# Hawking's new book out next week



## blackdog (Aug 20, 2010)

Stephen Hawking has a new book coming out next week - "The Grand Design". Looked at Amazon but there's no pre-order option. I wonder if it's coming out on Kindle.
Either way can't wait for this one.

*LINK to news*


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Kindle edition (pre-order for now):



I doubt I'll buy it at that price; plus I keep fairly up to date with the subject matter, so I'm not sure it has anything new to tell me. It will be interesting to see if a sparks any reaction from the religious right, though, garnering it a bunch of free publicity.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Oh yeah. . . .someone will complain. . . .and then it will sell a whole bunch of extra copies . . . . . .which no one will read 'cause the subject matter is too complex for an awful lot of people. . . .I admit that I've not gotten all the way through _A Brief History of Time_. . . I find it really interesting, and have a good science foundation, but it's not an easy read. . . . ..


----------



## Carol Hanrahan (Mar 31, 2009)

I put it on the wish list for DH to find.  Not sure if he knows it's coming out!


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I'll get this one eventually.  I might might pick it up from Audible, or a cheap hardcover from Costco, or wait for the Kindle price to come down  There is no hurry.  Like Nogdog, I'm probably passingly familiar with much of the content anyway.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Oh yeah. . . .someone will complain. . . .and then it will sell a whole bunch of extra copies . . . . . .which no one will read 'cause the subject matter is to complex for an awful lot of people. . . .I admit that I've not gotten all the way through _A Brief History of Time_. . . I find it interesting, but it's not an easy read. . . . ..


I've not read any of Hawking's books. Of the somewhat similar books I've read, I think Brian Greene's _The Elegant Universe_ seemed the most accessible read while not trivializing the material to the point where it would no longer be useful. Another very enjoyable read, more from the viewpoint of the experimentalist than the theorist, is _The God Particle_ by Leon Lederman, which unfortunately is not available for Kindle (and probably a bit outdated by now).


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

Read a few quotes from the book that hit the web news articles the past few days. Basically, Hawkins states that because of gravity, there doesn't have to be a Higher Being involved in the creation of the universe. 

Regardless of religious arguments to the counter, I find that lacking as The Definitive Answer to How It All Began. It doesn't answer how the gravity originated, etc. (maybe that's in the book, I don't know). Basically, even brilliant minds can't prove one way or another. Everything came from a super compressed ball of matter that exploded into The Big Bang? Then how did the ball of matter, with its gravity, get there? Universe expands and contracts back into the ball of matter to explode all over again? Same question. The very first beginning is never fully explained to my satisfaction. 

Just wondering. Maybe someone who reads the book will follow up. I won't be able to get to it for a while.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

john_a_karr said:


> Regardless of religious arguments to the counter, I find that lacking as The Definitive Answer to How It All Began.


I'm not an expert, but saying the origin of the universe or gravity is not known, is not in any way an argument for the existence of a god or gods who created the universe, gravity, or whatnot. It causes an infinite regress. Who created the gods who created created gravity and who created those gods? In other words, it's turtles all the way down. Not having read the book, what Hawking probably says is that gravity can explain the creation of the observable universe and no Higher Being needs to be inserted into the hypothesis.


----------



## AnelaBelladonna (Apr 8, 2009)

NogDog said:


> Kindle edition (pre-order for now):
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt I'll buy it at that price; plus I keep fairly up to date with the subject matter, so I'm not sure it has anything new to tell me. It will be interesting to see if a sparks any reaction from the religious right, though, garnering it a bunch of free publicity.


For the record, you can be on the right end of the political spectrum and NOT be religious. As for as this book, it looks fascinating. I will probably buy it.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

I'm interested in the subject, and will probably buy it when/if the price for the Kindle edition comes down to $9.99.  It's likely to be a tough read....In the Introduction to "A Brief History of Time" he spouted off on how this was a dumbed-down, accessible explanation, but I didn't find that book an easy read even though I have a bachelor's degree in physics!


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

I've read my share of scientific papers and popular science novels. Can't wait for this one but I'm praying (no pun intended) that it's going to be available here in the UK as that pre-order page says This title is not available for customers from: United Kingdom. Otherwise I'll have to find somewhere/someone else to sell me it.


