Hawkins And The Creation

[EllenMaksoud]

http://science.nbcne...ithout-god?lite

Hyeah, like a man is going to figure out creation, Right! (Think Bill Cosby and "Noah".) I really like Stephen Hawkings, but I think this is out of even his reach. It does not bother me a bit that Heavenly Fathers ways are so far above our ways.

[Stargazer]

The difference here is that dark matter and dark energy are models. They can and do make predictions stemming from basic principles. Different models of dark matter make different predictions. Differnt models of dark energy make different predictions. "Act of God" is not a model but a metaphysical assertion and therefore lies outside the realm of science. It is all well and good to find disfavor with dark matter and dark energy as models. Nontheless equating them with metaphysics exposes the suggestion of a deep misunderstanding of the nature of science.

Model, schmodel. You think when you give something a fancy name and definition to go with it, and that suddenly promotes it to scientifically acceptable? Jan Oort noticed that there wasn't enough matter to explain the characteristic motions of large-scale objects, and he conceptualized a model to fill in the blanks. He had no direct evidence of dark matter, no way to determine what the blithering heck it might be (if it existed at all), and although it sounds nifty -- because it explains a mystery -- decades later we are still in the dark as to what it might be (if it exists). We may yet find out that it actually exists, or we may find out that there is something completely unexpected in the mix. But dignifying our ignorance and desparate search to save the theory of gravitation from certain destruction by calling the best guess so far a model, does not confer that much dignity to it. I happen to believe that the dark matter/energy model is the best one brought out so far, and I also believe that it will prove to be somewhat or completely true, but where are the numbers? Feynman is famous for saying that he believes in numbers -- if this model had numbers (other than standing in for missing mass) then we'd be in good odor about it all, but no numbers have been forthcoming. Two of my grandkids have full-ride scholarships to study graduate-level math, one at Purdue (they're that smart), and perhaps one of them will come up with the mathematical answer, but so far there is bupkis.

Now, you say that invoking God in the creation of the universe is metaphysics. I would have said cosmology, but whatever. God, from a scientific point of view, actually has about the same level of gravitas as a model, as does dark matter. We have a Universe here. We can estimate its total mass, we can measure its age fairly precisely, we can give a good estimate of how far across it is, we can come up with all kinds of characteristics of it based upon the temperature and intensity of the background radiation, and there will probably be a lot of new information forthcoming as time rolls on. But we don't know HOW it got here, and we don't know WHY it came into being. To fill this gap, we invoke God as a model. Many of us don't buy into this, since we have a hard time describing God effectively and convincingly, but the model exists, and has existed for quite some time. I believe it will prove to be correct. Persons such as the now-banned 44Foxtrot and DrW believe it will prove to be completely false. May reality be the winner.

Maybe we will find out about the reality of dark matter. Myself, I think we will find it out at about the same time God goes from model to reality.

Using faith as a simplistic synonym for belief makes your statement tautalogical. If instead we employ the better definition of faith as a trust and belief in the character and traits of an entity the sentence isn't that applicable.

I know what it sounded like. And I know I was being too loose with the words I was using. I don't use faith as a synonym for belief. I believe in astophysics, but while I believe in God, I also have faith in God, and that faith impels me to action. Astrophysics is just fun.

[Stargazer]

Not particularly. What we do have faith in that we do have the ability to make accurate measurements and predictions about the physical universe.

I don't know. I can say this, that if I were a physicist who didn't have faith that the dark matter model would prove correct, then I sure as heck wouldn't be working to prove it -- I'd be trying to come up with something ELSE to explain the odd behavior of large-scale structures, and trying to prove THAT.

Faith enters the mix at that point, at least.

[Stargazer]

A singularity isn't what you appear to be suggesting. It is a place where the mathematics breaks down and ceases to function. It is division by zero. It is a bad thing for realism. (There are different kind of singularities but this is the division by zero kind.)

