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:
Pick up some history and archaeology books and read about the "evolution" and sociological context of religion(s) and how they started and you will understand that religions are the most ancient of political constructs aimed mostly at social control with the goal of concentration and maintenance of power.
Does this mean that God does not exist? No. It simply means that humans are good at manipulating the ignorant and weak minded with absolutely no desire to understand the true meaning of anything let alone the universe, life, or the nature of divinity. What has God to do with such unworthy constructs created by man? Absolutely nothing!
We will only realize our relationship with God when we overcome our ignorance, arrogance, greed, and desire for power. Short of that, we are no more worthy of his attention than a grain of sand.
Worthy of "his" attention? Are you ascribing male human form to that which is beyond the level of human understanding? That's ok. People have been doing it since they first tried grasp such things. In echoing an earlier comment, one might easily argue that: "In the beginning man created God in his own image to expain what evolution hadn't yet given him the intelligence to comprehend."
But you're right; religion is a very ancient framework. As I stated earlier, I would argue that superstitious 'compensations' probably started to appear shortly after humans realized they were mortal and became fearful of such awareness. It then served a dual role. It provided simple and comforting answers to complex questions about death and other unkowns as well as the structure and control you mentioned to groups of people. I also agree that the 'human' need for power is at the root of much of the negative aspects of such control and conflict.
My argument is that the world has moved forward and perhaps religions should re-examine their roles and how they can best benefit society. Divisiveness, conflict, war, etc. certainly hasn't helped our cause so far, so perhaps a little self-examination is in order.
This string thing is facinating. Why can't a science topic be discussed without going into religion?
RunstheBitterroot,
In this case a "scientific" topic that concerns the origin of the universe cannot be discussed without going into religion because science is now invading territory that has traditionally been the reservation of religion and philosophy. Scientists are trying to become the new "priesthood", whether they realize it or not.
Somehow I don't see science invading anything. It seems if we are talking string theory, something not discussed in the bible could be discussed without going into topics in religion. Certainly if we were talking about noahs ark, why would we interject with string theory?
I don't see where science is trying to be the new priesthood as they aren't dictating morals and so forth, they are just trying to figure out how everything works and sharing this knowledge with the rest of us. Inquiring minds need to know!
When I read a scientific publication, I do not want to hear anything about adam and eve. If I wanted to read about adam and eve I would go to some religious publications. Wasn't our nation founded on separation of church and science?
I could talk about science all day long and never have the need to bring up a passage in the bible. Religion is not or has it ever been science!
RunstheBitterroot,
You are right. Religion is not science, nor should science try to be religion. But we are talking here about the origin of the universe and all things in it. That ground has traditionally been the realm of religion and philosophy. Science is a newcomer in that realm. That is what I meant by science invading the realm of religion and philosophy. I was not talking at all about the Bible or Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve. Or should I say Mrs. Adam? Did they have a last name? All that is rubbish as far as I'm concerned. My point is that the origin of things has traditionally been the realm of religion, whatever the particular religion, and philosophy; not science, and I'm not at all sure science does any better job than religion when it comes to explaining origins.
Scientists seem to grasp at straws to create a universe without God. What is it about scientists that they can't seem to accept a Creator, it seems that if they can't put it under a microscope it can not exist, well there are many things that can't be cornered and observed such as Love, yet if they could put Love under a microscope they would finally see the God they so roundly deny.
People don't accept a creator because it makes no sense. A creator requires material with which to create, which means there's something above the creator and their material.
There are things divine, such as the truth of our background, but versions of religion and 'god' actually degrade that fact.
American Spirit,
The Christian and Jewish religions have always taught that God created the universe out of nothing. This doctrine is known by the Latin name of "Creatio ex Nihilo". The belief that God used preexisting materials out of which to create the universe has always been viewed as heresy. If you read this article carefully, you would have noticed that Hawking is arguing the same thing only without God. He is basically arguing that the universe created itself out of nothing, which is even more absurd than the idea that it had a creator. Can't you see the absurdity of it? How can something that does not exist bring itself into existence?
taught that God created the universe out of nothing.
If a 'god' existed at that point, then something did. That model requires explanation as to where the 'god' came from. The universe originated from nothing at all, not even a creator.
How can something that does not exist bring itself into existence?
Easy. Ponder on what all did exist at the point nothing did.
American Spirit,
I'm sure you're a good and well-meaning person, but philosophically you're a bit naive or you wouldn't ask the question where God came from. You need to read Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 proofs for the existence of God (See the "Summa Theologica"). They do not, of course, prove the existence of God to anyone who is skeptical of it, but perhaps you would come to realize that there is absolutely nothing irrational about the concept of God. Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas were two of the greatest logicians who ever lived. They were emminently rational men. Aristotle practically invented the science of formal logic single handedly in his treatises Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics and Categories. And the answer to your question about what existed at the point nothing did is simply: nothing. And yet something exists now. Why? The German philosopher Martin Heidegger put it quite simply: "Why is there something and not nothing?" Is the existence of the universe necessary? That the big question!
The god concept is totally irrational based on reality. And no, I'm not naive. I'm a mystic. I can absolutely dance circles around your knowledge of all things divine. Your god concept degrades it totally.
American Spirit,
You claim to be a mystic. What kind of "mystic" would you be? Are you not aware that mysticism is a subject that has always been associated with religion and generally involves some concept of God? There have been Catholic mystics, Protestant mystics, Hindu mystics, Buddhist mystics, Muslim mystics, etc. Websters Dictionary defines mysticism as "the doctrine that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation. 2 any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining an intuitive knowledge of spiritual truths through meditation." If you do not believe in the existence of God or a spiritual realm beyond the realm of nature, you have no right to call yourself a mystic.
Since you have no clue of mysticism, please don't tell others they are not one. You look silly when you do.
There's a huge difference between all things divine and belief in a god. Buddhists are the same way I am. They believe in other states of being with no god required. May you find them sometime.
American Spirit,
You're an arrogant little pup, aren't you? Unfortunately, your knowledge would echo in a thimble! If you knew anything at all about Buddhism, you would know that the Buddha neither denied nor affirmed the existence of God. He simply refused to discuss the matter. His message was that life is suffering, and that there is a way to end suffering. That is all he was concerned with, showing people the way to end suffering. He was not concerned with the question of whether or not God existed. But Buddhism is peculiar among religions in that respect anyway. And how can you say "all things divine"? Are you ignorant of the fact that the word "divine" comes from Latin "divus", meaning God? The word divine means "of or like God", something you claim not to believe in. Therefore you have no right to assert that all things are "divine". You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper with each post. Perhaps you should just give up. And, by the way, stop voting for yourself! It's unseemly.
Yawns. Divine means more than just of god. Simply go to 'dictionary.com' and read up.
I'm not arrogant. I'm knowledgeable. Get the diff? You also need to read up on Buddhism and the god concept. Try google.
American Spirit,
I prefer to get my information from books; not on-line, since on-line information is often incorrect or unreliable. I have my own library of somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 volumes on just about every subject, including Buddhism, so I don't need on-line references. As to whether you are arrogant or knowledgeable, I understand the difference, and you do not come across to me as at all knowledgeable. The only thing you seem to be good at is trying to redefine every word in the English language to suit your own desires. I notice, too, that you are still voting for yourself. That's a good sign of arrogance in itself!
