George Vella, Victoria
The scientists who feel they can play God
I refer to the article Stephen Hawking Says God Did Not Create The Universe (September 3).
He said: “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”. This is a very confusing and contradictory statement made by Mr Hawking.
First I ask, how, if there was nothing, can the law of gravity exist? Logically, if there was nothing, the law of gravity itself was not there either. So the universe could not have created itself from nothing. The law of gravity can only exist when there is a pull, and this pull can only come about when there is mass or energy, otherwise it cannot exist or show itself.
Anything spontaneous which may come about has to have the prime factors, otherwise this cannot manifest itself and remains in void and so in oblivion. We all know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed; the most fundamental law of physics. It can only be altered from one phase to another, say mass can be changed to energy and vice versa, but never destroyed or obliterated. So here we have to ask the crucial question: What being or who made us realise the reality of mass or energy which we feel and experience every day? Here one has to keep in mind the limitations of homo sapiens.
To give a simple example of spontaneity one can compare it to an ignition of a substance occurring suddenly, but this spontaneity has to have some basic materials, so the universe could not have created itself from nothing as maintained.
As to the Big Bang, this is not a theory; that is something that can be proved, but a hypothesis which is a supposition made as basis for reasoning, without reference to its truth, or as starting point for investigation. A groundless assumption.
I am sorry to say that Mr Hawking is contradicting himself for in his book of 1988 A Brief History Of Time he made this statement: “If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God”.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” Let us put things straight: In this statement Mr Hawking was careful not to say that God does not exist but that God did not create the universe. The statement says that God had no part in creation, hence under disguise suggesting that God, or a super being, never existed.
From the scientific point of view, man is progressing in his scientific knowledge. Yet as being part of this matter or energy himself, he shall never reach the absolute or ultimate point of knowledge. Otherwise he would be a super being himself.
Man in his limitations should not play God as some few scientists want to do. Please give me proof not speculation.
Yet Mr Hawking made two good comments that humans are draining the earth of resources and face a terrifying array of new threats, and also warned in a recent television series that mankind should avoid contact with aliens at all costs, as the consequences could be devastating.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
180 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
George Vella
Oct 1st 2010, 02:37
@Joe Xuereb: Both god-haters and god-deniers are the same, both hating something that exists. Hating God and denying Him is the same, for the simple reason that such a person is irritated by the mention of this Super Being. Such people, like yourself, are called pseudo atheists. Real atheists do not bother about God and do not go about to try to convince others that He does not exists.
Please do not make a fool of yourself. And why are you so afraid of God?
Joe Xuereb
Sep 30th 2010, 14:46
@Namanja Borgan. Thank you. Your comment made me that much stronger in my atheism. One listens(reads) with an open mind and one learns. A bit risky but I'm worth it.
Believers go on and on about god's love, and bounty, and mercy. And even I can see that. We have rivers, flowers, majestic mountains. And miracles healing the sick, no?! And most important of all, he gave us 'the birds'. And 'the bees' - these last with a stink in their tail, nudge! nudge! wink! wink! So that's all proven, no sweat. But as you imply Borgan, can believers prove that god is not benign. No they cannot, because they won't. They're like blind who imagine a world through rose-tinted glasses. But I can. Because for me to substitute god's mercy to relentlessly uncaring is a piecea (pizza?) cake!
Joe Xuereb
Sep 28th 2010, 23:53
3) All it takes is a little leap of faith (you're used to that I'm sure). At least I am in the here and now, nothing dusty about this one, no dog-eared pages. But of course it is up to you entirely. I would not take responsibility for your souls. And certainly, as an atheist, I have no interest in increasing this congregtion of one. Just one. It feels not lonely up here. Just alone. And that's OK! I'm a big boy now.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 28th 2010, 23:47
2) And if he is the one god, and there is human life-form as we know it, and he created us in his image, would these creatures at the back of beyond in space look like us. There's only one god, remember. Please note that none of this is science (of which I know next to nothing). But I approach the matter differently. I just sit down and ponder, with not a test-tube anywhere in sight. Seeing a physically much wider picture helps me somewhat to clear away inherited cobwebs. I owe it to myself to clarify my vision; and it has nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to do with playing god. Believe me!
There is an open secret to how this line of thinking comes about (and this is key to the whole discussion). It is one's reconciliation to the fact that one is conceived, one is born, one lives, and one dies. And when one dies, one goes nowhere. And for the purpose of our little big discussion, there is nothing divine in that mindset. Unless being plain, boring, commonsensical is being divine, of course. I leave you good people to decide.
continued
Joe Xuereb
Sep 28th 2010, 23:35
1) Why speak of god-haters? God-deniers is more apt. One can only hate something that exists. Something that doesn't exist can not be hated.
Hawking and his debilitating condition. To think of the man in relation to god and his illness - this is ridiculous and tantamount to projecting one's godliness onto Hawking. A believer would pray to god for succour (from the illness) or curse god for the affliction visited upon one. As a non-believer, Hawking cannot do either. Simple logic.
If one is bound by the belief of the comparatively short time-scale of the earth (never mind the universe), stories like that of Jesus of Nazareth - talk about provincialism - are plausible. The problem is, once one's mind embraces a much older planet, and millions of others alongside it, then the very simple Jesus story suddenly becomes insignificant. As in - what if there is equivalent human life-form somewhere else out there, did Jesus of Nazareth die for them too? They being thousands if not millions of light years away. And let's not be silly; the earth IS much older than we are lead to believe.
Continued
George Vella
Sep 26th 2010, 21:51
@Mr. Christian Sciberras. I have tried to get the statement published below for two time and it was not! Now with minor cuts I am trying to publish it again
Now let us go to your statements: "Remember the bible said man was modeled in God's image?" If man was modeled in God's image this is not referring to man's physical body but to his intellect (which animals of close breed to man do not have) and this is not a mirror image but a model as you explained. As you know man has his limitations and is nor divine, otherwise he would be another god. Are you a god?. For sure I am not.
As to your second statement: "Hack I play god each time I write new code, and I'm not even a (certified) scientist!". Can you please explain this to me because I find to 'difficult' to understand? Which new codes do you write? ...and writing codes is not creating matter or energy!
Christian Sciberras
Oct 3rd 2010, 02:27
Being creative, that's what is is all about.
Keeping a closed mind and shunning "what ifs" stifles creativity.
I might not be able to bend gravity or create matter at will, but what if someone, with the right knowledge, can?
Till a few years ago, "creating life" was deemed as an abomination. Code, being just a list of strict rules, does not restrict in the least recreation of intelligence....it just needs more flexible rules.
Here's some food for thought, go search for "Game Of Life" (aka "GOL").
Christian Sciberras
Oct 3rd 2010, 02:35
"Are you a god?. For sure I am not. "
I am not, and I pretty sure any rational being, including Mr Hawking, cannot deny that he ain't either.
"Playing god" on the other hand, is a completely different matter, which brings us back to the discussion. Every time I write a new system I like to see myself as the creator (of the system) and although I'm doing using resources, I could argue that it did, in fact, come out of nothing.
Just as nature (hand of God) was able to create bird, I could create an imitation (or perhaps, be creative so as to create my own thing) utilizing resources, and gifts from God himself.
I think God would be deeply disappointed if man stopped progressing because of such a ridiculous reason.
Christian Sciberras
Sep 24th 2010, 12:09
Although I do not agree with Mr Hawking's *theory*, I think the TITLE IS MISLEADING.
Mankind (not just scientists) is made to create.
Remember the bible said man was modelled in God's image?
I don't think that limited itself to cosmetic (which would invalidate it, anyway).
"Man in his limitations should not play God as some few scientists want to do."
Few?? Hack I play god each time I write new code, and I'm not even a (certified) scientist!
George Vella
Sep 24th 2010, 05:15
@Massimo Catalano: In my short and concise contribution I could not explain much. Now read this re Big Bang and quantum mechanics.
The Big Bang theory or model of the origin of the universe was proposed by Georges Lemaître in1927, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity. This is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation yet. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory IS AN EFFORT to explain what happened during and after that moment. Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
As to the M-theory in simple terms it presents an idea about the basic substance of the universe. It has passed many tests of internal mathematical consistency that many other attempts to combine quantum mechanics and gravity had failed !
rgalea
Sep 24th 2010, 11:54
@George Vella
Given that the Big Bang is the most succesful model to explain the qualities of the Universe we observe , it does not prove that prior to the moment of expansion from the singularity there existed nothing.
You are correct in saying that we simply don't know and I subscribe fully to this view.What I object to is the speculation that here must have been a metaphysical entity that created the singularity in the first place.
Such a statement strays from science to the realm of metaphysics and I personaly find it intellectually more honest to subscribe to the "we do not know" view.
George Vella
Sep 25th 2010, 06:39
@ rgalea: You said: “You are correct in saying that we simply don't know and I subscribe fully to this view. What I object to is the speculation that here must have been a metaphysical entity that created the singularity in the first place.”
Your above statement is to undermine the readers and to maliciously lead them off course. In my statement I did not mention the word ‘entity’. It is good to say I do not know because we known of our limitations and both you and me are no gods, maybe retired ones!
Christian Sciberras
Sep 26th 2010, 14:31
I completely concur with rgalea.
@George - The part about maliciously lead people off course? Well, it seems more evident in your letter than the other person's facts.
George Vella
Sep 26th 2010, 21:44
@Christian Sciberras above
Your vague statement does not worry me which goes "Well, it seems more evident in your letter than the other person's facts." Apart from being senseless giving no arguments for debate, it shows that you have no measure of intellect and no grasp of basic science. You hide behind your finger, as the Maltese correctly say, because you are stubborn!
Christian Sciberras
Dec 2nd 2010, 03:18
@George - Well, perhaps you need to learn English rather than accusing people of hiding behind complex literature(!)
George Vella
Sep 24th 2010, 05:02
@Jesmond Mifsud
You are mixing things up, I beg you to read my statement again: "Anything spontaneous which may come about has to have the prime factors, otherwise this cannot manifest itself and remains in void and so in oblivion. We all know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed; the most fundamental law of physics."
Apart I beg you to read well the first two paragraphs of my contribution.
Massimo Catalano
Sep 23rd 2010, 11:43
@George Vella
Have you read anything by Victor Stenger?
here is a link:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Books.html
You state" the big bang is not a theory".This is scientifically false.The big bang IS a theory.There is a lot of empirical evidence that suggests it may be correct, but since it cannot be tested , it remains a theory.
Are you aware that for the big bang theory to be self consistent requires a period of cosmic inflation that is only explainable in quantum terms?
In you article you completely avoid any reference to quantum theory.Do you accept that certain predictions of this theory have been proved to be true in the lab and run counter to common sense?
In what way does being made out of fundamental particles preclude us a priori from fully understanding the workings of such particles and fields?The only limitation to the detail we can learn is due to Heiseberg's principle.
Attaining this knowlege does not make us gods, because gods do not have to obey any law unless they choose to do so.
You ask for proof , but offer none whatsoever to support the idea of divine intervention.
Jesmond Mifsud
Sep 22nd 2010, 22:03
@George Vella
You said that you were not referring to anything supernatural yet the entire article you wrote is about God and how you don't agree with professor Hawking's theory that God does not exist.