Physicists are naturally averse to singularities. A great deal of opposition was faced by black holes because of it. The solution: 1) put them behind an event horizon so nothing in the outside world can ever, ever interact with the singularity or 2) position quantum gravity or another theory will fix things so there is no singularity.

Hawking once quipped that a singularity was a place where physicists broke down. And some other physicist (maybe it was also Hawking) quipped that singularities needed to be hidden behind a decent event horizon.

It is precisely this latter solution which hopes to resolve the singularity suggested by the Big Bang. Until such time as we can "remove" the singularity with an improved theory of physics, scientists are largely content to kick the can down the road. Cosmologists do not really believe in a naked singularity. I don't. My interpretation of self-existent intelligent matter does not.

Uh, does not what? You lost me.

[Stargazer]

It is a response to the Big Bang with a specific time period, which conflicts with the LDS view of eternal creation. Soap bubble model, branes (string theory) colliding.

I don't see that it conflicts at all. How many Big Bangs have there been? Occam's Razor would suggest that there is just one. Or is it that only one is required? But there is nothing precluding multiple Big Bangs. Obviously they must not impinge on one another, but with what, 14 dimensions to play with, there may be plenty of "room".

[Stargazer]

Perhaps, but none of them are relevant in the way your example suggests.

Personally I read Genesis as being an account of this solar system and this solar system alone. Heck, Moses was told that expressly ("But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you." Moses 1:35) but somehow Mormons inexcusably keep reading it as the Protestants and Catholics do. /sigh

Anyway, I think I've said my peace for the time in this thread. I won't be around for the next day or so to reply anyway. I like cosmology. I believe our cosmological observations. Yet, I am also willing to grant that our mortal perspective is fundamentally incomplete and hence any attempt to create an explanation of the entire cosmos is fatally doomed.

I believe you are correct on all counts here.

[teddyaware]

http://science.nbcne...ithout-god?lite

Whenever I hear of presentations on the origins of the universe, like this one by Hawkins, I immediately think of 2 Nephi 2, wherein Lehi presents the knowledge he received from God on the origins of the universe and the nature of existence. It would be very interesting to hear what cosmologists or quantum physicists would have to say in response to Lehi's teachings. As best as I can tell, the following is what Lehi taught bout the nature of existence and the eternal reality of the God of creation:

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things."

Principle 1. According to Lehi, reality can only exist within an everlasting, all-encompassing matrix of polar opposition in all things

"If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad."

Principle 2. The universe and reality can only continue to exist upon an everlasting foundation of moral law. Intelligences endowed with moral agency are free to choose to obey or not to obey eternal moral law.

"Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."

Principle 3. If it weren't for this eternal principle of polar opposition in all things, nothing could exist. If there were no opposition in all things, there could exist neither life nor death, for they are opposites; there could exist neither incorrution nor entropy, for they are opposites; there could exist neither joy nor sorrow, for they are opposites; there could exist neither the ability to sense and feel nor the inability to sense and feel for they are opposites as well. In fine, all things that exist only have a meaning and reason for existence if there are co-existing opposites to those things.

"Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation."

Principle 4. There can only be a creation if there is a purpose to that existence. And that purpose is founded upon the eternal moral laws of God previously mentioned.

"Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God."

Principle 5. All things can only exist if they exist to fulfill the wise purposes of a living moral agent of supreme intelligence. even a supreme intelligence who is endowed with infinite and eternal moral perfection. The purposes of God are inextricably linked to divine power, mercy and justice.

"And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin."

Principle 6. Because intelligent moral agents are free to choose to obey or not to obey eternal moral law, right and wrong are forever linked to every choice. To do wrong is to sin. To deny that the universe can only exist upon a framework of right and wrong choices is to say there is no law; and if there is no law, there is nothing or no one to say something is right or wrong.

"If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness."