Mickey,
Give it up, it's painful to watch. There seems to be a communications gap at best or a pride/intelligence gap at worst. Being able to wrap ones mind around the ideas of Aristotle and Aquinas requires more than some people have to give. BTW - just a bit envious of your library!
American Spirit,
The above statement is meaningless. In our limited realm, yes, a creator usually has some raw material to work with, either wood or stone, elements or chemicals, words or language, etc. But at the ontological level we are referring to when we speak about Being and Nothingness, a God who is self-existent would by his intrinsic nature have sufficient power and resources to create ex Nihilo - 'out of nothing'. What's the point of being God otherwise? I certainly wouldn't accept a lesser God. He could do it by speaking.
In fact string theory sounds interesting for precisely that reason. Strings are tiny bits of vibrating energy that may compose everything at the quantum level right? A speaking voice is nothing but energy that sets air molecules vibrating in certain patterns. Could a creator God who is 'beyond, above, below, and behind' the ontological level of our physical Universe, then speak in such a way that quantum energies come into existence as those vibrating strings of energy? Are strings and super-strings the energetic by-products of the voice of a self-existent God 'speaking' at the ontological level of physical creation? Sounds perfectly possible to me.
Persons who can't or don't think for themselves or who don't bother to educate themselves may come to conclusions like yours - that the idea of the existence of God is illogical. Hmm, well, the idea that the Big Bang just happened spontaneously is rather like the idea of a match striking itself - without there being a match to begin with.
WH-1877367,
That was an excellent post. I found your idea of strings as being, in effect, the "voice of God", particularly interesting. I can't speak with any authority on string theory or quantum mechanics since I'm not a scientist, but your idea is certainly interesting speculation. Philosophy and religion are my areas of "expertise". I have a B.A. in philosophy. As for my library, I have spent decades and literally tens of thousands of dollars building it up. I have been a book lover ever since I was a little boy. Don't be too envious, though, since I have very little room left in my house for furniture. I told my Mom once that if I get any more books, I'm going to have to move my bed out onto the patio.
The only thing you seem to be good
Personal attack attack attack. How boring. If you had faith in your beliefs, you'd feel no need to attack the messenger.
the idea that the Big Bang just happened spontaneously is rather like the idea of a match striking itself - without there being a match to begin with
That's what you say your 'god' did. See how silly that sounds?
If you think for yourself very logically you can figure it out. To cop out and say "god did it" is intellectual dishonesty.
Mikey...,
Thank you for your kind words, here and on another page. Your own comments come across as intelligent, knowledgeable, and as patient as any I've seen in this desert of civility. If I have any area of 'expertise' it would be in writing and the love of language, as well as an excess of intuitive imagination. Since we had no television in the house, I became a book lover by default - 2,000 and counting. Not quite moving to the patio yet. It almost pains me to compare the comments here on msnbc with those on the same topic, say on the Guardian site in the UK. The lower level of understanding and humor here reflects poorly on the general deficiencies in the American educational system, vs that of the UK - or maybe it's our water versus theirs! But I do hear that their high school education is roughly equivalent to a US undergrad study level.
WH-1877367,
Thanks for the response. You are a very good writer. I try, but I'm not as good at expressing myself as you are. You're lucky you didn't have a TV. We had a TV, but I didn't watch it very much; I preferred reading. So you library is at 2,000 and counting. That's a good size. You had better watch out there, buddy, or you will end up like me; bed on patio. You're right about the low level of the American educational system vs. that of England and, I think, Europe in general. It's a shame. The Founding Fathers of this country believed a democracy could not survive without an educated electorate. If that is true, what future does this country have in store for it? Take care, WH!
American Spirit,
Yikes! Mikey was surely right about you. Let's try this. The problem is, you don't seem to have a high enough view of what a creator God could be like. You seem to expect that he will have many of the limitations we humans have: finite resources, finite power, finite knowledge, etc. etc. And you seem to think of him as existing on the same plane of existence as ourselves and this Universe. If you will read any of the great philosophers and theologians of the past, as I have, you will quickly realize that the God they speak of - the type of God who has the qualities necessary and sufficient to qualify as creator of the Universe we see before us - is not a bearded old man sitting on a cloud somewhere singing hymns to Jesus. Such a God is laughable and the ultimate straw man of argumentation.
Look, there is nothing illogical about a God powerful enough to create this Universe where there was none before. It appears illogical because we can't or won't think outside the box of our own space-time experience. It simply means that such a God is ontologically 'different' (vastly different) from ourselves. Please Google 'ontology' and study what that word refers to. It has to do with the nature of Being and Beingness, existence and/or non-existence. There is nothing inherently illogical about a being like a God who exists on a completely different ontological level from us and our Universe. That would give him essentially free rein to do as he wills with respect to this Universe, including willing or speaking it into existence from wherever it is that he exists or stands. And from our point of view, within this Universe, that implies that our Universe will appear to have sprung out of... wait for it... nothing! Which, yes, is frightening, and strange, and bewildering, and disorienting and full of 'otherness'. But it's only 'nothing' from our perspective, not from the perspective of a Creator on a different ontological level outside our Universe. Go get a library card and dig in!
WH and Mickey:
It is finally rewarding to see that there are other individuals who have an understanding of an 'ontology' for the existence of GOD. I do like St. Anselm's ontology for the existence, as well as, Kant's view against the existence. Both views make more sense than most of these posts. It is more enjoyable to read it from masters than the logic in most of these posts. If only I could get my points across so succinctly.
Let's perform an unscientific measurement of religious behavior with this question.
If a man knocked on your door today and when you answered said that God sent him because he knew you, as a good Christian, would help him pay his mother's medical bills and keep his family off the street would you?
If you answered no, then why bash science for seeking the truth in its own manner?
If you answered yes, then while you may have just punched your ticket to ride the stairway to heaven, why be surprised when some suggest you were snookered? After all, the only people who say God speaks to or directs them are either medicated, institutionalized, or have multi-million dollar media operations geared toward raising millions under the guise of some divine connection/knowledge in the saving of souls.
The point? Religion is a personal pursuit. As personal for the science driven as for others and deserves judgement from no one.
Voluntary ignorance, however, deserves derision. After all, what God would cultivate a creation in his own image that couldn't follow a light if it was shining in their own eyes.
Time and space is God. Nothing more. Nothing less. Religion is modern fables for man's inability to open their minds to this.
Strange, at the time I wrote this, there were no comments. Happily, I was wrong. :)
Perhaps the server was caching or backed up somehow.