----------



## Omega Point (Jul 16, 2010)

TheSeagull said:


> I've read my share of scientific papers and popular science novels. Can't wait for this one but I'm praying (no pun intended) that it's going to be available here in the UK as that pre-order page says This title is not available for customers from: United Kingdom. Otherwise I'll have to find somewhere/someone else to sell me it.


You can try clicking the 'I'd like to read this on Kindle' button here (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0593058291/) and hope they listen.


----------



## J.M Pierce (May 13, 2010)

I can't wait. I definitely think there will be some roaring about its content, but that would just put it with many other great works. I wouldn't say that I'm going to agree with some of his beliefs, but I do think he is brilliant. I'll read this much like Darwin's Origin of Species...a book that is probably going to be ahead of its time. Fifty years from now (as long as the whole 2012 thing is a bust   ), much of Hawking's work will be required reading in many college courses IMHO.


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

Geemont said:


> I'm not an expert, but saying the origin of the universe or gravity is not known, is not in any way an argument for the existence of a god or gods who created the universe, gravity, or whatnot. It causes an infinite regress. Who created the gods who created created gravity and who created those gods? In other words, it's turtles all the way down. Not having read the book, what Hawking probably says is that gravity can explain the creation of the observable universe and no Higher Being needs to be inserted into the hypothesis.


The regression is exactly why it is an incomplete explanation of the universe. No 'matter' how scientific the theory, unless you account for some exact beginning, it remains an unknown factor X. There. That's my Information Systems / Business degree at work.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Ultimately, it seems that the last "turtle" is something that always has been and always will be, even if that "something" is chaos, god, gravity, "branes", or something completely unimaginable to me at this time. Personally, I have no particular guess or belief as to what that "something" is. I will not outright discount any possibility (including god, gravity, quantum foam, or turtles), nor will I willingly accept that anyone else really knows, either (except for Great A'Tuin, of course  ).


----------



## Cliff Ball (Apr 10, 2010)

I'm always into reading more science fiction.... J/k


----------



## Omega Point (Jul 16, 2010)

This book is available in the UK Store but for some reason isn't linked to the Paper version.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Grand-Design/dp/B00422LESE


----------



## davidhburton (Mar 11, 2010)

Can't wait to read it. I've always been a big Hawking fan and this looks to be an interesting read.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

Hawking's book-or at least some already released excerpts and his interviews-seem to me to be a good example of how really smart people can say some really silly things.

Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

And this is why end-level education should better understand good philosophy. The multiple problems in his writings are astounding. As Hawking intimated, all accounts trace the origin of the universe back to a "big bang" prior to which was, literally, nothing. Time, matter, energy, the physical laws, everything began at that point. Outside of that initial point, there are no laws like gravity. There was, Like he says, nothing. The universe did not exist. It had no _ontological_ status. There was nothing to do any creating. A thing cannot create itself-it does not yet have anything with which to create. It's just so basic.

The problem it, Hawking is a materialist-so he has a lot of explaining to do. Unfortunately, and until the point where we find the magical "theory of everything" which Hawking points out his book does not do, he's forced to believe such absurdities because the intervention of something with the causal force necessary to create the universe isn't available to him. He's doing what so many do to try and escape the logical pointing about the origin of the universe.

Interested parties might do some reading up on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

To simplify the argument, the format is thus:

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe has a cause.

Because of 2), the universe can't be it's own explanation. That's logically incoherent babble. You need a cause that precedes the universe, something powerful, timeless and yes, personal. The theistic claims about God completely fit as an explanation, but because Hawking presumes the absence of anything immaterial, he can't even consider the option.

'Who made God, then?" doesn't begin to unravel the argument. That's a dodge. Theists don't assert that God began to exist, so premise one isn't applicable. That's not a way out-as theists are left with a lot of explaining to do.