Principle 7. If one insists there are no right or wrong choices, based upon eternal, immutable moral law, is to deny there is a wise purpose for existence. For the wise and ultimate purpose of existence is to obey the eternal moral law and by obeying to enjoy a sensibility of happiness rather than of sorrow.

"And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God."

Principle 8. God can only exist and have genuine meaning within a creative framework of polar opposition in all things. Of all those principles of polar opposition, those comprising eternal moral law are of greatest importance. Without eternal moral laws, and the choices of free and intelligent moral agents to obey or not to obey those laws, God would not and could not exist.

"And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

Principle 9. Without the existence of God (as well as the existence of the oppositional anti-God called the devil) nothing else could exist -- all things would vanish away. Therefore, in order for things to exist, there must have always been an opposition in all things: There has always been good and there has always been evil; there has always been light and there has always been darkness... happiness vs misery, wisdom vs foolishness, tender mercy vs inflexible justice, perfect love vs implacable hate, and so on.

God must have always existed; having had no beginning he will never have an end. The opposite of God must have always existed as well, having had no beginning the spirit of the dark side will also never have an end. The universe and life can only exist upon the principle of opposition in all things. Even mother earth exists upon the principle of opposition in all things. And so it has been and ever will be, worlds without end. Without the eternal principle of opposition in all things, there could have been nothing to act and nothing to act upon, and as a consequence there could have been no creation.

So let's see what the learned of the world will do with the wisdom of Father Lehi?

Edited April 19, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stargazer]

I don't know what happened, but I repiled to the information in the original post by cdowis and when I hit the "post" button, it split off into a completelt separate thread. Below are my inane comments.

"M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence."

Creation ex nihilo? Something out of nothing? My concrete mind has trouble with that. Spontaneous creation of something out of nothing is somehow more believeable than a Supreme Being, God if you will, creating the universe ex nihilo? (I don't believe that last either.)

"Hawking discussed the idea of a repeating Big Bang. He noted that in the 1980s, he and physicist Roger Penrose proved the universe could not “bounce” when it contracted, as had been theorized."

Yep, because of "dark energy".

Just my uninformed two cents worth.

Glenn

Well, Hawking is a smart man, but in this case he is speculating and speculating without much of a basis. I could say that in all the multiverses humanity can exist, and how can he gainsay me? He has no math in that game.

Unless he does, but I haven't heard that he does.

As to bouncing Big Bang, since the Universe has been shown to be accelerating in its expansion (with dark energy postulated as the force behind it), it isn't going to come together again, so that's moot.

[USU78]

As to bouncing Big Bang, since the Universe has been shown to be accelerating in its expansion (with dark energy postulated as the force behind it), it isn't going to come together again, so that's moot.

How do we know that, just because expansion is accelerating today, it won't be the reverse (obverse?) tomorrow? Today is not forever.

[Ahab]

Who is the "our" of the "our current cosmology?

He isn't speaking for me, that's for sure.

[Ahab]

Modern Science and those who proclaim it. There are a large number but a few that are well known. Hawking is one.

There you go again thinking "modern science" includes only the science of people who deny God's existence.

You'll always be able to find people on both sides of the debate, on any issue, with 2 opposing extremes on both ends.

Personally, in discussions like this, I'd like to hear from more people who know and believe what God has told us rather than just a bunch of blather from people on the other side of the issue. I know quite a bit based on what people with the keys have told us, but surely there are some other people out there who know a lot more than I do and I'd like to hear more from them.

I seek further light and knowledge from our Father.

[CASteinman]

There you go again thinking "modern science" includes only the science of people who deny God's existence.

There I go again with the consensus view. Oh dear! One can tell that an argument is totally a failure when you describe the position of the vast bulk of science, eh?

You'll always be able to find people on both sides of the debate, on any issue, with 2 opposing extremes on both ends.

Yes, but I am not talking about just finding any ol' people. I am talking about the leading lights and the common perspective in the community.