I'm a Christian and being raised in a family with a Dad who is a scientist taught me that pure science does not disprove the existence of God. Science by itself makes statements based on observations of the physical universe. Scientists can only make assumptions (theories), or as I like to better qualify it - educated guesses - as to what may be behind the scenes making what is visible work the way it does. Its like taking someone who has never seen a car before and asking them how it works at the same time not allowing them to lift the hood or take a wrench to it to see under the "skin". Observations of what the car does and how it can be used does not allow the person to fully comprehend the motive force (engine - or motor/batteries) that lie beneath the surface. Science is in the same boat - we are able to view our little solar system and "see" the visible universe as best we can from the confines of our planet. Assumptions have been made and broken over time; case in point with the Voyager probe leaving the heliopause and sending data back (even with the older equipment it has) that surprised scientists into thinking maybe physics functions differently outside the confines of our solar system. We are finite beings trying to understand a universe for which we can't "lift the hood" (and infinitely more complex than a man-made car). The human body isn't fully understood, and we are able to "lift the hood" on it and still there are discoveries being made that break the assumptions of the scientists studying it. Mr. Hawking is making some very big assumptions about the universe (or universes that no one has seen). If he's that much insight that people think is right, then he should be creating weather prediction algorithms to have weather forecasts be more accurate the world over. Mr. Hawking writes some good science 'guesstion'.
Belief in an all-knowing, all-powerful God (Creator) should not diminish scientific observation, but it leaves me more in awe of His creativity...and power...I'd rather be on His side than against Him.
.I'd rather be on His side than against Him.
I myself would rather be of the divine. The biggest flaw of religion is that it separates that out and away.
"I myself would rather be of the divine. The biggest flaw of religion is that it separates that out and away."
And your "mysticism" is not a religious approach to understanding the "divine" nature?
savedbygrace!,
American Spirit sees himself as a "mystic", yet he has absolutely no understanding of what mysticism is. See my little conversation with him above (posts #57.1 to 57.10). He is also very "knowledgeable" in his own estimation, but shows very little indication of any depth of knowledge or understanding in his posts.
Attack attack attack. Yawns.
Neither of you understand the concept of mysticism at all. It transcends religion by a long shot.
Mickey, you seem very sure of yourself that American Spirit is a delusional crackpot, ever though Spirit has not given us enough information to say what he(she) is or isn't. I can't say I agree with Spirit or not because I don't know what he believes. Maybe he's a Buddhist, maybe he's Native American, or maybe he believes in the Flying Speghetti Moster. However you seem to think that you have the market cornered on what's true and false. I applaud you on your collection of liturature, (mine's only about 5-600) but to say that the internet is useless because it's been known to be wrong is like saying that you won't drive a car because accidents can happen. I notice that you're still on the internet commenting on this article though. And just because it's written in a book doesn't make something true either. The classic argument about evolution comes to mind. The process of evolution (things changing over time) is near irrefutable, but that doesn't mean that everything that Darwin wrote about is accurate to the letter, hence The Origin Of Species was revise about 6 times. Yet you call out Spirit for being arrogant? Why mabey cause he hasn't read as many books as you? Why can't "divine " mean something that trancends our normal perceptions, without reference to any specific god?
captainthursday,
I never said the Internet was useless; simply that I don't use it for most of my information, which I get from books instead. As for calling American Spirit arrogant, I called him that for 2 reasons: first, because he told me I know nothing about mysticism when, in fact, I took a course in mysticism as part of my philosophy major in college and have spent much of my life reading the writings of the mystics. Secondly, because his posts contained very little of any significance other than to snipe at other people's comments under the guise that he is a "mystic" and "very knowledgeable". Well, maybe he is very knowledgeable, but he certainly did not show it in his posts. You yourself admitted that "Spirit has not given us enough information to say what he(she) is or isn't." That's why I called him arrogant, because he kept making snide remarks about other people's comments without providing anything of value himself. And what makes you think I have any market cornered on what is true and false? That is your opinion; not mine! As for your remarks about books sometimes being wrong, I'm well aware of that. I have never made a habit of believing everything I read in books.
Mickey:
As much as one would like to invoke logic and intelligence with some on this thread, I have come to the conclusion that no matter how some try, we will never get our point across to most of these commentors. Of course, I have to admit that it is fun getting some of these folks riled up as their arguments start falling apart. Good luck with your efforts.
TReed,
Thanks. You are so right, friend! I had already given up on trying to communicate with "American Spirit". He speaks a different language from most of us. And then I saw the post by "captainthursday" accusing me of being to harsh in calling "American Spirit" arrogant. So I had to respond to it, too. You just can't communicate with some people at all, because they insist on redefining words to suit their own liking. Communication requires two people speaking the same language.
See page ONE THOUSAND & FIFTY THREE. Thankyou, and when you find it tell me what I said, Thankyou, again!
Daylight2000, you're misrepresenting the claims of those who don't believe God created us. The idea isn't that we came out of nowhere, the idea is that we are the end result of a series of events that are naturally occurring.
Life and intelligence can be considered emergent phenomena that arose from the natural world and the mathematical system that underlies that world.
I think one great point made in this interview is when he points out that the scientific method WORKS. The computer you're typing on, the car you drive to work, the television you watch at night, the phone you talk on and the satellites that run it. All of these are applications that prove science is a good way to figure out how the universe works.
Religion really struggles in this area. Studies show that praying has no effect. Different religions disagree on just about every subject save for basic moral systems that are necessary for human society. It's particularly noticeable when you study the history of different religions how those religions have shifted and changed wildly over time. In other words you're left with the age old concept of faith, but faith is a tricky thing. Most people simply put faith in whatever they were raised to believe, which when you think about it is a strange system to use. It means that a Christian born here has every bit as much reason to believe as a Hindu born in India has to believe in their religion.
Faith doesn't really answer the question of how a person should decide or who is right. It simply says pick something (might as well be at random the way most people go) and stick with it no matter what happens.
My point with all this isn't that a person shouldn't believe in God. My point is that religion sucks as a way of understanding the world. There's no consensus and no system for coming to a consensus, leading to chaos and violence throughout the world.
Science offers a system for coming to a consensus and also offers concrete tests for whether or not that consensus is correct. For example, take M-Theory. Right now scientific consensus leans towards it, but if in the future something comes up that contradicts it or another theory comes up that supersedes it (as Relativity overtook Newtonian physics for example) then the consensus will shift in that direction.
It's a beautiful self-correcting system that is constantly checking itself.
Do I allow for the possibility of God? Sure. I'm more agnostic than I am atheist, but arguing that God is a better system for understanding the beginnings of life and the universe than science seems just silly unless something changes in the way religion works and the information it has to work with becomes something more than stories passed down over thousands of years.
AX23000 et. al.
The concern is not whether the scientific method works or not, but rather the attitude that most modern scientists express in their studies. Historically, there was a period when well educated people studied both the Bible, science, and mathematics. It was a normal thing to have religious studies and science together. (What the Catholic Church did to men who studied science in past history was wrong and does not reflect the teachings of Christ.) A few giants in the field of science believed in a Divine Creator (not necessarily a personal God) - including Sir Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, just to name a few.
As to religion, not all systems of belief are equal in theology, anthropology, hamartiology, and soteriology. You will need to look at the different religious systems to contrast and compare.
My take is that both faith and science give us a fuller picture of our physical universe than just science without faith and faith without science. If the Bible had already mentioned that the heavens was being stretched by God and that the earth was circular - centuries before the invention of the telescope - is it silly to have a biblical worldview while studying our world and beyond? If men of reason and scientific minds also acknowledged (and some were active in their church) a Divine Being, why would it be silly to pursue scientific studies through the lens of religious faith?
