes a religion."
Only an atheist religion would call that particular nothing they are pointing at - nothing. ywvm :)
But, whadda we care - they just do it to sell their books - and it works like charm.
from www.swamij.com:
It is not necessary to believe in God to attain self-enlightenment, but it is very necessary to know the various levels of consciousness like dimensions of M-Theory and finally to realize the ultimate source. The manifest aspect and the unmanifest aspect of consciousness (Brahman) should be realized, for that alone can enlighten aspirants.
Upanishadic philosophy provides various methods for unfolding higher levels of truth and helps students to be able to unravel the mysteries of the individual and the universe.
If Ultimate Truth is called God, then there is no difficulty. Then it can be practiced with mind, action, and speech, and once the truth is known with mind, action, and speech, knowledge is complete.
The Upanishads inspire one first to know oneself and then to know the Self of all. Upanishadic literature makes one aware that every being embodied in a physical sheath is a moving shrine of Supreme Consciousness. It also provides methods for entering the inner shrine, wherein shines the infinite light of knowledge, peace, and happiness.
Reminds me of Fred Hoyle. Nature abhors a vaccuum. If quantum fluctuations exist where 'nothing' seems to be then maybe the echo of the 'big bang' is really Hawking radiation from the event horizon that surrounds our observable universe.
I never cease to be amused at the rambling theories on the universe's origin.... all of man's theories about the universe have been wrong. Our brains are too small to comprehend that the universe "always was.....and always will be"! Many of us refuse to accept that fact. We have been told of the coming of the Son of God, and all these things will be revealed to us. Only after we die, shall we understand all the mysteries of the universe. BUT, only our bodies will die....our spirit will live on forever!! Forever is to hard a word for many to comprehend. We differ from the animals because God put his spirit in us, yet, to many of us refuse to acknowledge that fact. If death is so final as some choose to believe, what is the purpose of life at all? How can we begin to comprehend the creation of billions of galaxies light years across...with no end?? The creator of all this made sure that his word would be read. Who in their right minds could have fabricated such a story in such times over 2000 years ago? Many think it was such....a fabrication. The Bible is much to complex for one, (or several) men, to create such a story. It takes faith to believe in something unseen...especially our Creator. We know that there has to be a supreme being, spirit or entity...call it what you will, that has to be the reason for everything. Soon.... all the mysteries will be revealed to us....when they talk about the glory and power of God...we will shudder with fear at his coming in magnificence.......then will we understand..... hopefully, we will be ready to go with him in his realm. Be ready....for we know not the hour.....if WE are not able to create such a universe....we must be subject to a higher power....our Creator. Let us follow his teachings.....and we shall live FOREVER!!
Like Lemmings to the ocean...go the faithful.
How's about some proof for you gawd. Bet you can't.
Their biggest fear: they cannot live forever so they create "God" so they can.
@Jerry
You say humans cannot comprehend what you claim to comprehend. Are you implying something here?
Religion is the easy answer.
If we'd stuck with the easy answers, we'd still be in caves cowering at lightning.
Christianity is a creation out of humanity's fear of death. It belongs in Egypt with the Pharaohs.
No, that would be life insurance. Best stick to subjects you comprehend.
TPoKeys,
How do we know that we can't live forever when we can't even define life or consciousness, and have no idea what part of us may exist in the perhaps seven dimensions that we can't see?
While the concept is interesting, that our consiousness exists in a higher dimension after we die, it's not that much different from M theory which states that all matter exists in numerous multiple dimensions as well. The difference is that you are mentioning a philisophical quandry, one that can't be testedbut is easily debated. I find religions of all colors to be the same thing, a discussion of the possibilities a)Why we're here and b) where we go when we die. My problem comes from people who have read a book (bible etc. ) and claim that they know the absolute truth, and anyone who doesn't agree with their particular flavor of god is wrong and therefore eternally damned. How about, just mabey, we are born, we live, and we die, just like every other living thing that has ever existed on this planet.
when we understand how the universe works and create one,we become "god"
When we understand how the universe works, we have the potential of creating our own (given the enormous resources/requirement) - yes. "god" - well that's hyperbola, and supposition on your part.