God, according to the bible, is an all knowing, all powerful magical being with divine powers who created every single thing in the universe and who watches every move of every person and is particularly interested in everyone's sex-life...and you say that you were not referring to anything supernatural?
Also, before you declare war on Science, let me remind you that without science we wouldn't be able to cross the entire world in just a few hours, we wouldn't be able to survive infections, you wouldn't be writing this article on your computer and sharing it with thousands of people over the Internet. Withouth science we wouldn't have chemotherapy to save children from cancer. These are the real mircales I choose to believe in. You can believe whatever you want to believe but don't expect everyone else to continue bowing down to the big skydaddy anymore.
Peace out.
Nemanja borgan
Sep 22nd 2010, 18:31
This discussion has strayed far and wide and some contributers insist god must have lit the blue touch paper.
Fine.
What about the nature of this deity?
No doubt some folk will answer that we cannot ever hope to understand such a being because he/she/it is a metaphysical manifestation.
Nonetheless some questions can be asked if only as an exercise in logic.
Can god decide to terminate himself?
How can anyone prove that god is benign?
# When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
# The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
# Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke
Arthur Soler
Sep 22nd 2010, 18:16
Nobody can disprove the existence of God....but nobody can prove God's existence either.
While science does not yet understand how the Universe / Big Bang stared 14.5 billion years ago, there is no reason to believe that anything other than NATURAL causes were involved. There are several theories around the scientific world trying to explain this mystery including mulitple universes for example. Also, very recently, scientists have discovered that on the fringes of the known universe, the "constants of nature" are not perfectly constant, as had been previously believed. The point is that science is still looking for NATURAL causes to explain how the known universe can into being.
To believe and conclude, as religious people do, that God created everything is pure speculation. There is no evidence whatsoever that anything SUPERNATURAL exists. By definition, SUPERNATURAL is the "existence of something outside the NATURAL world" or " a power that seems to violate or go beyond NATURAL forces".
When somebody can demonstrate conclusively that there is indeed a "SUPERNATURAL" force, then we might conclude that God probably exists. But there is not one iota of evidence.
"Scientists cannot play God", but "Religious people cannot play Science" either.
Jesmond Micallef
Sep 22nd 2010, 21:19
Evidence is very important but then again evidence of what ? I tend to think that our knowledge of science, or the way we do science, is simply incapable of obtaining this complete truth. For someone who "cannot understand" death, or has not experienced death (no brain or any other physiological functions), its too intellectually uncomfortable to contemplate with certainty the inexistence or indeed existence of God.
Humans do not just live by eating, breathing, sleeping, consuming.....definitely not, they need further nourishment, they are too insecure around all this allmighty greatness that surrounds them. Humans cannot replace the spiritual dimension by scientific dimension the way we know it. Individuals cannot design and build a space shuttle, a space telescope, a particle accelerator, a bubble chamber, a nuclear reactor, but a collective effort can somehow. Its allways greater then individual capacity. Hence, a higher greatness ?
My own belief relates to the existence of God.
George Vella
Sep 22nd 2010, 17:40
@Jesmond Mifsud: “A person who is cornered has a tendency to lie” Your futile tactic is to undermine. Further on I never knew that you know most of the scientists when you said “you may not be aware that most scientists are atheists, so get over it.” ...and mind you even if they all are, they would not impress me for my mind is free not like yours.
You also said “that people like George Vella can't wrap their minds round the fact that not everyone believes in the supernatural.” In may letter I did not mention any religion or belief, not even the word supernatural. In fact earlier, below I replied this to C. Xuereb: “Feel free, and if you are a real atheist do not bother about gods!” So you and others like you do stick to science please. Once being cornered a person has a habit to diverge to other line of thinking!.
D. Galea
Sep 22nd 2010, 15:59
There is a problem with we Maltese... we have the tendency to be rather close-minded. Many of us (including me!) were baptised when still babies and brought up in a very Christian life, so practically we have been blind Christians from conception. And that is why we find it hard to accept other's ideas regarding God or religion, because we have blind faith in God and his existence - We Maltese are literally afraid to contradict or question the things that we learnt when we were young.
Mr Vella, a journalist should know better than writing a personal-orientated article, and only considering one face of the coin!!!
George Vella
Sep 22nd 2010, 18:01
@ D.Galea: You must have been cornered as well. Why did you mention in what the Maltese believe in, and how a small nation think. There is a whole world out there, we are insignificant in comparison. Contrary to what you said it is you who looked at one side of the coin, and maybe blindfolded as well. Where are you scientific arguments? Are you an armchair journalist?
Adrian Archer
Sep 22nd 2010, 15:03
I would like to lend a machete to the intellectual thinking of this blog.
First: Steve Hawking said that there might be the "possibility" that God is not the originator of the universe. So, this does not mean that God does not exist. On the same lines, if God exists , he did not create the sun, the universe did.
Second God is about belief. Science is about proving things. Scientist thought that for instance Troy did not exist, they though that many of the stories in the bible were only stories...Now they are being confirmed by the Egyptians, Sumerians and even Mayans. Tho only thing I hate about scientists is that they want to prove everything. Yet they are better than religous fanatics.
Third. If Stephen Hawking said what he said, so what!!! Because he's a great mind does not mean that his word is gospel. Everyone "may" have personal biases and even if what he said is true, perhaps there was a previous universe (made by God) that created this one. You can go on and on!!! Again God is about what you believe and not Scientists of Religious Insititutions.
Karl Consiglio
Sep 22nd 2010, 14:34
@George Vella,
"Please stick to the scientific line of thinking if you can handle it"
Look who's talking.
George Vella
Sep 22nd 2010, 17:49
Mr. Karl Consiglio by your short sentence "Look who's talking.", scientificly you have proved 'NOTHING' , 'AN ABSOLUTE ZERO'. On the contrary, you wiyhout knowing it have backed my phrase "Please stick to the scientific line of thinking if you can handle it"
Jesmond Micallef
Sep 22nd 2010, 13:14
Whats the difference between chaos and non chaos when even it has its own prerequisites ? Indeed it has its own rules which need to be statisfied otherwise we wouldn't be able to define it !!
GiovDeMartino
Sep 22nd 2010, 12:33
So far my questions have nor been answered. If God is not the originator of things we cannot explain (the universe)...then who is the originator? I do not believe that the universe could originate from nothing, but then I am not as clever as many commentators below
j.saunders
Sep 22nd 2010, 13:29
Actually there are a couple of answers to your previous questions.Just scroll down a little.
It would help if you did not open multiple threads on the same subject.
Now the question has morphed into "who is the originator?"
decide what question you want answered!
The originator could be your christian god or any other deity that you care to mention, or it could be no one at all.There is no proof either way and thus your question is merely an execise in rhetoric.
Using "clever" to try and ridicule other commentators is pathetic.
S. Calleja
Sep 22nd 2010, 13:30
"I do not believe that the universe could originate from nothing."
That explains your conviction. That's O-Level physics, laws which were formalised in the 17th and 18th centuries. Physics have moved on a bit since then, unlike religious thought which is practically unchanged since the sun-worshippers.
Here is something more recent: http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090112/FRONTIERS/275080543/-1/NEWS Thanks to Jorge Santal for the link.
patrick zammit
Sep 22nd 2010, 13:52
GDM
Not being capable of explaining something does not mean there is a god. There could be a variety of explanations or reasoning behind it.
For example, Jesus had not heard about epilepsy in his time and could not explain it. So he atributed it to evil spirits - Luke 9:39
Your argument is illogic.
Jesmond Micallef
Sep 22nd 2010, 14:21
You do not need to be all that clever. Just look outside of your window and ask yourself if you ever seen weather like that before ? We need high powered liquid cooled Cray supercomputers in order to forecast just a few days of this atmospheric phenomenom !! Some need to venture out into space, others look into large massive very cold vacuum tubes. We can only understand through discovery whats already there, we can try to replicate or manage it somehow but we will never go beyond that, thats forsure !! God, the creator exists alright and we should stop chasing him around really and concentrate on what he gave us, ourselves and our own planet.
charles caruana
Sep 22nd 2010, 14:35
Mr Calleja, if you think that the link in question answers Mr DeMartino’s question, you are far more naïve than he is. If you accept a brief article written for popular consumption , full of speculation and incomplete hypothesis as proven scientific fact, that explains your conviction. If you think that the article in question has in any way answered one of the oldest and profoundest questions posed by mankind and DeMartino - that’s even below O-level physics, or philosophy.
S. Calleja
Sep 22nd 2010, 17:27
@ Mr Charles Caruana
No I don't think that the link in question answers Mr DeMartino’s question. But it helps make a point.
Jesmond Mifsud
Sep 22nd 2010, 11:15
George Vella, you may not be aware that most scientists are atheists, so get over it. The Big Bang theory is a hypothesis yes. Science may never really come up with the answer for how all existence started but to say that it all happened by magic (religion is 100% sure that this is how it happened) would be stretching it too far don't you think?
I find it very strange that people like George Vella can't wrap their minds round the fact that not everyone believes in the supernatural.
Giov DeMartino
Sep 22nd 2010, 11:00
Two simple questions. Shall I get an answer?
Why are some commentator so eager to prove that there is no God?
Is it better with a God or without One?
S. Calleja
Sep 22nd 2010, 11:55
Nobody can prove the non-existence of God just as much as nobody can prove the existence of God. Keep in mind however, that exactly the same argument can be applied to Zeus, fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If we stick to science, however, we start from the premise that something does not exist unless it is shown to exist through evidence. If start to assume that God exists unless proven not to, then anything can exist as long as you can imagine it, for instance, elves and pixies, unless you can prove to me that they do not exist.
jake goodmans
Sep 22nd 2010, 12:09
they are indeed "simple" questions.
1.if you bothered to read the huge amount of comments you might have noticed that commentators are not eager to prove there is no god.they are interested in the possibility that god does not have to be the originator of things we cannot yet explain.Big, Big difference!!
2..Since god cannot be proven to exist or not to exist it is a totally futile question.You might as well ask if it's better to have or not have Father Xmas.
Alex Ellul
Sep 22nd 2010, 00:35
@rgalea: 2/3 :Continued...Its so simple that any child can understand it while no scientist can refute.
The universe is still expanding and the mystery is that the universe is expanding at an increasing velocity (accelerating outwards) meaing that the universe is still under some great force (Force=Mass x Acceleration). From where is this force coming? No scientist has ever dared try to answer this question. Let these scientists first explain to us the real workings of the observable universe, then they can postulate till kingdom come about multiverses and other chequered-board games they keep dreaming about. It seems that some scientists have run out of true and real researchable science, so they try to give us mushroom food.
But there are other scientists out there who are doing a lot of good scientific work. Scientists who are creating DNA in laboratories. Yes, you read correctly. Creating synthetic life (Graig Venter). Because you see, life is too complicated to happen by chance. Not in 15 billion years nor in a trillion years and this is backed by mathematical argumentation. However it took only a decade for Craig Venter to decode the Human DNA and produce a laboratory-created life form called Mycoplasma-Laboratorium
rgalea
Sep 22nd 2010, 11:10
@Alex Ellul
No need to be condescening.... I'm perfectly aware of the existance of CMB, the recent discovery of an acceleraring expansion ,the creation of DNA etc etc..
Do you also believe quantum theory is a fanciful notion that has no grounding?
Perhaps you would care to explain quantum entanglement (factually demonstrated by the Aspect experiments ) in terms of classical physics?