But, yes, I could always go to a crackpot like the timecube guy for a different view of cosmology. You shouldn't REALLY have to ask me why I don't though.

Personally, in discussions like this, I'd like to hear from more people who know and believe what God has told us rather than just a bunch of blather from people on the other side of the issue.

That's fine. But my comment was about the depressing quality of the current prevalent cosmology theories. I understand you do not like that topic but that is not the same thing as it as being a valid criticism of what I actually said.

Edited April 19, 2013 by CASteinman

[Ahab]

There I go again with the consensus view. Oh dear! One can tell that an argument is totally a failure when you describe the position of the vast bulk of science, eh?

Yes, because you're not contrasting that view with other possible views, including the view God has given us of reality.

The fact that a bunch of so-called scientists/physicists say something doesn't necessarily mean that what they are saying is true.

The vast majority of people on this planet don't even know all that our Father thinks or has said to us.

That's fine. But my comment was about the depressing quality of the current prevalent cosmology theories. I understand you do not like that topic but that is not the same thing as it as being a valid criticism of what I actually said.

When you say "current prevalent cosmology theories" you aren't including what our Father has revealed to us about these things, though, or at least I don't think you are, because if you were why would you find that depressing? The fact that a bunch of people are wrong is a little depressing, but not everybody is wrong and I am personally very grateful that we don't have to settle for what the people who are wrong have to say. There is a lot of good news we can enjoy, instead.

[CASteinman]

Yes, because you're not contrasting that view with other possible views, including the view God has given us of reality.

Why should I? I was not criticizing other views. Just the prevailing view.

The fact that a bunch of so-called scientists/physicists say something doesn't necessarily mean that what they are saying is true.

Pretty much irrelevant. I did not address truth. I said it was depressing and atheistic.

When you say "current prevalent cosmology theories" you aren't including what our Father has revealed to us about these things, though, or at least I don't think you are, because if you were why would you find that depressing?

They aren't included because they are not really considered in the current prevalent cosmology theories.

The fact that a bunch of people are wrong is a little depressing

Sometimes it is, but not in this case. It does not depress me that people are wrong. Their theories are depressing though.

[Ahab]

Why should I? I was not criticizing other views. Just the prevailing view.

Pretty much irrelevant. I did not address truth. I said it was depressing and atheistic.

They aren't included because they are not really considered in the current prevalent cosmology theories.

Sometimes it is, but not in this case. It does not depress me that people are wrong. Their theories are depressing though.

Uncle! Sheesh. I give up.

[thesometimesaint]

Say you have cancer. You go to 1000 doctors to get their opinion on what should be done. 999 tell you that you need immediate surgery to remove that cancer. 1 tells you that you don't have cancer and to go home and not worry about it. Which consensus are you going to follow?

[Calm]

Say you have cancer. You go to 1000 doctors to get their opinion on what should be done. 999 tell you that you need immediate surgery to remove that cancer. 1 tells you that you don't have cancer and to go home and not worry about it. Which consensus are you going to follow?

Not to argue for the sake of arguing, but there are cases where the one doctor would be right and all the rest wrong.

For example, 30 years ago when I started going to doctors to be treated for my sleep disorder, I bet 999 just might have told me that it was depression or some such emotional disorder and only one would have had the knowledge (and from what I've read that might be a high estimate) of what it really was and how best to treat it.

I know I went through about 35 doctors at least (not that I doctorshopped, just moved around a lot) before figuring it out myself and even then it took five more doctors to get to one who was knowledgeable enough to treat it right.

Another example, wasn't that long ago that 999 scientists would have said that space was full of something called ether and possibly one that would have said 'I think space is mostly empty'.

One assumes that eventually science will get to the point where it is getting stuff mostly right rather than mostly wrong, but since I expect each era believes it is the era to achieve that, I am wondering how we can possibly know in the here and now that this is true, that we have reached the point where we can start to have real confidence in what we have found and not expect that in the future there will be some data found that overturns the whole system and we have to start again (more or less, science never starts from scratch after all).