I'm no physicist, but I can't help but see the contradiction in this whole concept. What ever happened to the law that "something @ rest stays @ rest, unless an outside force acts upon it & something in motion stays in motion unless an outside force slows it down."
Where then does this LAW come into place w/ this new M theory? Is it even a law anymore? Or are we just ignoring old laws now to make way for our new ideas? How can something or nothing then come into being something by itself?
The law of M - sure...
Greetings,
Here we go again... The old battle between Maths and Physics.
Quantum is accepted only as a theory. It does not reconciliate with Quantum Physics as
infinity cannot end a formula.(at least not by human standards). It took only 10 dimensions + 1 of time to come to conclusion that perhaps String and Membrane theories could be understood. Remains the small problem:
If 2 membranes have touched and created our universe why only in 1 place , 1 time. Think about it, if there are zillions of dimensions and universes out there, the probability of a 1 time event is laughable. Dreaming about 0+0=1 is giving up on the knowned universe and real science but if we go this route then anything is possible.
You don't need to be a scientist to throw unverifiable theories and wish they become
reality at some point in time. Where is this magical formula of everything so we could start to work on to verify its validity ? Again lots of talk and theories, but no formula...
Also everybody I know in Astrophysics will tell you:
We know so little and have to discover so much. So unless this is the only way left for some scientists to get attention, speculating God may not exist is an opinion not science. Even accepting M theory as valid, it would still leave us the question: What about before ? what was there? That is the human way. The day we stop asking questions we will lose our human qualities.
I would suggest that if one could fit God into his mind, than He would not be really be a God, nothing more than a human with a supercomputer for a mind, therefore you have no idea of what God really is, not even close, it is totally impossible for the human mind to conceive of what God really is, and never will, but what the human mind cannot conceive the human heart can, for all will know Him from least to greatest. Just try this before you go to bed each night say to yourself, or to that unknowable reality, "if only people would Love one another", that's all you have to say, say nothing else, just a wish, a desire, a hope. Than you will begin to understand.
Yet many religious wars erupt. And if we cannot "understand" God how can we be like him? Seems self-defeating doesn't it. It's a personal matter. If if makes you feel better or more at peace with yourself, that's great. For me, it's belief, and not a very sturdy one. To have to put all my faith in something that, if he exists, doesn't do a very good job of informing his creation about his love, instead providing "tests" in the form of disasters, disease, pestulance, earthquakes, and many many others.
So you are right; I cannot understand God because he doesn't provide a very coherent point of view. If anything, my crazy neighbor makes more sense than the almighty.
"Science has gotten to the point where there's the hope that we'll be able to turn some of this metaphysics into physics."
All this hyperbole is just PATAPHYSICS pure and simple.
“Science has gotten to the point where there's the hope that we'll be able to turn some of this metaphysics into physics."
All this hyperbole is just PATAPHYSICS pure and simple.
And who made the stuff to make the space knot???? GOD ? ? ?
Religion has always been a beautiful metaphor that expresses our hopes and dreams for what we do not understand. Quite an advantage no doubt in redirecting one's efforts from idle contemplation to chasing mammoths for supper.
Here is probably an easy one for most of you, so forgive my ignorance: if gravity bends the fabric of space itself, why are gravitons necessary?
A graviton is a force particle that is theorized in quantum theory. The best way I can explain it in the way I understand it is that the graviton would attach itself to certain particles, similiar to the Higgs boson being a particle or a field that cause a particle to have mass. The more particles that are grouped together, objects large enough to be seen, then the bending of spacetime becomes noticable. Ironically, both the graviton and the Higss boson have not been found yet, but both have an connection to gravity at a large scale. Hence, this is what is stopping an unified theory of being unified yet.
Let's put it this way, "you cannot prove the existence of God." You can prove the existence of science and explain the workings of the universe through science.
The theory that God created something - isn't a theory - it is a belief. There's NO evidence except "his creation" - which can be better served by the explainations science currently brings to the table - without - a god.
Theory projected by science are at the scrutiny of peers and in the public domain for others to debate. But the debate is based on our current understanding of science - no "belief" in God required or expected.
Faith simply stupefies the question by stating, "You cannot know such things, it is impossible. Only God knows".
Of course you can replace God with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and have exactly the same argument. Which is why people burn Korans and Bibles, war with each other, and pass laws against other's they deem as non-religious, wrong religion, or just plain evil. It is this argument, which cannot be supported, is defended by the religious zealots on all sides to the detriment of themselves and others, in illogical argument frequently ending in war.
I think what many posters here fail to realize is that Christianity is an indisprovable theory. In other words, any argument used against it can be used to support Christianity. For example:
A: God logically cannot exist because it is impossible for him to be his own father.
B: Well he can, except because he's God and you're a human you can't comprehend how he can do it, and since I'm a human I can't explain.
Voila. How can you argue against that? You can't. So therefore any Christian trying to disprove modernity with this kind of argument is just a dumbass.
GenericName (and others)
There is actually a fascinating and fairly logical 'explanation' of the Trinity (if such a thing is possible) that was written in the 16th century by the theologian Jonathan Edwards. He wrote an unpublished essay on the Trinity in which he makes a series of deductions based on the original Nicene doctrine. Here is the link:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-10/web/edwards-essay-trinity.html
The concepts of Fatherhood and Sonship in the Godhead are far removed from what we know of as the biological meanings of those words. Within the Godhead they refer to Ontological differences, yet those terms can be used as a familiar handle in understanding those differences.
If you can get past the 16th century writing style, you will find the kernel of his argument fascinating. There is a perfect economy as he calls it, between the 3 persons of the Trinity. (this is not an argument per se for or against the existence of God - simply Edward's take on why there can/must be 3 persons within a perfect, self-existent Deity)
The Father is presumed to exist with full knowledge of himself and as the fountainhead of all existence. His knowledge of himself is full and complete, not in the merely reflexive sense of simple, brute consciousness of his own existence.
The Father's knowledge of himself is so thorough and complete and full, that it comprises a perfect and complete self-image of himself, lacking nothing contained in his person and Deity. And because this image (much more complete than any self-image we may have of ourselves for example) is a perfect image or mental re-creation of Deity, it is also itself complete Deity, identical in every way to the Father - yet separate, because it is generated or 'begotten' by the 'thought processes' of the Father. It is generated as a natural by-product of Deity thinking about itself. (The Father, in thinking completely and perfectly about his own Deity, generates/begets Deity again)
Thus, this Image is also person and Deity, as the Father is person and Deity. And since the Father is eternal and has 'always' existed, and has 'always' carried this perfect self-image, that Image of himself has also 'always' existed. There never was a moment when God did not generate or beget this perfect and complete Image of himself. As long as he was, his self-Image was. This is how Edwards logically explains how the Father and the Son can be identical in all ways, yet hierarchical in function, with each being eternal. The Father knows he generated the Son, and the Son knows he was/is generated/begotten of the Father.
The third person, the Spirit, Edwards says, is nothing less than the Love, Energy and constant eternal Communion/Communication between Father and Son. And as the Son is deity because he is a perfect Image of Deity, so this love between the persons of Deity itself takes on personhood and Deity, because it is a perfect Expression between the two identical perfect, and eternally existing members of the Godhead.