Well, you are entitled to your idea that scientists are feeding us "mushroom food" because they have run out of true science, I'd rather keep an open mind and discard a theory or idea when it has been proven to be factually incorrect.
If this is arrogance, I'm guilty as charged.
Alex Ellul
Sep 22nd 2010, 00:19
@rgalea: 2/3 :Continued...Scientists cannot even explain the existence of the ‘junk’ DNA which constitutes 97% of the DNA itself, let alone declare that DNA is formed by chance. It’s like a teacher teaching biology to a class of pupils when this teacher can understand only 3% of the biology syllabus. If this is not arrogance, I do not know what arrogance means.
Do your questions manage to effect or rebut in any way my reasoning? The answer is a defitive NO. The fact remains that:
Science and mathematics show that the have ever seen. The energy was so great that the radiation produced at the beginning of time is still easily detected (backround radiation) after 15 billion years even by a simple radio and TV when these are not tuned to a broadcasting frequency. The black/white spots you see on the tv when you unplug the reception cable is just that.
Time did not exist before the big bang.
Nothing existed in fact before the big bang, not matter, not energy, not space nor time. Nothing. Now r to comprehend this fact alone. without these basic requirements for things to exist, there could not be anything in existence. continued....
Alex Ellul
Sep 22nd 2010, 00:17
@rgalea: 1/3 :Your 5 questions below are just a strawman's reply and they show that you have not undrstood what I wrote, or worse, you have undrstood well but are trying to avoid the real issue.
Your questions (in trying to rebut my argument) were:
Is it arrogance to entertain the idea that life may be a spontaneous process?
Is it arrogance to try and understand why things are the way they are?
Was it arrogance to state that the sun does not orbit the earth?
Was it arrogance to dispute James' Ussher's claim that the world was created one day in october 4004bc?
Was it arrogance to entertain the idea that an atom could be split?
my argument is:
The fact that it took a lot of super-intelligent chemists/biologists some 50 years of experimenting/trial-and-error/primordial-broth-mimicking to produce a tiny part of a section of a tiny strand of DNA means one thing: That it takes intelligence to produce this insignificance, let alone a DNA that is made up of a pogramme which is as complicated as the longest computer programme ever developed. Continued...
charles caruana
Sep 21st 2010, 23:35
@Sabrina Borda
So ‘Jesus was a good and simple man’ was he? At least he was not fictional was he? I am sure you are yourself a good and simple woman. What I am not so sure of is whether you can revolutionize history as he did, or establish a religion that has lasted over two thousand years, by being so good and simple. Someone like you, who has eyes only for the faults of the Church, but seem to be as blind as a bat to its immense and rich contribution to human culture and society, is not exactly an impartial judge of religion. Anti-religious bigotry hardly qualifies one to practice a philosophy that ‘looks for logic and truth -empirical or rational.’
Sabrina Borda
Sep 23rd 2010, 19:29
If you are of the opinion that I may intimate to start any sort of revolution you make a grave and fanciful mistake.
Like it or not, how things are forming are not because you think of me personally as a bigot or blind as a bat, but you may be sensing undue tension because I am a small part of a very big change taking place.
You do not know me at all. I sure you I have no blindness of a bat, long ago did my eyes open. I have many good friends in the Church and they can verify my clarity on this. I have always acknowledged the good they made as well as the mistakes and I shall continue to do so. Nothing you say including your personal insults in this public forum could be relevant or important enough for me to change that........... not even an overdue apology.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 21st 2010, 21:42
@RGalea.
I believe that God created both inanimate objects and living organisms - not that God made the latter evolve from the former. So please do not wait for me to let you know when the creator “brought inanimate matter to life”. That is your speculation, not mine.
Your use of such phrases as “ … abstract notions …” “what is THOUGHT to lie at the center of a black hole” and “ … black holes are the BEST CANDIDATES TO EXPLAIN …” proves that you strongly suspect that you are not quoting proven scientific facts but only theories in search of proof. So does the fact that some observed facts are explained only by Einstein’s theory of relativity, not by the quantum theory, while others are explained by Bohr’s quantum theory and not by the theory of relativity. Scientists are still searching for the truth between these two theories. If you pause to analyze your own comment you would soon realize that your “abstract notions” and theories in search of proof do not dispense with the need to believe in God.
rgalea
Sep 22nd 2010, 11:33
@Dr.Francis Saliba
You said it yourself , you "believe" God created animate and inanimate matter.
You have no empirical proof,
Thus your notion can also be dismissed as speculation.Let me know at what point in time during the earth's evolutiion God created animate matter.
Do we agree that in order to understand a given physical effect one must first come up with a theory and then devise a test to check that theory?The test may be a physical experiment or a mathematical proof.
God does not come into it.
I am not stating categorically that God does not exist.This a matter for faith not science.However I share the view that God does not have to be invoked every time we stumble across something that cannot be explained by the state of current knowledge.
If science worked in that way, we would still believe the sun shines because it's God's will.
jorge santal
Sep 21st 2010, 21:08
Apparently it is quite possible to get something from nothing:
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090112/FRONTIERS/275080543/-1/NEWS
charles caruana
Sep 22nd 2010, 11:34
Mr Santal, nice try, but it doesn't work. You used the word 'apparently.' Very clever of you, for the article itself is a piece of popular divulgation, without any pretentions of being in any way a peer reviewed scientific study. It is full of words like ‘appear' as in ‘In other words, virtually all the mass contained in atoms – and indeed us – appears to be nothing more than the evanescent energy of empty space.’ We are dealing with appearances, Mr Santal, not ‘solid’ scientific proofs. Try again.
alex marconi
Sep 22nd 2010, 12:47
@charles caruana
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7226/full/457156a.html
a couple of questions for you mr.caruana.
do you accept the fact that time dilation is real effect?
This can only be explained by using relativity, is not relativity a theory?does the fact that this feature can only be explained by using a theory that has no absolute proof make the effect any less real?
charles caruana
Sep 22nd 2010, 13:43
Mr Marconi, you seem to have missed the point behind my question, not to mention the nature of the question itself. ‘Can anything except nothing come out of nothing’ is quintessentially a metaphysical question, and no amount of scientific hypotheses , theories and experimentation can ever answer it, because it simply falls outside the domain of science altogether. When I asked for empirical evidence for it I was making a rhetorical question. This is why I think that Hawking, a great scientist, in trying to answer it, was trespassing into areas of expertise where he is not competent. It’s like expecting a rocket scientist to perform open heart surgery. Please check out my previous posts on this blog.
Sam Mangion
Sep 21st 2010, 19:58
Finally, he is not playing god. He is being a good scientist, exploring all possibilities. At the moment there are a number of theories and ideas trying to explain the ultimate origin of our universe. This does not mean any of them are correct, either because the right idea has not been thought of yet, or that there is an ultimate creator. Now while science does not generally accept the final suggestion - if proof had to be forthcoming there would not be a single scientist who would deny its truth.
That is the beauty of science.
Alex Ellul
Sep 22nd 2010, 08:49
All possibilities except intelligent design. Intelligent design is the most plausible and logical route to understanding the cause of the existence of matter, space and time and the perfect laws governing and binding all together. Occam's Razor points to such a possibility, while accepting the possibilty of intelligent design would aslo lead to the acceptancve of a probability of the existence of at least another universe. Because where would the designer live while designing a universe that had no space, matter and time prior to its creation?
S. Calleja
Sep 22nd 2010, 14:28
@ Alex Ellul. The only reason why we have the "perfect laws governing and binding all together" is because you are here to question it, so things cannot really be different. If they were, you wouldn't be here asking that question.
So the argument "everything works like clockwork so there must be a creator" is not really an argument. The truth is: "I am here so everything HAS to work like clockwork, otherwise I won't be questioning it", or simply put "everything works like clockwork".
Many other universes may have existed or may currently exist, where entities similar to us are being awed how their alternate universe works like clockwork, even though they have different laws of physics which for us would be far from perfect. They might also be asking the same questions we are asking.
Looking at it in another way: out of a trillion different universes that come in and go out of existence, we just happen to be in one of them with a particular set of physical attributes, which made development of life a possibility. Something so improbable as life can be created if the numbers are big enough.
Sam Mangion
Sep 22nd 2010, 20:20
thank you Mr. Calleja =D
Sabrina Borda
Sep 21st 2010, 19:56
Forgive me Mr Vella, you are right.
When you spoke of "scientists who feel they play God" and then and you spoke of "man in his limitations shouldn't play God" and you want "proof not speculation", my thoughts went directly to the way man does indeed play god and how right you are. Forgive me, Hawking was in the least of my worries. Your words effected me in a very real way, as I see it from the ones who do play the part of God that are at closer proximity effecting our very lives in Malta and the world.
One thing I know for sure is that religion and science do not mix too well. I believe in God as the creator of the Universe and it's emotional beings. Religion was invented by man. If God made the Universe and he really did also gave us religion, religion would have been faultless. My point was; it is not only scientists whom you think play God.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Sep 21st 2010, 23:22
Sabrina
You are so right
The logic of the heart is unerring; everything else reduces us to puppies chasing their own tails.
George Vella
Sep 22nd 2010, 04:16
Dear Sabrina do not worry I forgive you. Actually the title of my letter was 'Men Who Play God', and for some reason the Editor changed to: "The scientists who feel they can play God". I do not mind and I understand you, it is as you said that not only scientists play god.
Sam Mangion
Sep 21st 2010, 19:55
Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, he is renowned in the scientific community as a genius and one the great thinkers of our time. you are basing your opinion on him being wrong around simplified physics taught at an o-level standard.
To put this into perspective, its like explaining advanced mathematics to a child who just learnt to count to 10 - this is not an insult, I am no physicist and a lot of the details in these theories go well over my head - however since science is peer reviewed I would not be so arrogant as to assume my weak understanding of physics could possibly measure up.
The Big Bang Theory is a theory (hint is in the name), one among many - this is how science works, there is no dogma. There are theories, ideas, testing, and never ending attempts to disprove them so as to find the truth.
Contradiction in science occurs due to increased understanding and scientific techniques; improving technology and science allows us to confirm/disprove theories and ideas. If this did not happen, science would not be science but religion.
(1/2)
George Vella
Sep 22nd 2010, 04:43
Mr. Mangion You said: “If this did not happen, science would not be science but religion.” And I tell you that science based on speculations and not back by concrete and approved theories would be alchemy or magic. Any fundamental theories learnt at ’O’ level or university will remain theories. Can you or anyone disprove them? Further on trying to impress by your argument you mixed science with religion and led yourself out of context. Mind you Hawking should be constant.
Sam Mangion
Sep 22nd 2010, 20:33
The rule of science is that a fact can only be disproved - i.e. tests a million tests can support a theory, but a single test which doesn't, shatters it (this is not the case in religion, hence my statement).
My point regarding o level understanding must have been misinterpreted; at o level we were taught that the smallest possible forms of matter are electrons, protons, and neutrons. Studying beyond that level actually states only electrons to have this definition. Further yet at physics university level there would be mention of yet other elementary particles (e.g. quarks). So yes, o level "facts" are not necessarily facts, but basic ideas meant to be built upon.
In this case, other physicists would have reviewed his work, checked equations and god-only-knows what experiments to determine its likelihood.