What I find even more staggering in Hawking's writings is how his metaphysical (not scientific) presuppositions shape his view of the world. Take another excerpt from his book,



> Do people have free will?...Though we feel we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. (pp. 31-32)


Hawking makes people into nothing more than meat machines. We're not free acting, we're not even rational. We're large clumps of material reacting to natural laws as rocks roll down hills. Aside from cutting of his own arguments (because, he's not right don't you know, he's just reacting to his environmental conditions) he's left with reason and morality as illusory.


----------



## kcrady (Dec 17, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Oh yeah. . . .someone will complain. . . .and then it will sell a whole bunch of extra copies . . . . . .which no one will read 'cause the subject matter is too complex for an awful lot of people. . . .I admit that I've not gotten all the way through _A Brief History of Time_. . . I find it really interesting, and have a good science foundation, but it's not an easy read. . . . ..


Maybe this would help...


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

RobertK said:


> ...
> And this is why end-level education should better understand good philosophy. The multiple problems in his writings are astounding. As Hawking intimated, all accounts trace the origin of the universe back to a "big bang" prior to which was, literally, nothing. Time, matter, energy, the physical laws, everything began at that point. Outside of that initial point, there are no laws like gravity. There was, Like he says, nothing. The universe did not exist. It had no _ontological_ status. There was nothing to do any creating. A thing cannot create itself-it does not yet have anything with which to create. It's just so basic.


I really, really don't want to start a religious/philosophical debate here, but that is not a good representation of current hypotheses. I think almost all cosmologists now maintain that what we perceive as our observable universe is only part of something larger. While our local chunk of space/time may have a beginning point before which it did not exist (and some theories don't even accept that), most theorists presuppose something else which spawned our local universe, whether that be a collision of n-dimensional "branes", bubble universes spawned from black holes in other universes (and another potential for "turtles all the way down"), or random fluctuations in the quantum foam that permeates everywhere and everywhen. A handful even seriously suggest our universe is a computer simulation! I'm sure many will also accept "the mind of God" as an equally valid possibility. I, for one, certainly am in no position to rule out any possibility or claim to know which explanation must be the only acceptable one. Whether or not I personally like or dislike any those theories (including God) or whether any of them makes me uncomfortable is not enough reason to rule any of them in or out.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

NogDog said:


> I think almost all cosmologists now maintain that what we perceive as our observable universe is only part of something larger.


You must make sure to see the distinction between observable universe, and the universe in general. Big bang cosmology talks about the origin of the universe, not just the observable portions. Some people have seen the "religious" implications of the universe's creation from nothing and have sought alternatives such as the many worlds or multiverse theories. But these are at best conjecture. They are not the products of cosmology or science. They are philosophical alternatives meant to avoid the implications of what modern science's understanding of the universe and its origins lead to.

That cosmologists believe en mass as you say is quantifiably false.



> Whether or not I personally like or dislike any those theories (including God) or whether any of them makes me uncomfortable is not enough reason to rule any of them in or out.


I totally agree. It would be rather ridiculous to assert, "I don't like what you're saying, therefore you're incorrect."

Edit: As a side note, I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone. This might not be the best forum to try and continue this conversation. Because Hawking is no small deal, his book is likely worth reading. But it's also worth considering the problems he has. He's not just pushing facts-he had a worldview that he crams his facts into to make them fit-as do we all. With that, I'll resign from this particular thread as none of this is really on topic with the nature of this thread.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

RobertK said:


> I totally agree. It would be rather ridiculous to assert, "I don't like what you're saying, therefore you're incorrect."


The thing most people forget in these debates is that as soon as you bring in a force that's outside the collection of existing universes, a force which religions call "god", you leave the realm of science. I'm not discounting these theories at all - but it's no longer science.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

Basilius said:


> The thing most people forget in these debates is that as soon as you bring in a force that's outside the collection of existing universes, a force which religions call "god", you leave the realm of science. I'm not discounting these theories at all - but it's no longer science.


Okay, you drew me back in. The problem with your statement is your own assessment above is not is not scientific by your own definitions, either. Yours is a philosophical judgment about what counts and doesn't count as science.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Just a friendly caution. . . . . please remain respectful and courteous. . .. as you have done so far. . . . in your discussion of these issues!