Time to pull out Occam's Razor?!? 8^)
Fundies don't like Occam or his Razor....seems it doesn't cut their way.
eggs and billiard balls are "ways" to explain the "origins of the universe"? apparently, the more one learns, the less one understands. still, there is "some wheat amid the chaff". it is true that the concept of god (religion) has been "misused" to gain wealth and power. that is also true for the concept of "government" of; by; and for the people. that a "supreme power" exists, by whatever name he/it is known, cannot be proved or disproved until it is known what happens after death. to date, i have seen no "scientific theories" expounded upon by dead authors. these "theories" (sic) propounded seem to "defy" the basic concept of "scientific method", e.g. logic. for example: by going "back in time", time no longer exists? by measuring "some things" suggests that they came from "no things"? tom "suggests" that only if one believes that the universe exists as a result of "random molecular collisions", can one deny the existence of a "supreme power". of course, this lonely individual might be asked "from whence came the molecules"? how does one "account" for things that cannot be measured, collectively characterized as "feelings"? does "anyone" deny they exist? i was "incensed" at the original "simplistic notion" that "god doesn't exist" because an "intelligent scientist" supposedly explained the origins of the universe; however, if true, it would imply that he could also "predict" what will happen within that universe. this might be called a "quantum leap" i guess. where is "nostradamus" when we need him? upon reading this amplified "discussion", i am led to "believe" that "smoke and mirrors" is now being applied to science, much as others (in government) apply them to economics, e.g. we can "spend our way to prosperity" by going further into debt. the corollary is: allowing those responsible for being "irresponsible" to escape the "natural consequences" of their actions is the "solution" to the problem. this "defying of logic" only postpones the "inevitable" and "shifts" the "consequences" to others, mostly "non-contributors" to said elected (or electable) government officials. "oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive" about covers the m-theory. . (sir walter scott, i "believe") enjoy, t.o.m. localnotions.blogspot.com
There are probably creatures out there a hundred million years more evolved than humans and. even with all those millions of years more physics behind 'em, I'll bet they don't know the ultimate answer either.
Of course they do. That's why they built Deep Thought. It's 42.
Everyone knows that the ultimate Answer is 42, what we need is the ultimate Question to life, the universe, and everything. Only then will the answer make sense.
Sooooo! the theory of everything than can be boiled down to the follwing equation.
G-E= 0
This fits with my theory of displacement perfectly. Thanks guys I have been trying to work this out for a while.
HamletOgaard
The sad thing is that most people are ignorant about what a true "Christian" is, they grow up in these churches that have all come from in some form and some way the Catholic church, Churches may deny it but it's true, As for the comment about "fairy tales about a bearded man in a white robe" If you look in the mirror you will see that you are not in a white robe, nor do you in most cases have a huge beard it's a SICK thing to think that Christ had a beard or long hair or a weak looking body like the ones that the world draw of him (i.e the Catholics) But my shot isn't at just the Catholic faith it's at all of them, Who ever thinks that when they die they go up to heaven better take a look in their bible cause they've been lied to all their lives, if you think there's some kind of hell you have been lied to all your life, if you think Christmas and Easter are Holy on to God! You better take another look in that bible because you have been lied to all your life and the sick thing is no one cares!
Your assertions about Christmas and Easter may well be valid, but what does your bible say in Luke 16? Jesus referred to "everlasting life" many, many times? What do you suppose he meant? If we've all been lied to, please let us know what you believe the truth is.
Lied to. That's an interesting concept. I know some atheists and they don't like being lied to any more than believers do. Do they think it is "wrong"? Why would anything be "right" or "wrong"? If you pour baking soda into vinegar it doesn't stop to think about whether it is right or wrong - it just reacts and bubbles like crazy. If all we are is bio-chemical reactions, why do we a) lie to each other and b) get upset about it?
I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
As one comment above states I may be showing my ignorance, but that's OK. I have read many books on this subject, including "A Brief History of Time." I too am looking forward to the new book.
One thing I believe after reading this book is that Hawking is not saying that God does not exist outside space and time. I think it is saying that God just is not responsible for creating the universe and that, as you go back in time, before the big bang, time had no meaning because there was no such thing. That is why I say that God could still exist but that he existed before that was anything called time and was independent from the creation of the universe. From what I gather then is what I said above that the theory is not saying God does not exist, but he is not needed for the universe to have been created; hence outside time.
I agree on the front that they are not saying that God doesn't exist but but but why if you believe that He created everything say that He might not have needed to create that one "big" thing? It's like saying a car doesn't need gas to move.
One dimensional God is better. Easier - but not necessarily right.
This equation also explains why the Universe is expanding. It is trying to get back to zero.