Furthermore please do not misunderstand, I am not trying to impress - far from it. All I'm trying to do is present my logic - if you disagree with it, please give me your reasoning behind doing so.
Pule' Carmel
Sep 21st 2010, 18:45
Once I heard it said that the possibility of the universe, hence life, forming on its own circumstances is more than a few billion times as much the possibility of the printed Bible forming itself after a big explosion in an old printing press using isolated leaded letters!
GiovDeMartino
Sep 21st 2010, 18:01
DIK pruzunzjoni! Dawk kollha li qed jikkumentaw haw taht zgur li ma jifhmu kwazi xejn x'qieghed jigri f'dan il-meravilja ta kompjuter. U dan ghamlu bniedem....jekk ghallinqas ma sarx wahdu...u jridu jikkummentaw fuq l-univers....li zgur sar wahdu. Kemm jiflah ikun stupidu u supperv il-bniedem!
rgalea
Sep 21st 2010, 19:26
You would not have a computer at all if people did not ask questions and tried to discover why things are they way they are.
What is wrong with being amazed at the nature of our universe and trying to discover what makes it tick?
d cini
Sep 21st 2010, 19:29
ghalfejn qed issejjah 'il tant nies prezuntuzi? jaqaw mhux kullhadd ghandu dritt ifittex il-verita bil-hila tieghu? jew int tippreferi dawk iz-zminijiet meta il-maggoranza tal-poplu kienet temmen minghajr ma tifhem x'qed temmen? hafna whud minn dawk li int sejjaht 'stupidi u suppervi' huma nies normali li jmorru ghax-xoghol, ghandhom il-hbieb, ghandhom familja, ecc u li ghax ghandhom opportunita permezz tal-internet li jippartecipaw f'diskussjoni suppost demokratika iva ma jiddejqux jesprimu hsibijiethom. imma f'pajjizna xorta ghad hawn minn jahseb li hu biss ghandu l-verita u hu biss! dawn huma whud li llum jittimbrawk jew jghajruk, u f'cirkostanzi alternattivi anke jaharquk bhal ma kienu jaghmlu fil-medjuevu.
d cini
Sep 21st 2010, 19:49
U kif ikkonkludejt (minghajr evidenza!) li "Dawk kollha li qed jikkumentaw haw taht zgur li ma jifhmu kwazi xejn x'qieghed jigri f'dan il-meravilja ta kompjuter."? Il-kompjuter huwa biss gabra ta miljuni u miljuni ta swiccijiet (u partijiet electtroni ohra) li huma mibnija (configured) b'tali mod u manjiera li jkunu 'user friendly' permezz ta programming.
victor pulis
Sep 22nd 2010, 09:06
Sewwa ghedt li l-bniedem hu supperv. L-ewwel hjiel tas suppervja tal bnieem insibuha appuntu fil bibbja fejn hemm miktub li l-bniedem hu xbieha t'Alla. Tista' tkun izjed supperv minn hekk? Tant hu mimli bih innifsu li ghamel lilu nnifsu ic centru tal univers. Nies bhal Hawking igibna f'sensina u jurina li ahna m'ahna xejn hlief cellola fuq traba f'galassja li hi minn naha taghha hi traba fl-univers.
Alex Ellul
Sep 21st 2010, 16:07
@rgalea Re your comment: “As for evolution, no doubt you are aware of the famous Miller-Urey experiments that produced amino acids from simple organic compounds. It's a long way from amino acids to complex life but nature had a few billion years to get the mechanism going.”
The fact that it took a lot of super-intelligent chemists/biologists some 50 years of experimenting/trial-and-error/primordial-broth-mimicking to produce a tiny part of a section of a tiny strand of DNA means one thing: That it takes intelligence to produce this insignificance, let alone a DNA that is made up of a pogramme which is as complicated as the longest computer programme ever developed. Scientists cannot even explain the existence of the ‘junk’ DNA which constitutes 97% of the DNA itself, let alone declare that DNA is formed by chance. It’s like a teacher teaching biology to a class of pupils when this teacher can understand only 3% of the biology syllabus. If this is not arrogance, I do not know what arrogance means.
rgalea
Sep 21st 2010, 19:15
Is it arrogance to entertain the idea that life may be a spontaneous process?
Is it arrogance to try and understand why things are the way they are?
Was it arrogance to state that the sun does not orbit the earth?
Was it arrogance to dispute James' Ussher's claim that the world was created one day in october 4004bc?
Was it arrogance to entertain the idea that an atom could be split?
Sam Mangion
Sep 21st 2010, 20:08
I apologize for the long post but I would like to be thorough in a reply (please do read it and please ask me to clarify if I am ambiguous on a point)
1. The Miller-Urey experiments strove to see whether basic amino acids needed for DNA formation could have formed in early life. The experiment involved mimicking conditions on young Earth, adding the "ingredients" that would have been necessary (appearing on the Earth possibly via asteroid collision) and observing what happened.
The results were that amino acids, the building blocks of DNA, formed. This is not because the scientists tried to synthesize them, but recreated early Earth environment and let them form by the natural process which most likely occurred then.
2. Imagine DNA in this instance to be a block of lego. Now imagine 2 blocks of lego being better than 1 - therefore this double block now has an advantage. Keep adding blocks until you have a to actual scale house and you begin to understand how these simple amino acids can (and in all likelyhood did) form modern complex life.
(1/2)
Sam Mangion
Sep 21st 2010, 20:17
Now lets add a twist, imagine that the most important thing is that the house remains standing, aesthetics do not come into play. Along the way, some of these randomly placed lego blocks will not influence the structure whatsoever - neither detracting from its stability nor contributing. Thus they may remain or be lost over time because ultimately, they are insignificant. This is a strong possibility for the nonsense-DNA you are referring to.
A further possibility is that these nonsense building blocks were of importance in the past, but now serve no function - remaining once again, because they are not deleterious to the structure.
Finally I would like to clarify that the reality is not so simple, as scientists are discovering and furthering their knowledge on introns and their importance on a regular basis. If you don't believe me please visit Pubmed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and search for the importance of introns.
Again, please ask me where I have been unclear or if you see a fault in my logic/science.
(2/2)
charles caruana
Sep 21st 2010, 15:51
The question of why there is something rather than nothing is a strictly metaphysical and theological question. Any scientist with the slightest modicum of philosophical knowledge about the limits of his scientific discipline knows that science cannot and will never be able to answer this question, for it falls outside his scientific domain and competence. A fundamental principle of metaphysics (and incidentally, common sense) is that ‘only nothing can come from nothing .’ So Hawking is making a claim that is both scientifically unfounded and philosophically contradictory. As a scientist he may be brilliant, as a would be metaphysician he is rushing where angels fear to tread. I challenge anyone to produce here and now, without any fancy pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo , empirical evidence that anything except nothing can come out of nothing - especially those strident voices that are always demanding empirical evidence for the existence of God.
K J Vella
Sep 21st 2010, 17:54
First, What is the irrefutable evidence that there is a god or gods?
Second, You are wrong to state that scientists shouldn't make philosophical statements (read the Scientific Revolution by Thomas Kuhn) - scientists by their very assumptions make philosophical (metaphysical) statements, typically realist/positivist assumptions...Metaphysics is within the realm of science because only through such spelt out assumptions can theory and research proceed
charles caruana
Sep 21st 2010, 18:52
Mr Vella - first, sort out your confused ideas about the role and limitations of various fields of humanistic and scientific studies. Science and philosophy are distinct and separate disciplines, treating of different objects of study with different methods. Scientists, qua scientists, are not philosophers, unless they have had long and rigorous training in philosophical discipline, and vice versa. If they haven’t, and they trespass on each other’s expertise, they risk making fools of themselves. Second,’The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ ( correct title bdw)by Thomas Kuhn is a book about the history and transformation of scientific paradigms: it has nothing to do with metaphysics. Third, go and make a google search about what metaphysics is – you seem to have no inkling about what it involves. You seem to confuse it with scientific hypotheses. Fourth I cannot and will not give you any empirical ‘irrefutable evidence that there is a god or gods?’ for the simple reason that, as any half-baked village atheist knows, God’s existence cannot be proved empirically. Lastly , I repeat the challenge which you so studiously avoided: give me empirical scientific evidence that anything except nothing can come out of nothing .
alex marconi
Sep 22nd 2010, 12:57
@charles caruana
Your definition of "nothing" is at odds with the quantum definition.
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
charles caruana
Sep 22nd 2010, 13:52
Mr Marconi, my definition of “nothing” has nothing to do with quantum theory. It is a metaphysical concept, and as such the question that included it demands a metaphysical answer. this is the whole point of my posts.
Alex Ellul
Sep 21st 2010, 15:44
3/3-The only mathematical and physical proofs that we have all point to one single universe. Our scientists cannot even explain what 70% of the universe is made of, so they call it dark matter, but arrogantly they then claim that they can explain the existence of holes in our universe and the existence of other universes? They cannot even create a tiny sustained nuclear fusion reaction, the thing that keeps the universe going, let alone explain the cause of of it all.
Some scientists claim that the universe is Godless, then they go and act like one and pretend they are gods and we have to bow and make offerings (in the shape of taxes for the grants to keep coming and their pockets well packed ) in front of their images. Give us real cheap and clean energy first, so the poor can get arm in winter, then you can play around with your universes at your leisure.
Alex Ellul
Sep 21st 2010, 15:43
2/3-But with time, telescopes and other astronomical tools, the BB theory became an established fact, putting atheism in a quandary and putting theologians on a pedestal, so to speak. Therefore atheists were eager to find a hole in this theory though which they could circumvent the theory that the universe had a finite beginning. After so many tries at various theories, some scientists claim that they have discovered this hole, in more ways than one, that is, they claim that there is a hole in the universe which postulates the existence of other universes. So, there, you have a Godless universe, nay, more than one Godless universe, but a multiverse. Can I have a photo of this hole and of the other universes? I think it will take a while for someone to produce proof of such, maybe even till eternity.
/continued......
Alex Ellul
Sep 21st 2010, 15:43
1/3-Once, when Einstein was playing around with his mathematics, discovering the universe and its governing laws, he stumbled upon a result that that required that the universe must be expanding which went against the established theory of a STEADY STATE universe, but not only, an expanding universe means that it was once smaller and smaller and smaller and if one were to accept this fact, one also had to accept that the universe has a start time, a BIG BANG. So the great scientist decided that it cannot be so and therefore doctored his mathematical derivation (dividing by zero somewhere along his work) so as to show a steady-state universe. This proved to be his one and only major mistake in his outstanding career leaving the honour of discovering a continuously expanding universe went to Friedman, Hubble and the Catholic priest/scientist Monsignor Georges Henri Lemaître. This idea of a big bang found opposition even from great scientific minds such as Sir Fred Hoyle who could not accept a finite universe since, he argued, evolution needs much more time than 13 billion years (the age of the universe) for it to happen and reach the current stage of creation /continued......
Jesmond Micallef
Sep 21st 2010, 13:24
The "Primordial Soup". Indeed, a mixture with its own ingredients in order to get the taste buds excited !!. It may have been a big cooking pan indeed, but to spark off the ever mutating ritual, the process of life is, well, I do not relate that to pure coincidence. With regards to the billion years or so in order to get it all going, well, again, one era lead to another, a series of related sequential events.