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Just a friendly caution. . . . . please remain respectful and courteous. . .. as you have done so far. . . . in your discussion of these issues!


Totally agree. =)


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

RobertK said:


> Okay, you drew me back in. The problem with your statement is your own assessment above is not is not scientific by your own definitions, either. Yours is a philosophical judgment about what counts and doesn't count as science.


I never claimed my statement was science.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

RobertK said:


> You must make sure to see the distinction between observable universe, and the universe in general. Big bang cosmology talks about the origin of the universe, not just the observable portions. Some people have seen the "religious" implications of the universe's creation from nothing and have sought alternatives such as the many worlds or multiverse theories. But these are at best conjecture. They are not the products of cosmology or science. They are philosophical alternatives meant to avoid the implications of what modern science's understanding of the universe and its origins lead to.
> 
> That cosmologists believe en mass as you say is quantifiably false.
> 
> ...


Well stated. I agree.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

Basilius said:


> I never claimed my statement was science.


Granted. But because we've now ventured into philosophical, it's fair to argue about what should count as science and what doesn't.

For example: I don't see why Hawking inferring from from what he sees and thinks about the universe that the universe caused itself to exist is science, but someone else offering a reasonable, rational explanation that infers a deity is not given the same weight-not because of the arguments but because the conclusion doesn't fit. That's like saying, "You can look at the evidence, but you can only come to x, y or z conclusions."


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

I'll probably buy and read this book (or some of it) just for the insight of such a great mind. It's good to expand my own thinking sometimes.
L.J.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

NogDog said:


> I've not read any of Hawking's books. Of the somewhat similar books I've read, I think Brian Greene's _The Elegant Universe_ seemed the most accessible read while not trivializing the material to the point where it would no longer be useful. Another very enjoyable read, more from the viewpoint of the experimentalist than the theorist, is _The God Particle_ by Leon Lederman, which unfortunately is not available for Kindle (and probably a bit outdated by now).


I would suggest then that you begin with Hawking's "The Theory of Everything." It's a collection of essays written in a very accessible manner to those without scientific backgrounds, without all the professor-speak, and yet intelligent enough for those of us with math and physics backgrounds to clearly understand without being talked down to.

I'm looking forward to the new book.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

john_a_karr said:


> Read a few quotes from the book that hit the web news articles the past few days. Basically, Hawkins states that because of gravity, there doesn't have to be a Higher Being involved in the creation of the universe.
> 
> Regardless of religious arguments to the counter, I find that lacking as The Definitive Answer to How It All Began. It doesn't answer how the gravity originated, etc. (maybe that's in the book, I don't know). Basically, even brilliant minds can't prove one way or another. Everything came from a super compressed ball of matter that exploded into The Big Bang? Then how did the ball of matter, with its gravity, get there? Universe expands and contracts back into the ball of matter to explode all over again? Same question. The very first beginning is never fully explained to my satisfaction.
> 
> Just wondering. Maybe someone who reads the book will follow up. I won't be able to get to it for a while.


The goal with my doctoral thesis in Theoretical Physics is to use my doctorate in applied mathematics to prove God's existence. I believe that Einstein was on this very path with his Theory of Everything when he died.

I do have theories, backed up with scripture, that explains the beginning, how it occurred, and incorporates the laws of physics into it. I believe God left us bread-crumbs as to his existence and proof mathematically. For instance, the seeds on a raspberry and sunflower are arranged in a Fibonacci sequence. Phi, or the Golden Ratio appears all over nature, and is in fact, the subconscious standard with which we measure beauty. (I welcome your hate mail.  ) In Hawking's The Theory of Everything, the essays, he speaks candidly about these questions, and arrives, tentatively, at the conclusion that the symmetry in nature is just too beautiful and perfect to be accidental or a product of evolution.