[MormonMason]

Say you have cancer. You go to 1000 doctors to get their opinion on what should be done. 999 tell you that you need immediate surgery to remove that cancer. 1 tells you that you don't have cancer and to go home and not worry about it. Which consensus are you going to follow?

Having had an experience in this department with a member of my family, we went with the 1 who said it wasn't cancer, after looking over the medical evidence myself. All the others suggested immediate surgery. That 1 doctor turned out to be right. The others wanted to line their pockets.

I have long given much consideration to the following quote because it has proven true time and time again--particulary in relation to the sciences.

Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken.

- Bertrand Russell

[Stargazer]

How do we know that, just because expansion is accelerating today, it won't be the reverse (obverse?) tomorrow? Today is not forever.

Unless you want to postulate that God is going to command that it reverse itself, I don't see how you can even think this could occur. There isn't some wall up against which the expanding universe is going to ram, and stop it or slow it down. It's expanding into nothing, USU. What stops it or reverses it?

If the universe is into infinite expansion, it is going to become a very dark place, eventually. Nothing but red dwarfs left over billions of light years away from each other. After a few hundred billion years more, that is.

[TAO]

Stargazer, I'd say not necessarily expanding into nothing, but that we have no reason to suspect it will slow down ;-).

We can't really observe what it's out there to run into, if anything, from a scientific perspective =p.

In any case, it doesn't particularly matter, imho. Science will blow where it blows, but God will be stable still.

[Calm]

Unless you want to postulate that God is going to command that it reverse itself, I don't see how you can even think this could occur. There isn't some wall up against which the expanding universe is going to ram, and stop it or slow it down. It's expanding into nothing, USU. What stops it or reverses it?

Either gravity or perhaps another currently unknown force.

[Questing Beast]

Just because galactic matter increases in speed until it passes beyond the speed of light does not mean it ceases to exist, it simply passes from our purview....

[Glenn101]

Another example, wasn't that long ago that 999 scientists would have said that space was full of something called ether and possibly one that would have said 'I think space is mostly empty'.

"Ether" hasnow been replaced by "dark matter" and "dark energy." Not a whole lot of difference.

Glenn

[thesometimesaint]

Not to argue for the sake of arguing, but there are cases where the one doctor would be right and all the rest wrong.

For example, 30 years ago when I started going to doctors to be treated for my sleep disorder, I bet 999 just might have told me that it was depression or some such emotional disorder and only one would have had the knowledge (and from what I've read that might be a high estimate) of what it really was and how best to treat it.

I know I went through about 35 doctors at least (not that I doctorshopped, just moved around a lot) before figuring it out myself and even then it took five more doctors to get to one who was knowledgeable enough to treat it right.

Another example, wasn't that long ago that 999 scientists would have said that space was full of something called ether and possibly one that would have said 'I think space is mostly empty'.

One assumes that eventually science will get to the point where it is getting stuff mostly right rather than mostly wrong, but since I expect each era believes it is the era to achieve that, I am wondering how we can possibly know in the here and now that this is true, that we have reached the point where we can start to have real confidence in what we have found and not expect that in the future there will be some data found that overturns the whole system and we have to start again (more or less, science never starts from scratch after all).

Of course any number of people can be wrong. A certain amount of skepticism is warranted, but if I were a betting man it would be a good idea to go with the overwhelming majority until more information is available. We didn't throwout Newton when Einstein came along, and we didn't throwout Einstein when Quantum Physics came along. While I too expect that someday to know everything. I will be very surprised if that knowledge overturns everything I do know now. Beside that just leads to more questions.

Edited April 21, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stargazer]

Either gravity or perhaps another currently unknown force.

Yes. Nobody knows anything about it, though, so it's just speculation.

But feel free. Speculation is fun, and it's free!