Sometimes we even prove our forefathers wrong too. It took quite a while for someone to have a succesful go at Fermat's theorem only to be proven faulty, making intellectual evolution even slower then we think. Fiddle factors are also quite common in order to adjust our own mathematics so that it fits. Then again, apparently, not even one massive particle accelerator is enough, when the search is for one GOD !!
Humans have an everlasting search for understanding, perfectly in order, but tend to relate that to how insecure humans feel !!
keith Zammit
Sep 21st 2010, 12:04
The blunt truth is, there probably is no god, theists believe there definitely is one without proof and many people cannot beg to differ simply because religion is so brainwashed in them.
Geraldine Camilleri
Sep 21st 2010, 13:36
You say that probably there isn't a God - well how would you like to look at the point of view of Consciousness being the Backdrop of everything. True the whole idea of a personalised 'God' is manmade and used to control the masses, but one can only stand in absolute awe being surrounded by such beauty and magnificence all around us - and that is only what we can see with the naked eye, imagine what other dimensions and realities there may be that we haven't yet the beginnings of perceiving until our DNA (of which 95% is untapped, starts to evolve itself. Where we would be then !!! Maybe we are Gods in the Making ?
Visit our website: www.apositiveoutcome.org where 12 top International speakers will be tackling these questions, new human origins - and much, much more.
Sunday Times of Malta covered an article of one of our speakers Mr. Steve Bassett: forerunner in Disclosure of Extraterrestrial Life to all world governments and heads of states.
Keith Zammit
Sep 21st 2010, 20:04
Things happen by random occurrences nothing is absolute nothing means anything. its just a game of dice, some things stick some dont, were just a minuscule part of the system with no special significance. [at least we agree that a personal god shape as us is almost impossible]
As for the link you pasted, don't you think that someone like me would see such pseudo-scientific feat humours to say the least?
rgalea
Sep 21st 2010, 11:20
@ Dr.Francis Saliba
vacuum point energy allows for the creation of mass (energy ) from "nothing".Empty space is a sea of probability at the quantum level.
The big bang does not require something to go bang.It requires a dimensionless singularity.Because of the very nature of such a singularity it is meaningless to ask what was outside such a singularity.It is like asking what is beyond the edge of the universe .
As for evolution, no doubt you are aware of the famous Miller-Urey experiments that produced amino acids from simple organic compounds.It's a long way from amino acids to complex life but nature had a few billion years to get the mechanism going.
You may like to see the hand of a creator behind the complexity of the universe but calling people who do not share such a view "foolish" is at best disrespectful.
Geraldine Camilleri
Sep 21st 2010, 13:41
Dear Mr. Saliba,
we are organising an International Conference called "2012 - A Positive Outcome" where 12 top world speakers will be speaking about many of the topics which are covered in this blog, especially Mr. Steve Bassett, the No. 1 proponent worldwide who is bringing Disclosure of Extraterrestrial life to all Governments and heads of States. Another of our speakers is Mr. Lloyd Pye, researcher and geneticist who is turning our origins on their heads. He is the caretaker of the 'Starchild Skull' which is 900 years old and through latest DNA and Genome experiments has been found to be a hybrid of both human and extraterrestrial origin. This poses the BIG question - who are we REALLY and what are our True Origins?
Visit our website: www.apositiveoutcome.org where 12 top International speakers will be tackling these questions, - and much, much more.
Sunday Times of Malta covered an article of one of our speakers Mr. Steve Bassett: forerunner in Disclosure of Extraterrestrial Life to all world governments and heads of states.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 21st 2010, 17:11
@ S. Calleja
No scientist worth his salt would attempt to drag God into his laboratory to answer his questions. He would accept the limitations of science and its unsuitability for proving/disproving the existence of God.
who resorts to a concept of God to answer his questions is a very poor scientist indeed.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 21st 2010, 17:18
@rgalea
Do let me know when your “vacuum point energy” actually succeeds in the “creation mass/energy from nothing” – until then I remain unimpressed by your claim that this (Godless) creation would be “allowed” (not that it has actually happened) – and by whom was it allowed if not by God?
The quantum theory is just that – a theory vying for acceptance against Einstein’s relativity theory. You bandy about theories still under vigorous discussion – as if they were proven facts. I am just as unimpressed by “dimensionless singularity”. Please amplify – not by referring to search engines - otherwise I would conclude that you are dropping bombastic terminology without even realizing that you are quoting unproven theories.
As you admit, laboratory synthesis of simple amino acids “by man” is impossibly a “long way off” from the "spontaneous" evolution of complex life from inorganic matter. Allowing billions of years for this to happen by sheer accident is idle speculation – not science.
rgalea
Sep 21st 2010, 18:47
@Dr.Francis Saliba
Perhaps you appreciate that it is impossible to summerise in 200 words some very abstract notions.Should you like to know more about zero point energy, this article might shed some light:
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Actually quantum theory, or more accurately some predicted effects of quantum theory are used already in electronics.Josephson's junctions make use of this effect as does the scanning tunneling microscope.
http://www.nanoscience.com/education/STM.html
A dimensionless singularity is what is thought to lie at the center of a black hole.It is a region that is less than a planck unit of lenght in size and therefore unmeasurable.Black holes are the best candidates to explain why some stars are observed to be orbiting at velocities that should cause them to fly off.
Are you aware gps satellites actually compensate for time dilation as predicted by relativity?
this a fact.
I'll let the jibe about " bombastic" pass....perhaps you know a simpler way of treating quantum theory.
Quantum theory and relativity are pretty complex and aspects of both have been confirmed experimentally.
Let me know when you find conclusive evidence that inanimate matter was brought to life by a creator.
S. Calleja
Sep 21st 2010, 19:34
@ Dr Francis Saliba
That's exactly what I said. I appreciate you agreeing with me.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 22nd 2010, 05:14
@rgalea
You speculate: “ … nature had a few billion years to get the mechanism going …” meaning the spontaneous evolution of complex living organisms from simple amino acids. It is beyond human experience for a tree to evolve spontaneously and accidentally into a wooden box without the intervention of somebody. Surely you do not suggest that the passage of time, even of “a few billion years”, would ever overcome that insurmountable obstacle!
rgalea
Sep 22nd 2010, 11:43
You speculate: “ … nature had a few billion years to get the mechanism going …” meaning the spontaneous evolution of complex living organisms from simple amino acids. It is beyond human experience for a tree to evolve spontaneously and accidentally into a wooden box without the intervention of somebody. Surely you do not suggest that the passage of time, even of “a few billion years”, would ever overcome that insurmountable obstacle!
@Dr.Francis Saliba
Are you dismissing evolution?
Could you expand on how exactly you believe complex life forms came to exist? (I'm not being sarcastic ) I am honestly interested in reading your views on the subject.
thanks
Max Portelli
Sep 21st 2010, 11:18
I understand that what Stephen Hawking is saying may mess with the authors faith and so he might find that rather threatening, but trying to disprove Hawking or saying that he contradicts himself. I think if the author of this article really tried to understand what Hawking is saying rather than wanting to show everybody how brilliant he is (having an opinion about what Hawking is saying... WOW!) then this article wouldn't even have been published cause frankly Hawking is a genius and I don't think this guy has the... let's call it "intellectual competence" to comprehend what Hawking is saying and was rather presumptuous assuming that he/she did.
K J Vella
Sep 21st 2010, 09:22
The notion of god is a man-made creation: we have no proof that he or she exists. Looking at nature and saying that ultimately there must be a god is no proof of his/her existence - it is belief pure and simple. What Hawking says is that god and creation of the universe are not necessarily linked. In days of old the church claimed the earth flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Today we know better even though religion continues to claim creationism. The need for a secular approach to the natural world unfettered by religious claims continues to grow especially in the light of the claims made by people in this blog and by the author of this letter. The Big Bang is not a groundless assumption (the existence of god is an assumption or belief) but rather speculation based on scientific observation and continued research (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm). As far as I know, the existence of god has never been proven (or otherwise). And, the bible does not count as proof of his/her existence - an author's job is to convince!
Sabrina Borda
Sep 21st 2010, 09:01
Mr Vella I see your point that 'something can't come out of nothing' and it seems illogical to me too, but then I am not a scientist.
However I do not think that Stephen Hawking is playing God at all.
There are many simple men that play god all around us every single day. There are simple men who play at being god's representatives and actually believe that they are doing god's work and actually quote god's wishes or laws. And we should not be alarmed !!! There is no proof of this but speculation and pure fiction while yet on this premise they will stop at nothing to try and run our lives. They have killed numerous people in what they called god's name instilling fear in all to become a very powerful enterprise. Today thankfully they will not burn us for seeing them for who they really are....as mere men, as they promise us hell to come if we move out of line, which is outrageous and absurd. The fact is there is no proof here they have anything what so ever to do with God. And you are worried about Hawking's scientific research !
charles caruana
Sep 21st 2010, 15:11
@Sabrina Borda
Perhaps Stephen Hawking may not be playing God, but you certainly are. Predictably, you have managed to twist this topic into an unrelated hysterical attack on believers. In your omniscience, you are judging many believers, whom you dismiss as ‘simple men’, of playing at being god’s representatives and ‘and actually believe that they are doing god's work and actually quote god's wishes or laws.’ Among those ‘simple’ men there happened to be a Thomas Aquinas, a St. Francis, a John Paul II among many others, and obviously compared to you they were indeed ‘simple.’ From your lofty ex-cathedra throne you pontificate that ‘There is no proof of this but speculation and pure fiction’ If you are so certain that Christ’s revelation and the teaching of his Church are pure fiction, why don’t you use your complex mind and dogmatic certainties to start a world-wide movement to replace this fiction? We would be eternally grateful to you for the liberation from this ‘pure fiction.’
George Vellla
Sep 21st 2010, 17:16
@Sabrina Borda: I am not worried about Hawking scientific research, I think it was you who were afraid of me and took your pen out to write. You should have defended Hawking scientifically. Remember that I had a right to speak in a manner I did and with sense.
Sabrina Borda
Sep 21st 2010, 17:59
@ Charles Caruana.
The reality of what I wrote does not change because you do not like it. I do not need to start telling you that Jesus was a good and simple man, that he killed nobody to make people believe in him. The church on the other hand killed far too many people in the name of their god. Not what Jesus would have wanted. Long ago they started on the wrong foot. The Church instilled fear in whole populations for power-dictatorial style, nothing like Jesus would have wanted at all. I do not say this from a mighty pulpit as you assume. I do not need to, unlike many who enraptured with themselves to apparently speak on God's behalf. You do not need me to liberate you from reading any fiction you are free to read it all you want as long as you or the church do not force it on me because I prefer non fiction books of which there are millions more truthful and interesting. from them I have learnt that philosophy and religion do not mix too well, because philosophy looks for logic and truth -empirical or rational. Religion does the opposite.
David Seychell
Sep 20th 2010, 21:26
I think that those who ridicule religious people, for believing in a "2000 year old comic book" and "talking snakes" and so on, should consider that science is by far queerer than religion. For example according to science, time travel is a certainty and there is a small but finite possibility that your body is suddenly teleported on Mars, or deep inside the Sun's Core. Scientist now believe in the existence of 11 dimensions and parallel universes. In one universe Hitler won the war, in another Elvis is still alive and in another I am the current Pope. They also believe that there could be a way to travel from our universe to another parallel universe.
rgalea
Sep 21st 2010, 10:59
What exactly is your point?