I read a quote once that I will paraphrase: 'Once a man's mind is expanded by a genuinely new idea, it can never return to its original state.' That is exactly how I felt when I grasped what Edwards was saying..
Cheers.
No, no, no, I wasn't trying to dis-explain the Trinity, I was trying to point out that such arguments being used by Christians to disprove science is completely ridiculous.
Your post, though, is very interesting. However, what I meant by God being his own father is that because he is the Creator of everything and is eternal, he must have created himself first, meaning he literally is his own father.
The problem with these kinds of things is of course recursion.
I hear you. Christians retreat behind God's 'unknowableness' to hide their own inability to reason things through, and use that 'unknowableness' to obfuscate the unbeliever's argument. It is true though that God is certainly unknowable beyond what he chooses to reveal to us. It's not that Christian beliefs are necessarily irrational, it's more the case that it takes a great deal of mental work to fully develop a functioning theological framework and then to communicate it properly in a language that a nonbeliever can understand. Hiding behind religious terminology is another no-no.
It reminds me of the old 'If you can't dazzle them with the truth, then baffle them with b*llsh*t.'
In your post though, you supply the answer to your own question: '...is that because he is the Creator of everything and is eternal, he must have created himself...' But I would draw out what 'eternal' means.
What does it mean that he is eternal? Doesn't that imply 'without a beginning'? Since our Universe did have a beginning it would be helpful to think of our Universe as a bubble containing all that we see with our senses. Regardless of how large our Universe appears to be, since it is finite, this bubble has boundaries. Remember, everything within this bubble universe had a beginning. If God is outside that container, then to us inside the container, he doesn't appear to exist, yet compared to what is inside the bubble he is eternal. Now within this container things run down and die and decay. But if outside this container, a different set of laws apply, and things, beings, etc, don't die, run down, decay, but they live, exist, whatever - without decay or death, then the being who created our container universe from scratch, is eternal, from our perspective, as well as in reality. And he always was and always will be, and heaven can be a real place. There is no inconsistency because different laws apply in here, vs out there. And the idea of separate containers and separate laws of operation are not illogical in and of themselves.
I would also add that an eternal God must have the power of self-existence, which means he has no origin, no source, because he is the source or fountainhead of existence. By merely being, he negates nothingness. I can go no further than this. To me this sets the bar for the definition of the overused word 'awesome.'
The oldest Christian and Jewish creeds agree that God is uncreated and without beginning. In the OT God called himself 'I Am that I Am.' Aristotle saw that an uncaused, eternal God was not inherently illogical. Augustine and Aquinas built on this and expanded it. My paragraph above is how I think about it so it makes sense to me. Just a little mind expanding though.
I think Edwards' explanation of how the Son was begotten yet eternal as well makes the most sense, yet also mind expanding!
WH-1877367,
I read your well written (as usual) post above and enjoyed it. I always thought of the universe just as you describe it above, as a bubble. According to one popular description of Einstein's theory of relativity I once read, Einstein conceived of the universe as a cylinder with all the galaxies distributed not within the cylinder as in a container, but around the outer surface of the cylinder. I read somewhere that Einstein's Doctoral thesis on general relativity was only one page long, but it was nothing but one page of pure mathematical equations. I don't know for sure if that's true, but everything with Einstein was conceived in terms of pure mathematics. That's why I can only read popularized versions of his theories, mathematics never having been my forte.
The subject of time versus eternity is a heavy one. You have many philosophical, scientific and everyday interpretations of time. Generally speaking, I would say that time is something that is subject to measurement; eternity is not. Time is measured by the movement of the heavenly bodies, specifically, the Sun. But it can also be measured by the movement of other stars (sidereal time). Whether we measure it in days, weeks, months, years, hours, minutes, or seconds, it's something that can be measured. Ancient peoples tended to conceive of time as being cyclical, whereas we tend to see it as linear. The cyclical view of time probably came from the fact that they were predominantly agricultural societies in closer contact with nature than we are today. Everything in nature appears to follow a cyclical path: Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall then Winter again and so forth, constantly repeating itself in cycles. The leaves appear to fall from the trees in the Fall and return again in the Spring. Plants appear to die in the Winter and to be reborn in the Spring. Even the stars in the sky appear to follow cyclical paths. And so, time, too, was conceived of as cyclical. This concept of cyclical time is found in all pagan religions. In Hindu philosophy the universe is conceived of as having been breathed out or emanated from brahman, the ultimate source and ground of all being. After a lengthy period of time (I think somewhere around 4 billion years according to Hindu reckoning), the universe is reabsorbed into brahman, and a period of latency follows during which nothing exists except brahman itself. Then, once again, brahman breaths forth the universe, and this continues in a never ending succession of cycles. I think it was the Judaeo-Christian tradition that first conceived of time as linear, having a beginning and an end. Time began, of course, when "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", and will end when Christ comes for the second time. So in the Judaeo-Christian concept of linear time, history is like a novel with a beginning, climax, and end. Enternity, on the other hand, is not subject to measurement, unlike time, because it is beyond the heavenly bodies by which we measure time. Eternity is like the never beginning and never ending "now".
GenericName
Just a clarification: you say that since God created everything, he must have created himself. This may just be semantic confusion. If you place God amongst the set of 'created things' then he no longer fits the definition of 'God'. Myself, I would place most of the Greek type gods within the category of finite, begotten-in-time, created beings who just happen to have super-human powers. What Christians and Deists are saying is that a true 'God' who has the attributes necessary to qualify as 'Creator' of our space-time realm, necessarily exists outside of our realm of space and time (but may enter it at will), therefore is not subject to our flow of chronology or time. Since he created what we know of as chronology (time) he could have no beginning under the terms of our chronology. So no, there was no need for him to create himself. There's a philosophical term 'aseity' (from the Latin a se - 'from itself, by itself') meaning 'being by, for, and of itself, the state of being of a thing (a) that is utterly, completely, and absolutely independent of other things, and (b) upon which all other things depend for their total existence'. This term is typically applied to God. (Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy)
Mickey,
Another great, thoughtful, informative post. Your depth of knowledge goes beyond mine in many fields - the benefits of a formal education! Wasn't it the case that only until relatively recently cosmologists believed the Universe may have always been in a perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction? And under that view, the Big Bang was just the beginning point of this current period of expansion, at the end of which the Universe would begin to contract back to the point where another Big Bang would occur. But then we discovered that the rate of expansion of the Universe was actually accelerating, meaning it could never go into a contraction phase - which put the kibosh on the idea of perpetual cycles. It makes perfect sense that early cultures would conceive of time as cyclical for the reasons you mention. Which makes the Judeo-Christian teaching about time having a beginning and an end 'strange' and the odd man out compared to the other ancient traditions. Until just recently of course. Eternity is another one of those concepts that will expand your mind if you dwell on it for very long. 'The never beginning and never ending 'now.'' I often think it's funny that non-believers would call religious believers 'small-minded.' After all it's we who have to think in terms of timelessness, eternity, the nature of being and differing levels of ontological existence, 'where' heaven is, mind, soul, good and evil, etc, etc.