From the snippets I've heard, however, it sounds as if he has changed his mind on that one, so I'll be anxious to see what his reasoning behind that change is.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

NogDog said:


> I really, really don't want to start a religious/philosophical debate here, but that is not a good representation of current hypotheses. I think almost all cosmologists now maintain that what we perceive as our observable universe is only part of something larger. While our local chunk of space/time may have a beginning point before which it did not exist (and some theories don't even accept that), most theorists presuppose something else which spawned our local universe, whether that be a collision of n-dimensional "branes", bubble universes spawned from black holes in other universes (and another potential for "turtles all the way down"), or random fluctuations in the quantum foam that permeates everywhere and everywhen. A handful even seriously suggest our universe is a computer simulation! I'm sure many will also accept "the mind of God" as an equally valid possibility. I, for one, certainly am in no position to rule out any possibility or claim to know which explanation must be the only acceptable one. Whether or not I personally like or dislike any those theories (including God) or whether any of them makes me uncomfortable is not enough reason to rule any of them in or out.


I SO wish more folks who weren't sure of the end answer would and could be this open-minded, and I applaud you on this.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

So were people like myself being closed-minded, then?


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

RobertK said:


> So were people like myself being closed-minded, then?


It doesn't always have to be one or the other.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

Very true, which is why I was asking for clarification rather than jumping in with my thoughts.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

Basilius said:


> The thing most people forget in these debates is that as soon as you bring in a force that's outside the collection of existing universes, a force which religions call "god", you leave the realm of science. I'm not discounting these theories at all - but it's no longer science.


I disagree with you. I will grant that your assertion that this is the way people have believed is true. You're right there. However, the problem comes in when people refuse to believe that God and science are mutually exclusive. THIS is where we as a scientific community have missed it: we've removed God from the equation (because in order to acknowledge God's existence would mean that suddenly, we as a human race would be held responsible for our actions, and well, that's just heresy), when we should've started there. I don't know. Sometimes I distrust people who claim they want answers, and yet are unwilling to part with their own world view in order to entertain a notion that could very well be proven to be true. I've spoken to a lot of folks about my thesis topic, and every single one of them have asserted that it's completely unique in its approach, and original in its ideology. It DOES marry science and God, because the two cannot exist apart from the other. It's like someone saying they believe in God but not the devil. Well, if you buy into the mythos of one, then logic dictates that you must also believe in the other. Einstein was on this course in his quest for The Theory of Everything when he died. My work picks up from where he left off, and takes it a step further.

But make no mistake, there will come a time in theoretical physics when the idea that God and science are interconnected will be the norm, rather than the anomaly.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

Your thesis sounds quite interesting!


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

RobertK said:


> So were people like myself being closed-minded, then?


Not at all! I just noticed he was much more overt in his assertions that he possibly didn't know the answer.

I enjoyed your post very much, and you made some excellent points, while others I wasn't sure how you'd arrived at your present conclusion. I'm glad we have a discussion going that makes us think.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

RobertK said:


> Your thesis sounds quite interesting!


Thank-you. The idea that God wrote himself all over the laws of physics and quantum mechanics has plagued me since reading Einstein's Specific Theory of Relativity while I was in high school. I guess all through school, the idea that science existed without a logical and connected explanation never really sat too well with me. Maybe I, too, am guilty of finding theories to fit my own world view (that is a brilliant observation, whoever said it), but I know that this gnawing in my heart to empirically PROVE there was a divine reason that we exist never allowed me any peace.

Then when I realised that Einstein's observation of relativity and the speed of light being a universal and accepted constant (I've recently read some treatises of theoretical physics in which C is no longer a constant) added up to some ancient scriptures I'd read, the whole thing started to make more sense to me.

I won't bore you with the details, but will say the prospect of attempting to prove my theories has me extremely excited.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

I appreciate that. This thread has been a brief but good example that people can in fact talk about things of consequence without screaming at each other. =)

There was another provocative thread on these forums today that I decided to pass on. A few people commented that it should be locked because people should _never_ talk religion or politics. This thread is a good counter-point to that statement.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

RobertK said:


> I appreciate that. This thread has been a brief but good example that people can in fact talk about things of consequence without screaming at each other. =)
> 
> There was another provocative thread on these forums today that I decided to pass on. A few people commented that it should be locked because people should _never_ talk religion or politics. This thread is a good counter-point to that statement.


It's been my experience that those who are at the forefront of advocating that one never discuss religion or politics are usually the same ones who can't do it without uttering the ever-famous quote: "Let's take it outside!"