Thanks
David Borg
Sep 20th 2010, 21:15
It is true that for the believer no proof is necessary while for the non believer no evidence is sufficient.
Many people of all cultures and times were and are believers. Most great philosophers were believers.
However the best evidence of belief is the dedication and good done by people of faith. Would Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II, and missionaries have existed without faith?
rgalea
Sep 21st 2010, 12:35
Evidence of belief is no evidence that the belief itself is fundamentally true.
The Egyptians believed in The Sun God and created a wonderful civilsation.Does that make the sun a divinity?
Same goes for the Greeks and other great cultures of antiquity.
As far as I know the Red Cross is a secular organisation, does it not work for the common good of mankind?
Certainly if it was not for faith , Mother theresa and Pope John Paul II would not have existed, but alas the corollary is also true.The crusades, the inquisition and the countless massacres perpetrated in the name of various religions would not have occured either.
GiovDEMartino
Sep 20th 2010, 20:14
Kemm hi kbira s-suppervja tal-bniedem! Il-bniedem, bil-limitazzjonijiet enormi li ghandu, il-bniedem li jfallilu sparking plug u jaqa' mejjet fl-art, il-bniedem li anqas kapaci jifhem ezatt kif jghix...irid jaghmilha tal-bully u jichad l-ezistenza t'Alla. Miskin! Jiccaqlaqlu naqra l-ilma tal-widnjen, jghidu, u jkollu jimtedd ghax inkella jmur ma' l-art. Temminx f'Alla, imma tghidx quddiem in-nies.
S. Calleja
Sep 20th 2010, 21:58
Nahseb iktar milli jrid jaghmilha tal-bully u jichad l-ezistenza t'Alla, iktar b'umilta' jammetti li ma jafx ghax jaf li mohhu ma jasalx, u jipprova jkun ghaqli billi ma jghaggilx ghal konkluzjonijiet fuq x'jezisti u ma jezistix. Wara kollox, kulhadd uman, u dak li nemmnu jew ma nemmnux fih nies ohra bhalna qaluhulna, u qatt ma tawna l-ebda prova hlief il-mod kif jghixu, li mhu differenti xejn in generali mill-mod kif jghixu nies ta' twemminijiet differenti, jew nies ohra ta' bla twemmin. Ghalija, it-tajjeb u l-hazin mill-bniedem stess johrog, u minn ebda Alla jew Xitan.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 21st 2010, 08:59
Whenever any scientist ventures outside his specialist field into theology he ceases to be an expert. Admittedly, science has definitely given a rational explanation for many phenomena that, prior to scientific discoveries, were attributed wrongly to specific ad hoc divine interventions. But these scientific discoveries did not dispense with the need for postulating a creator God. These discoveries actually strengthened the belief of other scientists. The gravity laws postulate the existence of “masses” on which to act. The “big bang” postulates the pre-existence of something to go bang. The theory of the evolution of species postulates the pre-existence of other species. Finally the harmonious complex interplay of so many scientific laws postulate the pre-existence of a knowledgeable planner and law giver, unless one is so foolish as to believe in the self creation of matter/energy and an unbelievable sequence of chance occurrences. I am a scientist and no one has yet convinced me otherwise. It is surprising how many atheistic lay readers of “science for the layman” prove themselves to be far more credulous whilst accusing believers that their belief in God is purely a matter of “blind faith”.
S. Calleja
Sep 21st 2010, 10:48
A scientist who resorts to a concept of God to answer his questions is a very poor scientist indeed.
charles caruana
Sep 21st 2010, 17:22
@S Calleja
Go and say that to the scientists who are believers and nobel winners in their fields. They would laugh you and your reasoning out of court.
S. Calleja
Sep 21st 2010, 19:32
@ Charles Caruana
Scientists laughing at those who require evidence to prove a concept? Din gdida. Wahda isbah mill-ohra.
Joe Zammit
Sep 20th 2010, 20:10
The existence of God is proved first and foremost by those who live day and night with God. When God is present before you, CONTINOUSLY, how can you say God does not exist? When God is communicating with you CONTINUOUSLY, how can you say God does not exist? Take conversions: Normally, a conversion takes place step by step. But there are also cases of sudden conversions. In the latter case, normally God makes use of one of the following means. Of course, these means are not exhaustive. God is infinite in his means. These means are: 1) a vision; 2) a strong spiritual attraction; 3) reading of one’s heart by someone else. This normally takes place not by seeing anything written on the heart but by telling the person what you have on your mind. This infused knowledge is put in your memory by God; and 4) an internal locution, where you hear an internal voice. You don’t hear it with your physical ears but internally. In all occasions, after the conversion, the converted person is led by God to the Catholic Church to be told what to do to strengthen his conversion.
rgalea
Sep 20th 2010, 20:55
Hearing voices might actually mean something quite different:
http://www.healthyplace.com/thought-disorders/living-with-schizoaffective-disorder/living-with-schizoaffective-disorder-hearing-voices/menu-id-1127/
S. Calleja
Sep 20th 2010, 21:52
This is very typical of Western, Christian/Islamo/Judaic spirituality, which attributes mankind's deepest philosophical questions to an omnipotent, omniscient being.
Move eastwards, and the situation changes completely. Here we have a situation were mankind is part of nature and nature part of mankind, and the two are inseparable. Mankind is accepted as is (no original sin), with all his human weaknesses, and no attempt is made to attribute self-thought or visions as coming from some supernatural entity. God, if you can call it like that, is the natural. The purpose of life would be to get as close to the natural as possible (rather than the supernatural), respecting life and all living beings as if they were yourself.
My point is, if you think that what you just said is universal, I'm sorry to disappoint you, it isn't. There are plenty of people in the world who believe in the total opposite of what you believe in with much more conviction that you believe in yours, and which are not more correct or less correct than you are. Truth, when completely unproven by evidence or facts, is entirely a matter of opinion influenced mainly by your country of birth.
John C. Polasek
Sep 20th 2010, 19:51
The title of his new book, "The Grand Design", (Orlando Sentinel Sep. 3, 2010) says that Steven Hawking is entirely impressed with the design (of the universe), but concludes that "all you need is a Big Bang". He should be asked to explain DNA, the code that defines every individual whose properties are encoded in each cell in the human body: the DNA molecule stores the code in 3 billion exquisitely arranged base-pairs, making up 25,000 genes. (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/faqs1.shtml). These base pairs intelligently rearrange themselves with each generation and every time a new cell is generated. The human brain has 100 billion neurons each with 5000 synapses. It is so totally fatuous for him to assert that this (and other) brilliant arrangements could result from just a Big Bang. He is a quantum physicist who should know that the principle of entropy totally contradicts his thesis. He is starting to believe in the quantum fables, and he is out of his element. John C. Polasek Sr.
rgalea
Sep 20th 2010, 20:26
@John C. Polasek I humbly suggest you look up entropy and understand it before making such statements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy If your interpretation of entropy is correct how do you account for the formation of very complex systems such as stars, galaxies etc from a quantum soup? Life evolved over aeons of time to reach the complexity we experience , just like everything else in the observable universe. I would hazard a guess that Hawking knows a thing or two about entropy and quantum physics......rest assured that the academic world would tear to pieces any supposed contradictions at least as far as entropy and the formation of complex systems. With all due respect, perhaps it is you and not Stephen Hawking that is completely out of his element.
Joe Zammit
Sep 20th 2010, 19:11
Atheists prove that God exists. And the more atheists try to convince others that God does not exit, the more they prove the existence of God. Everything in nature has a beginning and an end. So nothing in nature can be eternal. Nature exists, so nature claims her maker who is God. God cannot be created, otherwise he is not God. So nature proves God exists.
Kevin Cassar
Sep 20th 2010, 19:29
An argument is only valid if some living being can understand it. Yours does not fall into this category. If nature as you say, proves that God exists, you'd still need to prove it is the one you believe in and not one of the other thousand. "Atheists prove that God exists. And the more atheists try to convince others that God does not exit, the more they prove the existence of God." So we're actually doing Catholics a favour and you should be thanking us. "Everything in nature has a beginning and an end. So nothing in nature can be eternal." Oh so you are repaying our favour by admiting there is no afterlife! This article is based on a clear misinterpretation of Hawking. What Hawking actually said through his studies is that a God is not necessary for the existance of this universe. That does not mean that there is proof or evidence that there is no God.
rgalea
Sep 20th 2010, 19:47
Hey Joe You never answered as to your theological credentials.....perhaps you can answer as to what is your scientific background :))
rgalea
Sep 20th 2010, 20:03
interesting logic: "Atheists prove that God exists"...therefore it would follow that believers prove that God does not exist....can't you see the absurdity of what you are writing? You cannot prove everything has an end.Fundamental particles have been around ever since the universe cooled down enough to enable their formation and some do not show any signs of decay.For all we know they might literally last for ever. Nature does not claim anything.....nature is process and does not hold opinions . What you claim resides strictly in your brain and is the product of indoctrination. I suspect your grasp of nuclear physics is as rickety as your logic.
Patrik Larsson
Sep 20th 2010, 20:19
That sentence is quite an achievement to put together while sober.
Joe Zammit
Sep 20th 2010, 21:16
Willy-nilly, atheists mention God all the time. A- theos = no God, they say. But to express what they are, they have to mention God. Atheists prove the existence of God. They spend a lot of money to try to persuade others that God does not exist. If he does not exist, why are they so nervous about God's existence? Only because God does exist.
S. Calleja
Sep 21st 2010, 10:45
Well, to tell you that fairies do not exist, I have to mention fairies, right? But that does not prove that fairies exist. It's only an idea. It exists just in people's minds. If you cannot see this, then you're delusional. For delusional people, what they imagine and what's real is one and the same.
Pule' Carmel
Sep 20th 2010, 18:28
If the addition of two components can add up to nothing then the converse of that is that NOTHING CAN BE VIEWED AS THE ADDITION OF TWO COMPONENTS. so if we have nothing or ZERO can be formed through the addition of ( a) +(-a) where a could be anything whatsoever. So could the NOTHING THAT EXISTED AT THE BEGINNING BE MADE UP OF THE UNIVERSE WE KNOW OF AND ITS NEGATIVE WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSPERED TO ANOTHER SPACE AND TIME! Fathom that one out. Incidentally, I believe that before matter and energy existed there was something more important that existed which needed no matter nor energy and that was RELATIONS. It is through relations that the universe it what it is, and what I just described as nothing can be related to positive and negative components!!
Jesmond Micallef
Sep 20th 2010, 21:42
RELATIONSHIPS. Consider, an equation or indeed a formula. Its the orderly formation of "dimensions" which satisfies a particular end result. Newton, Euler, Corriolis, Keppler, Navier Stokes etc... "Dimensionless" relationships also exist, Reynolds, Froude, Strouhal, Grashoff etc.. The order is there alright !!
Karl Consiglio
Sep 20th 2010, 17:58
@George Vella,
No one is playing God, why does Hawking's research offend you? Is your faith not strong enough?
George Vella
Sep 21st 2010, 04:24
@Karl Consiglio: Hawking's research does not offend me or my faith, neither your brief comment. In fact it is my letter that has offended you. Please keep to the scientific line of thinking if you can handle it. From my scientific point of view I could not leave a pathetic scientist speculate and myself be one of his students! Please put your head where it belongs.