WH-1877367,
I think the cosmological theory you are talking about was called the Oscillation Theory or something like that. And then you had the Steady-State theory, which was basically Plato's theory that the cosmos has always existed without beginning only dressed up in scientific garb. I once bought a newly published book on cosmology and took it into work with me. My boss, who had a Masters Degree in astrophysics, laughed and told me it was already out of date. He said that theories of cosmology are changing so fast that the ink on the book would not be dry before it would be out of date.
I think non-believers think religious believers are "small-minded" because they've never really read the writings of any of the really deep thinkers in Christianity such as St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Anselm or St. Bonaventure or Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Karl Barth or Paul Tillich or Jacob Boehme and so forth, much less those of the Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist theologians and philosophers. When they think of religious people, they tend to think in terms of some Bible-thumping televangelist shouting at them that unless they accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior they're going to burn in hell forever. Whether or not that is true, I don't know; but I do know one thing: it certainly does not involve any deep thinking about Man, God, and the Universe. It's mostly just emotionalism. Then, of course, there are the extremists in Islam who are on about the same intellectual level compared to real Muslim thinkers such Ibn Arabi, Ibn Sina, or Jalaluddin Rumi. It was Rumi who said, "Love is the astrolabe of God's mysteries." Does that sound like something the Taliban would say? Thanks for the compliment, WH, but I think you do just fine with less formal education! Take care!
A really thorough study of all the ancient beliefs will reveal that (in most of the legends) the First God(s), usually two, SELF-GENERATED from the newly born universe (or something like it). These 'Gods', in many beliefs, GUIDED the creation/developing process at first and eventually became more personally/directly involved. This does not discredit the current theories of physics, nor does it discredit the belief in God; they both can exist, perhaps one helping eventually to explain the other.
Before you bash this comment, I suggest YOU do the same research that I have...it will prob take you about 2 years to get to the bottom of it, as it did me using the resources of the internet.
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.
I have a home made instrument, for solar observation, based loosely on the astrolabe. I use it for fishing, and for gardening. As an instrument, it could be better, but it works quite well enough, because I also know that fishing and gardening are affected by periods of floods and dry spells, disease or blights, road construction projects, etc. I still am intellectually indebted to Kepler, Brahe, and Galileo, either for making observations, or for coming up with the scientific idea that the earth revolves around the sun. Because I am scientifically aware of the reasons for the seasons, when I watch garden plants, or animal migrations, I get greater mental satisfaction. I am also indebted to Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc., as well as Hawking and Penrose to make my own calculations, for my own enjoyments and edifications.
I am not indebted intellectually to Genesis. If they would have put the Maxwell Equations in, right after God said, " Let there be light ", the Bible may have been a little more use to me personally, but the Bible editors didn't. Nor do I need the earth to be on the shoulders of Atlas, nor on the back of a cosmic tortise. It's just fine with me that it revolves around the sun in an eliptical orbit, and it's tilted on its axis so the fishing and gardening seasons are what they are. I am an older man who only needs a small garden or river to ponder things. If someone has a better garden, a better fishing spot, or a guaranteed seat in Heaven... good for them. But thanks to science I can putter in the basement, and putter in the garden, and putter on the river, and if my punishment for doing so is nothing, or worse yet hell, that's what I'll get, and that's what I'll take.
Steve Herbert,
Does the Earth revolve around the Sun or does the Sun revolve around the Earth? According to Einstein's own Theory of Relativity, it all depends on your frame of reference. The main reason why the heliocentric theory supplanted the geocentric theory was because it simplified mathematical calculations for astronomers; not because it is "truer". As for the rest, I think you are a stoic and a Buddhist. Your post smacks of the "suchness" of things. I like it!
rotfl..yes, Steve, and they very well could have, too (put those equations in there..or maybe the Semites didn't understand the math of the Sumerians?)...well, almost...they had quadratic equations anyway, does it take more math than that?
and Mickey..your comment is great, too...Love it! (it all depends on the frame of reference lol)
For fishing and gardening purposes, the earth revolves around the sun. They landed the first man on the moon with Newton's physics. But I understand the point. From the standpoint of a viewer on a distant galaxy, the moon which "causes" the fishing tides revolves around the earth. The earth revolves around the sun, for the seasonal fishing tides. The sun revolves around the Milky Way, so our solar system gets sporadic "space dust" storms. Our Galaxy is a member of a cluster of galaxies... and at that level, I'm not quite sure what it has to do with fishing and gardening, except every now and again some damn missionary, who's calling in life is to be irritating, shows up to ruin my sense of peace, and reminds me that I's supposed to be sensitive about their feelings.
Having studied vision in fishes for a good number of years, I've taken the "size down" route as well, getting to the energies of particular wavelengths of light. But color as it is used in Quantum Physics, (color, spin, charm) isn't the same intellectual problem as deciding between a red fishing lure and a green fishing lure, so Quantum Chromodynamics and the Bag Theory of Quark Confinement, has again little to no application to fishing or gardening. I'm stuck in the middle! But a larger middle intellectually to goof off in.
Steve Herbert,
Thanks for bringing a bit of wise ol' humor (intentional or not) into the fray. I look forward to the day I'll have just simple things to worry about.
Steve Herbert,
"But color as it is used in Quantum Physics, (color, spin, charm) isn't the same intellectual problem as deciding between a red fishing lure and a green fishing lure, so Quantum Chromodynamics and the Bag Theory of Quark Confinement, has again little to no application to fishing or gardening."
That's an excellent way of stating the difference between a theoretical view of the world and a practical, everyday view. Sometimes we get so engrossed in theory that we lose touch with the world as it is in everyday life. Enjoy your fishing and gardening!
As I read Genesis Man is an immortal being who was living in a paradise universe. He was asked no to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Being curious, he was tempted and chose to have this godlike knowledge. Like a child asked not to put his hand in the fire, he was 'punished' and thus we chose the universe we now inhabit. Light/dark, mater/anit-mater, space/mass. In many religious interpretations, this view is extreme heresy. Like also man was created first of all animals and, equally true, man also was created after all other animals. God then said see the man has become like us?
If your God can be known or defined based on the reading of one book; if you think you can know his will or what he expects of you; and if you think he only created one race of beings or one universe and that he could not have done these things through processes such as the big bang but must instead rely upon some kind of magic or miracle...
Then your God is not big enough. My God is not limited by the confines of my intellect or my imagination. That is what makes him God. That is why I need science.
Geno--2252
By 'one book' I assume you mean the Bible. In fact the Bible is not one book but a collection of 66 books written by many authors over a span of somewhere around 1500 - 2500 years, depending on varying ideas of when Job lived. These books, by many different authors, over time, point to the actions and works of the God of the Jewish nation.
I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that this Jewish God created many races of beings and possibly many Universes, or perhaps other dimensions that we cannot perceive. Besides the race of man, there are the orders of angels, cherubim, the 4 living creatures around the throne in heaven, perhaps the flying gizmos that picked up the prophet Elijah, and who knows how many others not mentioned in those 66 books. You probably meant other alien races on other planets, but so far we have not seen any evidence of other civilizations in our galaxy or elsewhere. SETI continues to search however. CS Lewis wrote a space trilogy that deals with other alien races and the spiritual implications of such.