----------



## Disappointed (Jul 28, 2010)

For anyone familiar with Lawrence Krauss' work on how a universe can come from nothing, I'd appreciate your opinions.


----------



## J.M Pierce (May 13, 2010)

To RobertK, opuskroakus, and Basilius:

Thank you for your post and thought sharing on this thread. I have enjoyed both points of view and the civil manner with which they were discussed. It is a sensitive subject and while I am a fan of Hawking, I do not agree with everything that he writes. I don't really have anything to add to the thread, I just wanted to say thank you. Take care.

J.M.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

Thanks. 

As to the movie, I'll give it a gander later. I don't have the time to listen to the whole hour. I was a bit dissapointed in the inteo with the dismissal of 'religious' people as simple and our views as fairy tales. Let's hope he at least addresses the arguments later.


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

opuscroakus said:


> I would suggest then that you begin with Hawking's "The Theory of Everything." It's a collection of essays written in a very accessible manner to those without scientific backgrounds, without all the professor-speak, and yet intelligent enough for those of us with math and physics backgrounds to clearly understand without being talked down to.
> 
> I'm looking forward to the new book.


Actually, and this is just a small side note here, _The Theory of Everything_ was an unauthorized book. Hawking did not endorse the book and tried to stop it from being published. The material that is in the book is his writing, but it's already in _A Brief History of Time_.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

AddieLove said:


> Actually, and this is just a small side note here, _The Theory of Everything_ was an unauthorized book. Hawking did not endorse the book and tried to stop it from being published. The material that is in the book is his writing, but it's already in _A Brief History of Time_.


I guess I'm not understanding. If Hawking wrote it, and he did, then my recommending they read the book shouldn't matter one way or the other to whether the person who reads it will be able to understand the gist of his work or not. His explanation on Black Holes certainly hasn't changed from one incarnation of his essays to the other. And his name was indeed, on the cover. So whoever published it, gave him credit. Like you said, it's a small aside, but I guess I'm just not seeing what it matters to my recommending it.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

opuscroakus said:


> I disagree with you. I will grant that your assertion that this is the way people have believed is true. You're right there. However, the problem comes in when people refuse to believe that God and science are mutually exclusive.


And this is where we emphatically disagree. Science is the pursuit of *natural* explanations for how our world works. That precludes anything that is not part of nature. A creator could not be part of the thing he created by definition. So, any theory that includes him - no matter how valid that theory may be - cannot be science.

If you want to go and redefine what science is, go ahead. But that is not, and never will be, my definition.

It's also why I have no problem with the various theological explanations of creation being taught in school along with evolution. But don't teach them in the science department. They're not science.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

Basilius said:


> And this is where we emphatically disagree. Science is the pursuit of *natural* explanations for how our world works. That precludes anything that is not part of nature. A creator could not be part of the thing he created by definition. So, any theory that includes him - no matter how valid that theory may be - cannot be science.
> 
> If you want to go and redefine what science is, go ahead. But that is not, and never will be, my definition.
> 
> It's also why I have no problem with the various theological explanations of creation being taught in school along with evolution. But don't teach them in the science department. They're not science.


They are not ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS of science. Oxford Dictionary defines science thus:

_the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:_

All of those dimensions that we haven't been able to operate in yet, but we know exist, would encompass the natural world, and to put it simply, God operates in one of those eleven other dimensions that we do not, being bound by only the 4 for now. Mathematics, now considered by most to be one of the hard sciences, used to be a branch of Philosophy, until someone redefined it; or, recategorised it, rather. Oxford defines creator as a person or thing who brings something into existence. You cannot separate the creator from his creation, it just can't be done. I am all over everything I create, from my music, to my fine art to my writing and comedy. If you're an author, then you are all over your creations.

So, too, is it with recognising God as the creator. Thus, your definitions no longer hold, and we CAN include God in the exploration of scientific theories. Cosmology is a recognised science, and that certainly includes theories of God in relation to creating the universe.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

Basilius said:


> If you want to go and redefine what science is, go ahead. But that is not, and never will be, my definition.