Carmel Cilia
Sep 20th 2010, 17:51
One late September evening some years ago While I was working in my garden at Ghajn Zejtuna I saw an old gentleman walking along our road together with his wife. On their coming out of the Junction I nodded to them and they stopped and picked out a conversation. I came to know that he was a retired Australian University professor and that he was an atheist. Trying to defend my christian belief of God I asked 'where would a person go when he dies' He answered in a very tranquil and calm voice- he would go to the same place he was in before he was born-. I was not expecting that answer, we shook hands but I was left buffled and troubled. Today many years later I still think about those words of his but one thing I never forgot - not to get involved in matters in which I am not qualified in.
Joseph Sammut
Sep 20th 2010, 17:28
With all due respect to everybody, we or most of us (as I do not know whoever submits comments to this paper) are far from being on the same level as Mr. Hawking. It is very hard to accept new concepts or theories because one feels that what he grew up with is being destroyed - so yes, one can understand most of the reactions to Mr. Hawking's latest book. However one must be brave and at least delves deeper than to shoot from the hip upon just reading a letter on an e-paper. If one is interested, one could watch on U-tube, the late Carl Sagan's TV series - COSMOS. This is a good serious series and giving it one's utmost concentration would help in understanding this delicate and difficult subject.
Frank Muscat
Sep 20th 2010, 14:27
"MAN, PROUD MAN, DREST IN A LITTLE BRIEF AUTHORITY, MOST IGNORANT OF WHAT HE'S MOST ASSURED, HIS GLASSY ESSENCE, LIKE AN ANGRY APE, PLAYS SUCH FANTASTIC TRICKS BEFORE HIGH HEAVEN, AS MAKE THE ANGELS WEEP". Taken from MEASURE for MEASURE.
patrick zammit
Sep 20th 2010, 14:13
"Please give me proof not speculation."
Yes, pls give me proof that god exists not speculation.
And, going on the same track this letter is going on, who created god?
Joe Zammit
Sep 20th 2010, 19:25
Asking for a proof is already a proof that God exists.
George Vella
Sep 20th 2010, 20:40
@Mr Patrick Zammit: If I give you proof that God exists and who created God, hence I am devine and another god! So I leave it up to you. God created you free.
patrick zammit
Sep 21st 2010, 13:41
Thought so, you don’t have a proper answer.
Stefan Vella
Sep 20th 2010, 14:05
You conveniently forget to mention that "god" is just as much a theory as the Big Bang Theory. There is no conclusive scientific proof for either one. However, a multitude of scientific observations have not yet disproved both theories. Faith is not a scientific observation. By its inherent nature, that is, blind belief, faith can lay no claims to any truth - at least to an educated mind.
Joe Zammit
Sep 20th 2010, 19:27
The best educated minds and the best scientists had and still have Faith in God. Nature, science and reason all prove that God exists.
George Vella
Sep 21st 2010, 05:09
@ Stephan Vella: “There is no conclusive scientific proof for either one” that is the Big Bang and God. We were just talking about speculations made by Hawking and this is not a matter of faith or religions. Now we simply know that matter and energy exist. Do you think that they simply fell from the sky? And do you think we can one day come to understand that Super Mind who created them? Sorry that we call him God, because a lot of humans cannot bear that name! Which human mind is that educated?
Edward Camilleri
Sep 20th 2010, 14:00
@As to the Big Bang, this is not a theory; that is something that can be proved, but a hypothesis which is a supposition made as basis for reasoning, without reference to its truth, or as starting point for investigation. A groundless assumption. Yes, the Big Bang may be a theory, maybe it occured or not. I do not think that anyone can be certain about this. Like many other things in life. But to discredit Mr. Hawking, a famous scientist, because you say he contradicted himself, is more baseless than this. People learn and thus change their opinion based on newly acquired knowledge. This cannot be said to catholics & other religious fanatics, they are stubborn and keep believing the same story that was fed to them over the years, obviously starting from newly born, so they are imprinted forever! Grow up, and ask questions, this way only you can learn!
renald williams
Sep 20th 2010, 13:10
Besides usual offer of posting free English New Testament and Christian Calendar,
will also post free booklet showing how scientists go wrong, when they do not follow rules of science. Write PO Box 9 Luqa LQA 1001 or email gospel@onvol.net or sms 79280325. Peace and health wishes to you all.
Tommy Lee
Sep 20th 2010, 13:06
The problem with Dawkins and all Evolutionists is what as I said earlier, they ignore the evidence.No missing link ever found maybe not until now. Perhaps evolutionists are the link between Ape and Man. Seriously, no evolutionist ever has or will explain why the billions of fossils found on earth do not provide some crossover between any species. This is the only true established fact (sic) that is available @M.Cashia for your notions of how life formed. God Haters will cling to any flimsy evidence simply to justify their Godless lifestyles. I fear for these people as Europe treads further toward Islamification. We all know what happens to blasphemers under Islam, you lose your head besides your mind.
Patrik Larsson
Sep 20th 2010, 18:58
Why do you keep spreading lies? Numerous missing links have been found. In fact, it could easily be argued that EVERY SiNGLE FOSSIL IS A MISSING LINK. Just open a book on the topic, before you post nonsense lies. I provided you with a link before, www.talkorigins.org, why don't you visit it and make up your mind after studying the actual evidence?
Bernard Cachia Zammit
Sep 20th 2010, 19:03
'Missing links' or transitional fossils have been found; examples Archaeopteryx, Cladoselache (a primitive shark), Homo habilis, Homo erectus... the list goes on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Science has proved that evolution is real and that creationism is false. As I said before, creationists lack the basic scientific knowledge and and try to disprove evolution through dishonest means like qoute-mining, making false statements, showing a clear lack of understanding when it comes to science. There has not been a single creationist who managed to prove creationism. It is just an attempt by religious extremists to drag us back to the Dark Ages. The theory of evolution is a fact as it has evidence to back it up. The "theory" of creationism has no evidence and any evidence that backs it up is often found to be either wrong, false, deliberately altered to suit the creationists' purpose or just plain invented, all of which are bearing false witness. Moreover, atheists are not God-Haters as you seem to imply. How can they hate God if they do not believe that God exists? How can they hate something that they believe it does not exist? Does not make sense, does it?
Joe Zammit
Sep 20th 2010, 12:15
Par.35 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church runs: "Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason."
Sebastian Hawkes
Sep 20th 2010, 12:04
@ George Vella: Therefore, if the matter which makes up the universe did not spontaneously create itself but always existed in some form, it did not need a creator either:)
William P Flynn
Sep 20th 2010, 11:50
George Vella, Stephen Hawking recently vacated his chair as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge. This presents a wonderful opportunity for someone; you perhaps? Tommy Lee?
George Vella
Sep 20th 2010, 21:12
@Mr William P Flynn: Many thanks for your suggestion that I should be offered a Professorship in Mathematisc, (and not in Physics), instesd of Hawking. Now you have showed me that you entered a cul-de sac, a blind alley. One can see that you have not even the least knowledge of science. Your comment was EXTREMLY pathetic, many thanks.
May I also remind you that I had retired from science before Hawking and happily to be a senior citizen and to meet the Divine and not trying to be divine myselfi
d cini
Sep 20th 2010, 11:43
If as it is quoted in the letter that
"We all know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed; the most fundamental law of physics. It can only be altered from one phase to another, say mass can be changed to energy and vice versa, but never destroyed or obliterated."
does not this statement defeat the purpose of the whole letter? If mass/energy is all there is, given the mass-energy transformations and that mass-energy "CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED", is it logical to call for a metaphysical entity?
@Tommy Lee
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
you may find this interesting
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 20th 2010, 12:13
It is energy, not matter, that cannot be created or destroyed. And it is not 'the most fundamental law of physics'. It's Newton's first law of thermodynamics.
David Seychell
Sep 20th 2010, 16:59
"does not this statement defeat the purpose of the whole letter? If mass/energy is all there is, given the mass-energy transformations and that mass-energy "CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED", is it logical to call for a metaphysical entity?" @d cini Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed by the insiders and not by the outsiders. God would be an outsider, that is, outside Nature and its laws. God, being outside Nature, does not have to abide by the laws of Nature, on the contrary, it is Nature that have to conform its laws by the will of God.
George Vella
Sep 20th 2010, 21:20
@Mr David Seychell: Congratulations, very well explained in very few words. You made a full stop to all arguments for I was limited in my letter. Thanks.
S. Calleja
Sep 20th 2010, 21:37
After reading this, the existence of Zeus seems to be more probable. At least Mount Olympus was (supposedly) a real place.
J Ellul- Sydney
Sep 20th 2010, 11:41
Stephen Hawking is a physically handicapped person. He would be dead in a few minutes after his parents found out that he was not normal. It was only due to human goodness through love by God that he is alive today. If he tries to think inwardly instead of outworldly, he might find God.
I respect his vast reasoning in science but he looks at life without seeing. It takes more than eyes to see God.
d cini
Sep 20th 2010, 12:19
If "It was only due to human goodness through love by God that he is alive today.", then what are those who did NOT make it are to say?
William P Flynn
Sep 20th 2010, 12:24
Stephen Hawking was a normal baby, boy and young man. A fun-loving happy healthy man he got struck by the terrible illness amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) when he entered university. (diagnosed at 21) ALS is a progressive illness. Stephen Hawking is neither angry at god for giving him the disease nor grateful to god for his survival so far. Like almost all the great thinkers, he is an atheist. He has survived as he is a treasure of science and it is science that is helping him to carry on. His incredible mind is living in a dud body that's all. He spends nearly all his time in the labyrinths of his mind.
Neil Dent
Sep 20th 2010, 12:36
So.....God prevented Stephen Hawking's parents from killing him at birth? How do you know this - did he tell you this personally? Is that your own outlook on those born with a disability (or in your words 'not normal')? Stephen Hawking's disability is nothing to do with the matter at hand - to suggest otherwise is purely backward thinking. And finally the typical blinkered, uninformed conclusion: Stephen Hawking questions God (or God's work), therefore he's obviously incorrect. He 'looks at life without seeing'. What utter nonsense!
S. Calleja
Sep 20th 2010, 14:43
Yes, it takes imagination.
Joseph Sammut
Sep 20th 2010, 17:18
I don't know if I understood you correctly so I might be mistaken with my comment: Mr. Hawking illness/condition became evident when he was in his mid-twenties. So what do his parents/still alive today, got to do with his brilliant mind and his research.
rgalea
Sep 20th 2010, 18:10
Hawking developed motor neuron disease when he arrived at Cambridge...ie in his twenties!
Christopher Xuereb
Sep 20th 2010, 11:40
I too would love were Stephen Hawking to be wrong. The inescapable conclusion is that we simply do not know and anything beyond this is mere speculation. Mr Vella commits the same mistake for which he criticises Hawking. "Man in his limitations should not play God as some few scientists want to do. Please give me proof not speculation." He presupposes the existence of a god when there is no evidence to suggest that one ever existed or might still exist. Even if the existence of a god is assumed (which in itself is speculative), to assert to know the mind of this god (as Mr Vella cautions that we should not play God) is really just fanciful and mere conjecture. His warning also implies that this god is handicapped by a rather fragile ego.
If immersed in conjecture is the existence and nature of a god, how plainly absurd then are the various religions which claim to know it?