If there is a heaven,and we cannot see it, then it surely must exist on a different dimension, or perhaps in a different Universe, accessible only through non-material means, either spiritual - through visions or dreams - or after death, when we leave the physical dimension behind. My idea of God is big enough for any/all of these things.
As for the Big Bang vs. miracles: a physical Universe must have a physical beginning. That 'beginning' was derisively called the Big Bang, but the name caught on. The question is, what began that beginning which became the Universe we inhabit? The fact that Hawkins says that mathematically something could have come from nothing, that the energy of all the mass in the universe plus the power of gravitation equals zero, this does not necessarily mean it could have all happened by chance. That is not a necessary conclusion. It is simply what the Universe would look like mathematically had it indeed had come from nothing or had been created from nothing. But if someone is a priori already leaning toward a worldview devoid of a creator, then they will see this as a necessary conclusion. The rest of us don't see it that way. And his formulas don't rule out the existence of a creator.
Either way, the fact that Something exists instead of Nothing, seems miraculous (and is the big question), regardless of how it came to be. Of course God could have done it by what we call the Big Bang and probably did. Or he could have just spoken and had the Universe appear complete and full-sized and pre-aged to look 17 billion years old... But I think he wanted to give us lots of things to puzzle over and figure out. I think he wanted to give us a Universe that revealed his nature through secondary and tertiary clues. He wanted to leave behind a whole trail of breadcrumbs that would point to Design for those inclined to be open enough to see it. I think he left us a Universe with data that puts us in a gentle dilemma. There is no 'obvious' evidence of his presence, no signature or fingerprint of a maker on cellular DNA, no name of God written in the heavens, no angelic choir that sings every morning. That would be kind of flakey and dumb anyway. Yet there is evidence of Design, of things so complex (the code of life for example) which could not have come into existence by blind chance or luck (Does software write itself?). Entropy increases over time, meaning evolution had an incredible uphill battle since 99.99% of all random mutations are not beneficial to organisms. Staticians will tell you that this does not bode well for a fish becoming a man - assuming that a first living cell somehow assembled itself and then boot-strapped itself uphill from there.
The evidence of God's non-presence seem overwhelming to the senses and the mind. We can't see, touch, hear, smell him. Any evidence for his existence (aside from religious texts and histories) seems more abstract, diffuse, metaphorical, lyrical, perhaps right-brain instead of left-brain. It is based on secondary information, like the way things interact, the way things are built, numbers in nature that repeat, patterns and cycle, intuitions of moral imperatives (CS Lewis) etc. What it seems to come down to though is not how we process these things through our mind, but how we process the pros and cons through our heart. (The materialists and logicians will shudder and turn away) And in a way this makes sense. A creator who builds a physical Universe that he by nature is not a part of, would not then be necessarily visible within the physical confines of that Universe. The only way he would be visible to the inhabitants of that Universe would be if he chose to become visible in some fashion. Or unless he designed in a back door so-to-speak. Unless he designed into certain creatures, like us, a subtle, invisible, intangible back-door into our hearts, that would flag us every-once-in-a-while, saying things like, 'the world is not all it appears to be'; 'this-is-wrong-and-that-is-right-and-you-won't-know-exactly-why-but-there-it-is'; 'watch out - danger is around the corner' (dreams and premonitions); momentary and fragmentary impressions of eternity, timelessness, transcendence, etc.
So where is your heart? It is our heart that leads us to one conclusion or the other, either that there is no God, or that there must be Someone out there and I should do something about it. We are given so much time in this life to decide. We begin life walking a line dividing those two options. As we progress the ground slopes more steeply on either side and it becomes more difficult to walk the fence of indecision. At some point most of us decide, and go for one or the other. But it's the condition of our heart that favors the one we choose.
WH-1877367,
I like your way of thinking. If you don't mind my asking, are you a student of philosophy? You seem very comfortable with philosophical concepts and terminology. You're a much more eloquent writer than I am and can explain things much better. You mentioned the "flying gizmo that picked up Elijah". I was wondering if you have read the Hindu book "Ramayana". The descriptions of the flying "chariot", Pushpaka, are fascinating and certainly resemble some kind of flying machine. Here are a few passages:
"Pushpaka the Car of Flowers is a field of treasures; he is a joyful way to travel, a vehicle of swift vision and soaring fancy; he rides as smooth as the transport of a man by a dear wish come true...Viswakarman the Architect of Heaven always considered Pushpaka chariot his masterpiece. When Pushpaka flies at night with his running fires and lights on, it seems that all the sky moves with its starbeams and planets; bells ringing and flags flying, by day he is a marker for the Sun's path, and one may look up and see how all his chariot hull is built of rainbows tied together."
"Pushpaka can fly behind a thousand horses or without them. The materials used to build him come from all the Universe, from these worlds and from other worlds...He goes through the air in infinite motions. On him, you go where you will. You can look out the windows, or ride out in the open air under the Sun, standing on carpets, among jewels all around you that wink when the great chariot turns in the sky and the sunlight moves overhead." "The Ramayana", retold by William Buck
These are just a few of many descriptive passages of this wondrous flying machine. There is even one of it kind of parked in a hangar and Hanuman, the monkey, is exploring it. It sort of makes you wonder how the author could have thought of such a thing so many centuries ago.
Mikey...
Just saw your reply. I'm an informal student of philosophy, more of an omnivore reader than anything structured. I did not get a degree while in college (studied Psych and Fine Art), and have worked since to make up the difference. Writing has come naturally since about the 5th grade. I have dictionaries on many subjects and have studied Greek and French formally,and informally, a smidgen of Latin. Were I back in school now I would study both philosophy and theology I think.
I've tried to make it a habit of dispensing with Christianese as a language. I find that technical, secular language is actually more effective at communicating 'spiritual' truths, (since it actually communicates to the secular mind) and it forces one to see issues from the secular materialist's perspective. I've also tried to maintain an openness to new and dangerous ideas - ideas are fun! I've had my run-ins with Bible thumpers, and those experiences will leave you raw, angry and dispirited. I'd much rather discuss things with an open minded agnostic or atheist than with a small-minded, foul tempered fundy type who can quote scripture a mile a minute.
I had heard of descriptions of flying machines referenced in oriental writings; I had not run across that particular one. It makes Von Daniken sound prosaic. I suspect there was much more going on in our history than the official line would have us believe. If you accept the OT narrative, you can only surmise what kinds of ancient knowledge our race lost due to the tower of Babel event, and Noah's flood (if you believe those things happened). Well, also, what might have been contained in the Library at Alexandria before it burned?
One reason I believe/hope in an afterlife is it will afford an eternal opportunity for learning, and discovering What Really Happened back then, including at the Big Bang! Front row seats for everyone! Take care!
MIkey...,
And by the way, don't underestimate your own writing ability. You are a calm and measured voice of reason within the spinning vortex of... (music builds) ...the Cosmic Log! (ending music... da-de-da-da...)
WH-1877367,
"ideas are fun!"