That's quite an honest statement. But you're also claiming it as your own personal definition and completely removed it from the area of discussion because you've said you will never change your mind. So what more is there to say?

I would again, challenge your definition. So much of what we do is inferential. We don't see gravity, we infer it from observing the world. We don't see things like evolution over time, it's inferred by some. We take data and look where it points.

When a detective is investigating a dead body, bound with a bullet in its head, he can look at the scene, circumstantial evidence, and other factors and infer that this wasn't natural causes. He looks at the evidence and goes where it leads.

You're putting cosmologists (and all the sciences, frankly) in the detectives coat and saying, "Go. Investigate and tell me what happened. But you can only follow the evidence if it points to X conclusion, not Y." You're ruling out God as a cause _prima facie_ and then saying, claiming evidence for God is not scientific. If a deity created the universe, why should we expect no evidence when we expect causal agents in every other area of life to leave evidence?


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

opuscroakus said:


> I guess I'm not understanding. If Hawking wrote it, and he did, then my recommending they read the book shouldn't matter one way or the other to whether the person who reads it will be able to understand the gist of his work or not. His explanation on Black Holes certainly hasn't changed from one incarnation of his essays to the other. And his name was indeed, on the cover. So whoever published it, gave him credit. Like you said, it's a small aside, but I guess I'm just not seeing what it matters to my recommending it.


Now I'm not understanding. No where in my comment did I say you shouldn't recommend it. All I was pointing out was that it's not really _Hawking's_ The Theory of Everything. Yes, it's his work, but it's not his book in that he didn't put it together and was opposed to it being published. I wasn't trying to be argumentative, which seems to be how you've taken it.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

AddieLove said:


> Now I'm not understanding. No where in my comment did I say you shouldn't recommend it. All I was pointing out was that it's not really _Hawking's_ The Theory of Everything. Yes, it's his work, but it's not his book in that he didn't put it together and was opposed to it being published. I wasn't trying to be argumentative, which seems to be how you've taken it.


Neooo, not at all. One can certainly ask for clarification without being taken to be argumentative.

I didn't say you said I shouldn't recommend it. I simply didn't understand what relavance it had on the recommendation, which is obviously what spurred you to correct its attribution.


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

opuscroakus said:


> Neooo, not at all. One can certainly ask for clarification without being taken to be argumentative.
> 
> I didn't say you said I shouldn't recommend it. I simply didn't understand what relavance it had on the recommendation, which is obviously what spurred you to correct its attribution.


I was just pointing out a little fact I thought was interesting. And to say that the material in _The Theory of Everything_ is in _A Brief History of Time_, so if someone was thinking about reading _The Theory of Everything_ and _A Brief History of Time_, they could just get the one.


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

opuscroakus said:


> The goal with my doctoral thesis in Theoretical Physics is to use my doctorate in applied mathematics to prove God's existence. I believe that Einstein was on this very path with his Theory of Everything when he died.
> 
> I do have theories, backed up with scripture, that explains the beginning, how it occurred, and incorporates the laws of physics into it. I believe God left us bread-crumbs as to his existence and proof mathematically. For instance, the seeds on a raspberry and sunflower are arranged in a Fibonacci sequence. Phi, or the Golden Ratio appears all over nature, and is in fact, the subconscious standard with which we measure beauty. (I welcome your hate mail.  ) In Hawking's The Theory of Everything, the essays, he speaks candidly about these questions, and arrives, tentatively, at the conclusion that the symmetry in nature is just too beautiful and perfect to be accidental or a product of evolution.
> 
> From the snippets I've heard, however, it sounds as if he has changed his mind on that one, so I'll be anxious to see what his reasoning behind that change is.


I applaud your efforts. There can be no more daunting a task as yours. It would be interesting but implausable to have a theory that says, "See, that is God" and have people accept it as such.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

Hey all,

Well, I was sad to see this thread die. However, wanted to share with you that I downloaded Hawking's new audio book for free from Audio.com, so as soon as I've found time tomorrow to begin listening to it, I will report back at least what _*I*_ have learned.

Cheers.


----------