George Vella
Sep 21st 2010, 03:33
@Mr. Christopher Xuereb: "man ... should not play God" is meant to be understood that man can never understands who God is, otherwise man would be divine, and we surely know that we have limitations and are not divine. Ask yourself Mr. Xuereb if you are divine. Can you explain to me anything beyond your limited knowledge and that of other humans? Do you think that one day man would be able to understand this 'super being'.
Apart from that you made a big mistake because you involved religions not science. Contrary to what you said no religions on earth claim that they know their God, they simply have a rational concept. I admit that I cannot give you proof of the existence of God but my concept is inborn for some reason or another. That what makes me rational and not without intellect like an animal, though I evolved from animals. Can you please explain this phenomenon to me. You can only do it if you claim that you are divine and hence a god! Feel free, and if you are a real atheist do not bother about gods!
A.Sacco
Sep 20th 2010, 11:24
One can say that Mr.Hawking has had a very bad deal in life (refer to his personal medical condition). On the other hand, one can say he has been lucky in being a gifted man (refer to his positive output in sciencic research). One can adopt any attitude one wishes: what (merciful?) god would dish out such despicable disadvantages in early life? (ergo rebellion and non-recognition of such a so-called omnipotent being). On the other hand, one can accept the "unfair" circumstances of one's life and concentrate on the positive side of things (thus adopting a happier outlook towards life in general, and happiness is God Himself. If Mr.Hawking lives a happy life, then he INTRINSICALLY feels/accepts that God exists within him, because one says many things in life which do not really reflect one's innermost feelings.
Pia Zammit
Sep 22nd 2010, 09:14
oh my dog! are you psycho-analysing Stephen Hawking?
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 20th 2010, 11:10
Talk about contradictory arguments:
"First I ask, how, if there was nothing, can the law of gravity exist?"
The same question applies also to God. If so many people are willing to accept God's existence, without any origin or even any reason to explain why he exists in the first place... then why not apply the exact same thought processes to the Universe, and accept that - like your concept of God - it does not need a reason to exist?
"Man in his limitations should not play God as some few scientists want to do. Please give me proof not speculation."
Again the same argument applies to religious belief. Please give us proof of the existence of God, and not speculation.
Jason Borg
Sep 20th 2010, 14:06
Like many other things, belief in God depends on faith and not proof.
George Vella
Sep 21st 2010, 04:53
@Raphael Vassallo: "... then why not apply the exact same thought processes to the Universe, and accept that - like your concept of God - it does not need a reason to exist?"
You just answered the question yourself, because as once there was nothing, that is matter and energy, then there was creation and both matter and energy came into existence as we know them to-day. But the most baffling question is who made them come about and when. I admit that in my limitations, and yours as well, I cannot answer that for I am no god or a super being. The only question I can answer is that just to-day I can both feel the matter and the energy. So there was a reason for them to exist. Technically you missed the boat.
Mark Thorogood
Sep 20th 2010, 11:05
@ Mr Vella "I am sorry to say that Mr Hawking is contradicting himself for in his book of 1988..."
Its called progress, and its how rational thinking works.
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" JM Keynes
George Vella
Sep 21st 2010, 04:06
@Mr. Thorogood: Of course this is progress, but rational thinking is meant to further that which is already established and to build upon for the common knowledge of human beings. To speculate is one thing and to theorize is another. For example I can hyphothesize that Malta was the legendary Atlantis, and then years later I would say that the Lipari islands were Atlantis, without in both cases giving proof to establish a theory. Don't you think this is nonsense and no true scientist would acknowledge me?
rgalea
Sep 20th 2010, 11:00
There is a huge difference between stating "God does not exist" and "God did not create the Universe"
Hawking is refering to quantum vacuum fluctuation that allow matter to be created "out of nothing".This vacuum energy exists and is demonstrated by the Casimir effect.
Quantum fluctuations are also resposable for the seemingly absurd notion of a black hole radiating energy.
Hawking is not playing God, he is trying to understand the mechanisms that might have started the whole process.He might or might not be correct, but at least he is trying.
You might also think the thousands of scientist at CERN are also playing god because they seek to understand the very fundamental aspects of matter.
This is not playing God. it's a quest to understand some of the profoundest mysteries in our reality.
With no speculation there would be no advancement.Sometimes it is correct and sometimes it turns out to be a dead end in scientific terms.
Ramon Casha
Sep 20th 2010, 10:51
Hawking says it is not necessary for a god to exist to explain the universe.
.
Probably, hundreds of years ago, someone said that it is not necessary for Zeus to exist to explain thunder and lightning. That person probably caused a bit of controversy too, but he/she was right.
Gerard Cassar
Sep 20th 2010, 10:41
Without going further than the second line referring to gravity, those who follow development in Science will tell you that it is being proven that gravity is an illusion. Look at Erik Verlinde from the Institute of theoretical physics of the Amsterdam University in the Internet, it is more clearly explained than trying to express ones views on Verlinde theory that gravitation is an illusion. Hence it annihilates any theory about the non existence of GOD. The non existence of God cannot and will never be proven. The opposite yes and very easily with a little thought without having recourse to formulae or calculations that by themselves prove God’s existence
rgalea
Sep 20th 2010, 14:56
Erik Verlinde's theories are exactly that...theories.Fascinating and tought provoking but theories nonetheless, just like some of Hawking's assertions. Until an empirical method is developed to test String Theory or Verlinde's notion of gravity being an illusion caused by entropy, the jury remains out. Nonetheless they are all useful in trying to unravel the profound mysteries of the nature of our Universe. I can't see what a different perspective on the nature of gravity has to do with the existance or non existance of a creator. God's existance cannot be proven or disproved...........It is not Science's call Science seeks to explain why things are the way they are . Invoking the existance of a creator because we cannot yet explain certain aspects of our universe denotes a failure of immagination and a lapse into superstition and magical thinking.
renald williams
Sep 20th 2010, 10:35
Good scientific quotes…
how, if there was nothing, can the law of gravity exist? Logically, if there was nothing, the law of gravity itself was not there either. So the universe could not have created itself from nothing. The law of gravity can only exist when there is a pull, and this pull can only come about when there is mass or energy, otherwise it cannot exist or show itself.
Anything spontaneous which may come about has to have the prime factors, otherwise this cannot manifest itself and remains in void and so in oblivion. We all know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed; the most fundamental law of physics. It can only be altered from one phase to another, say mass can be changed to energy and vice versa, but never destroyed or obliterated.
As to the Big Bang, this is not a theory; that is something that can be proved, but a hypothesis which is a supposition made as basis for reasoning, without reference to its truth, or as starting point for investigation.
Please give me proof not speculation…
Good prophetic quote… peace health
Kien [Jesus] fid-dinja, u d-dinja saret bih; u d-dinja ma gharfitux. John 1:10.
S. Calleja
Sep 20th 2010, 15:11
Your reasoning about cause and effect is very simple. If you had studied quantum physics you would have realised that subatomic space-time phenomena are anything but simple. Let me give you some examples: 1. Particles that jump from one space to another without actually moving through the space in between, i.e. they vanish from one place to reappear in another; 2. Particles that behave as in (1) but not following a continuous timeline, i.e. they might reappear at another position BEFORE they actually vanish in the original location, giving the illusion of being in two places simultaneously, but which are actually in separate timeframes; 3. Particles that work in pairs and control each other's spins with nothing in between, and which can do this faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, the maximum speed of information exchange known in the universe (that is, change of spin occurs simultaneously as if it was the same particle, rather than a controlled one). What is my point? My point is that you cannot apply such simplistic reasoning when attempting to argue about the existence of the supernatural without first having a very good grasp of the natural.
rgalea
Sep 20th 2010, 15:17
I suggest you read up about quantum vacuum fluctuations. The Big Bang IS a theory.It looks very promising but also has certain aspects that have no empirical proof.Inflation is perhaps the most important and controversial notion.Inflation is fundamentaly neccessary for the Big Bang Theory to be self consistent. The problem is that Inflation remains as yet a purely theoretical construct and there are no really convincing reasons as to why it should have occured, save that it works very well in explaining the structure we see now....13.7 billion years later. Don't really see how Jesus comes into all this.
Tommy Lee
Sep 20th 2010, 10:22
This supposedly intelligent Scientist always skirts around and sometimes completely avoids overwhelming fossil evidence of creation.
He is a 'God Hater', fashionable in the world today knowing his lifestyle along with millions of other God Haters is contrary to The Law of God.
Just for the record:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html
rgalea
Sep 20th 2010, 10:37
@Tommy Lee
What is the "overwhelming fossil evidence of creation" by direct divine intervention?
What do you know about Hawking's lifestyle?
God's law is totally meaningless unless you can provide proof of the existance of a creator
Bernard Cachia Zammit
Sep 20th 2010, 10:39
"Overwhelming fossil evidence of creation". What evidence? It is just pseudoscience invented by religious extremists, who lack even the basic scientific knowledge. By distorting facts and through qoute-mining (both are bearing false witness), they spread lies all in the name of God. There is no proof that creation occurred. Scientists have found evidence that evolution DID take place through the fossil record and the discovery of DNA had helped to prove evolution even more. These people who claim evolution never took place are scientifically illiterate and even an student with an O-Level in Biology knows more than they do. Do yourself a favour and learn proper science, instead of this "creation science".
Patrik Larsson
Sep 20th 2010, 10:39
Are you aware that Professor Hawkins is neither a biologist or a paleontologist?
For the people who are actually interested in the truth about your claims I suggest reading a proper book on evolution, or pay a visit to www.talkorigins.org for very detailed replies to every specious claim on your pet website.
Evolution is a completely accepted theory by virtually all proper scientists that studies it. Unfortunately an extremely biased fringe movement is growing and trying to discredit the untiring work of proper scientists based on ancient screeds and bronze age myths.
M.Cachia
Sep 20th 2010, 11:18
Oh dear Lord a Creationist - That link you posted is the worst sort of pseudo science I've seen in years, most of the stuff listed are blatant LIES.
Evolution is not a theory Mr. Lee it's an established fact. There can be no argument whether Evolution is real or not as much as there can be an argument whether the Earth is round or not (not that that has stopped the flat Earth Society).
Alex Ciantar
Sep 20th 2010, 13:26
@ Tommy Lee once a scientist steps on religious toes and proves otherwise certain facts with proof and hard evidence you religious freaks turn to ridicule yourselves out of frustration ...these are scientific studies that are being presented not some mambo jumbo out a 2000 year old comic book!!!!
Karl Consiglio
Sep 20th 2010, 10:19
Stephen Hawking is out to search for truth, I am sure he would have liked to find out that indeed God exists, but if he found nothing...
Tommy Lee
Sep 20th 2010, 10:33
If he is searching for truth why avoid/ignore evidence? (See my first post as it obviously did not register the first time around)
Truthseekers go with the evidence presented. In a court of law one cannot win a case saying evidence might one day appear.
Gerry Cowie
Sep 20th 2010, 11:10
............then he was probably looking in the wrong place or not looking hard enough! The fact that he claims to have found nothing does not mean there is nothing! Nice try, Karl!
George Vella
Sep 21st 2010, 05:18
@Karl Consiglio: Do you think that Hawking is a super being to find out that indeed God exists? You might easily find Him yourself ...maybe he is in your pocket without knowing it!