That's my view exactly: ideas are fun! It's just as good, if not better, to be an informal student of philosophy as to be a formal one. I remember when I was in college studying philosophy, I would go into the college library and look at the thousands of books they had on philosophy and think, "Wouldn't it be nice if I only had the time to read all those books!" I had no time to read anything except what was assigned by my professors for reading for my classes. College provides a good foundation for learning, just as grade school and high school do. But I think the greater part of learning goes on after you graduate and start learning by exploring on your own in whatever directions you find most interesting, and in the "school of hard knocks", everyday life. It's interesting that you mentioned the "tower of Babel" and "Noah's flood". I'm not a Biblical fundamentalist, so I don't necessarily take everything in the Bible as historical truth, but neither do I discount it as merely myth. I try to keep an open mind because I wasn't there at the time and simply do not know. You know that at the time of the archaeologist Schliemann most people thought the story of the Iliad was pure poetic imagination, but Schliemann, who had grown up with the Iliad, always was convinced that it was based on historical fact. He turned out to have been right when he discovered the ruins of the cities of Mycenae and Troy. So now we know the Iliad was based on an actual, historical war. So with the Biblical stories of the "tower of Babel" and "Noah's flood". They could be based on historical fact, and people just write them off as myths because they lack any archaeological or external historical confirmation. There is one peculiar thing about language, though, that seems to me to possibly support the tower of Babel story, and that is that all the languages of the world of which we have any historical material show a tendency toward simplification both in terms of morphology and phonology. The more ancient forms of any language are always the more complex. You said you studied Greek, by which I understand you to mean classical Greek; not modern Greek. If that is so, then you know that classical Greek was far more complex grammatically than is modern Greek. This holds true for all languages we know of: the more ancient form is always more complex than the modern form. This poses a problem for linguists speculating on the origin of language. In this modern world we tend to think in evolutionary terms, i.e. everything starts out simple and gradually evolves to more complex. But that does not appear to be the case with language; just the opposite. So maybe there is some truth to the tower of Babel story. It's at least as good an explanation for the origin of languages as any I've seen given by linguists. As for a world wide flood, although it is generally dismissed by modern scientists, there is "evidence" that would appear to support the idea, such as the discovery of mammoths frozen in Antarctica with undigested food in their stomachs. It all depends on how you want to interpret the evidence. I saw a show on "Nova" on PBS not to long ago about how they recently discovered dinosaur bones, lots of them, in Alaska. This discovery really upset paleontologists and biologists because they always thought that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles that could not survive in such a cold climate. When I saw it, I immediately thought of the Biblical flood, because flood theorists maintain that the climate of the entire earth was tropical prior to the flood. So the dinosaurs would have lived in a tropical climate, been killed in the flood and frozen when the climate changed after the flood. Of course, that would have made dinosaurs contemporary with man, which is an altogether different matter. As I say, it's all a matter of how you interpret the evidence, so I try to keep an open mind when it comes to anything that is possible in the realm of the mind. In the physical world, it's another matter. There are things which are simply physically impossible. I cannot flap my arms and fly to the moon. No matter how hard or long I flap my arms, it just won't happen! But in the realm of the mind, just about anything is possible.
Anyway, I got your email this morning. Thanks. I guess this is my response to it. I don't know how to do that email thing with NewsVine. Take care, WH!
Mickey...,
I didn't figure out the email thing until I started clicking on poster's names at the beginning of posts, which takes you to a page where you can see their profile and send a message (top right).
The origin of languages is so fascinating but I've had to settle for books on word origins. I studied Koine Greek which was far simpler than Classical Greek. And our teacher did mention that it was quite different from modern Greek. It is fascinating to understand word roots and discover the literal meanings of common words. Just today, happened to learn that the word 'explanation' comes from the Latin, explanare, flatten, make level or plane, ex-plain... So explaining something literally means flattening complex and topological concepts out into level intellectual territory that can be seen more easily - unbending ideas or concepts that are naturally convoluted and obscure out into a flat shape or landscape that can be grasped. I'm not a fundamentalist either, but think there may be something to those Biblical stories. There is a certain primitive archetypal 'strangeness' that comes through, that I can't quite put into words. CS Lewis says it was partly this sense of 'strangeness' about Christianity, compared with many of the other world religions that helped him believe it had the ring of truth. I'm sensitive to the cultural zeitgeist and the general ridicule and disbelief towards the Genesis narrative though. Certainly the earth is not 6,000 years old, and it is absolutely possible that the '6 days of creation' happened over billions of years. The Hebrew word for 'day' has multiple uses. But I visualize the invisible hand of a thinking, considering creator shaping the genetic code step by step through time rather than new code writing itself out of thin air. It is not illogical, just distasteful to a certain modern mindset. I recall hearing about the findings in Alaska you mention. Fascinating stuff and something like that was mentioned in the movie 'Day After Tomorrow' about mammoths from Siberia found in the same condition. There are also reports of what look to be underwater ruins in 80-100 feet of water off the coast of Japan, as well as in the Indian Ocean near the coast, and in the Caribbean. I believe the radar images from the Caribbean are from a depth of 1500 feet. Evidence of civilizations not yet written about in our history books? I didn't know that about modern languages appearing to be less complex than older versions across the board; it's interesting to speculate that there may actually have been a Golden Age of some sort as the Greek histories seem to imply, and as the oldest Indian writings describe. Perhaps civilization has actually been going in the opposite direction from what we believe, only lately coming close to that age with the Industrial Revolution and our modern technologies. I'm afraid though that this time we may be destroyed by our own works rather than by a divinely sent deluge! Mickey, I'm not sure how much longer this blog will be up, but good to hear from you!
WH-1877367,
Yes, Koine Greek was the common language of the people that was spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa by the conquests of Alexander the Great. It is, of course, the language in which the New Testament was written. It is syntactically simpler than classical Greek, though not so much so morphologically. Modern Greek is both morphologically and syntactically simpler than either of the two more ancient forms, and, of course, it has been influenced more by foreign languages than the others. The last couple of sentences of your post about civilization going in the opposite direction from what we believe may be true. I'm not really sure there is any such thing as "progress" when it comes to human societies except in the realm of technology. The 19th century was obsessed with the idea of progress because of all the new inventions and technological wonders that were occuring at that time. They tended to confuse technological progress with the "progress" of society as a whole. The great disillusionment came with the two world wars of the 20th century. We have a tendency now, because of the remnants of this mistaken idea of progress, to look down our noses at our ancestors in ancient times as being somehow ignorant because they lacked our advanced technology, but how many people these days could compare in intellect with Plato or Aristotle? Not very many I think. I agree with you that this blog appears to be dying. It's been good hearing from you, too! I always appreciate talking with someone who is both intelligent and good. Take care, WH!
I Love science, but I have to disagree with the whole idea that everything came from nothing, I mean seriously, is that supposed to be logical? Is that suppose to be more logical than believing in a higher power? its a contradiction in itself. At the end of the day you reach a point where science cant go further. not because there is not an answer but because is over our heads. Let me get this straight, we still cant cure Aids, but we can explain how the whole universe happened, Oh thats simple. the universe came from nothing, to me that is no different than when someone says "God did it" it is just that simple
"In the beginning god created the universe, this made a lot of people very unhappy and has widely been regarded as a bad move."
and if there was a god like being who ordered the dispostion of particles that created the universe do you really think he'd be so much as interested by our pathetic and feeble exsistance?
I for one find watching penguins far more amusing than humans i wonder if god does to? then we have something in common maybe we could be friends?