Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the major arguments between person of faith and persons of science is whether or not Science can prove or disprove the existence of God. I dont need to recite a lit of thread topics on this subject.
Well, I'm posting this one here because I feel the topic would be wasted over on the Christian forum, where most of them pick and choose which aspects of science they choose to use, while denying the validity of other aspects (aka the earth is only 10,000 years old despite what the science of geology says, but damn I love my internet! )
But I have just completed my second viewing of a Discovery Channel documentary called Did God Create the Universe, featuring the reasoning of Steven Hawking
You can view it on Netflix HERE (assuming you have an account, of course)
Now I'm not going to claim I understand half of what Hawking says, even the parts that Benedict Cumberbatch reads as narrator.
But I am going to claim that I believe that Hawking makes some double talk leaps of reason when building his case.
I will also admit that when Hawking digs into the nitty gritty of time, the existence of time, and times and its existence in that proto molecule whence comes the Big Bang and the creation of our universe, his case is compelling.
Only .... he never discusses string theory, and to me that is the flaw in his case. The string theory documentaries I have watched suggest that our universe, the result of a "big bang" was a leaking of something from one frame to another, which leads to other whole bunches of implications.
So, atheists and other non believers, give it a try. Watch the Hawking centered argument and tell me what you think of the rationale and the conclusion. I personally found it stunning, even if I thought that much of the argument was a form of word play based on assumptions which, if changed, might lead lead to an entirely different conclusion. Especially without the inclusion of string theory.
I think part of the problem you are having here is with string theory itself. You are assuming that it is real and proven, when it is not. Sure, it's very interesting, and the math seems to support it, but it is more of a hypothesis than a theory. I don't think at this time that it is falsifiable. It is just one model of many.
I'm sure if I am wrong about this someone more knowledgeable will come along and correct me.
If you listen to what Hawking has to say without trying to see how it relates to string theory it might be easier to comprehend.
Correct. String theory like Dark matter is not proven. But there is a lot of supportive evidence for it. That was the case with the Higgs -Boson and that IS now proven.
Hawking has certainly got a lot of credit for being right, but even he is up for question. There is no need to take his word for it until it is debated, researched and proven, and Hawking cad had a rethink about Black Holes already. Do they such in energy or chuck it out?
There is nothing wrong in following the work with interest - including claims about whether science can disprove God or not (I don't see how it can, but it can seriously undermine the evidential case FOR God) without having to declare some sort of faith -belief stance.
I think part of the problem you are having here is with string theory itself. You are assuming that it is real and proven, when it is not. Sure, it's very interesting, and the math seems to support it, but it is more of a hypothesis than a theory. I don't think at this time that it is falsifiable. It is just one model of many.
I'm sure if I am wrong about this someone more knowledgeable will come along and correct me.
If you listen to what Hawking has to say without trying to see how it relates to string theory it might be easier to comprehend.
Oh I dont know. Hawking talks about negative energy and quantum theory as parts of his argument.
Hawking states that at the particle level with an atom, that particles can appear and disappear from and to nothing. From what little I know about it, Hawking is being somewhat misleading Under the Heisenburg principal, the more one knows about the velocity of a particle, the less one knows about its position, which in some form may provide an explanations as to why particles "appear" and "disappear: out of and into nothingness.
I agree that at this point string theory is highly speculative, but then so is quantum theory and so is negative electricity. I would be more convinced if Hawking had at least recognized that there is an alternative explanation to his "something from nothing" conclusion. That's what I would expect a good scientist would do when engaged in the kind of speculation presented in the aforementioned documentary.
And I still say that Hawking's ultimate conclusion and the reason for it is one giant mindbender.
We do know about Quantum physics and matter and antimatter, if the immolation of matter when they meet is what was referred to there. But Dark matter and string theory ls still not known, which I suppose is why Hawking does not refer to them.
I bow to Stevie on matters of science. But still at this point isn't he operating on conjecture? Science hasn't yet proved there is no 'creator' of the universe. I do realize however we are gaining much knowledge to the beginning of 'our' universe and that there are 'laws of nature'.
I would have said that science can never conclusively disprove the existence of God, even it could explain everything about how the Cosmos and life started.
Howver, the more it can explain or even produce feasible hypotheses about, the less we need Goddunnit as an explanation.
Faith is of course never a good basis for believing anything and the Bible is useful for wrapping up chips but not much else.
I bow to Stevie on matters of science. But still at this point isn't he operating on conjecture?
No. He is operating on preponderance of evidence (lack of evidence in this case really). From there he is hypothesizing in ways that are most likely in his judgment to fit with what is already empirically known / knowable.
Since god, the afterlife, and other things that are accessed via faith are inherently non-falsifiable, the conjecture that is actually occurring is mostly on the part of theists.
If I take Steven Hawkin 10,000 feet above the ground in a helicopter and push him out without a parachute, guess what would be the first words coming outta his mouth ???
One of the major arguments between person of faith and persons of science is whether or not Science can prove or disprove the existence of God.
Not really the argument, or at least not what it SHOULD be. Because science has no business proving an unfalsifiable negative. By definition. It simply is not what science does. So anyone arguing that science can, should or even WANTS to disprove the existence of god is arguing from a position that shows they do not even know what science actually is or means.
Alas such people abound.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
