Carmel Sciberras, Naxxar
‘Spontaneous’ creation
In his latest book, Stephen Hawking postulates the “spontaneous creation” of the law of gravity to explain the universe. This eliminates the need for God the Creator from the equation.
That’s it, then? QED.
Advert
Popular Stories
In Discussion
Advert
74 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Dr Francis Saliba
Oct 1st 2010, 22:49
@Etienne Laplace
It is not enough to postulate an indefinite eternal “cycle” when it is scientifically accepted that the cosmos did have a beginning in time and there was a time when it did not exist. Are you sure that the vague concept of “original singularity’ is not a ploy to avoid mentioning the word “God” at all costs?
Etienne Laplace
Oct 3rd 2010, 11:09
Dr. Francis Saliba
It is plainly not true that it is accepted that the universe was created at discrete point in time and that nothing existed before.
If you accept big bang cosmology the inevitable conclusion based on current knowledge is that there must have been a singularity.
A singularity in this field essentially means a dimensionless volume that has energy values tending towards infinity. Thus, speaking of time in this context is meaningless as there is no outside frame of reference. Time was contained within the singularity.There was no outside where an observer could take measurements.Even if we suspend disbelief and place an outside oberver with a stopwatch, he would not see any passage of time, much like what happens at the event horizon of a black hole due to the presence of gravitational fields.
The concept of a singularity is not a ploy, it is an inevitable consequence of current theories.You may like to dispute the validity of such theories, but then you would have to come up with something that provides an explanation for phenomena such as black holes or indeed provide an alternative interpretation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
George Vella
Oct 1st 2010, 03:18
If one can prove the existence or non existence of God he would also be a super being himself, because for no reason man can ever understand God. With scientific research it is becoming easier to understand matter, which originated from creation. Consider our limitations and keep in mind that nothing can come from nothing, so there must have been 'Someone' who created it.
rgalea
Oct 1st 2010, 11:15
It all depends on what you assume to a "super being" to be.
A Super being might have abilities that are far beyond ours but is not omnipotent.
You state categorically that "nothing can come from nothing".Once again it depends on what you consider to be nothing .
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
I am not suggesting that quantum theory ( and other theories) are dogma .I'm merely saying that there are alternative views of reality and thus one can not make absolute statements that are based on common sense derived from our daily experience.
George Vella
Oct 1st 2010, 16:19
@Mr. rgalea:
In the English language nothing means NO THING, that is something that never was!
As to a 'super being' I simply assume no version or vision because being God or another 'entity' I simply restrain myself that they are beyond my comprehension.
In a Maltese fable the uneducated farmer told the lawyer to put his head where it belonged when he commented about his blindfolded donkey going round and round the threshing mill, explaining that he has a donkey at the threshing mill and not a lawyer !
rgalea
Oct 1st 2010, 21:18
@George Vella.
You might be aware that the term "nothing" in physics has a different meaning to "nothing" as used in colloqial english.
Check out wikepedia if you must:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing
scroll down to the Science header.
George Vella
Oct 2nd 2010, 03:17
@ Mr. rgalea: Part 1
Since you were kind enough to refer to ‘nothing’ in Wikipedia I had to copy and paste for the perusal of the general public the following two statements from the said Wikipedia:
“Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimportant thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is used more specifically as the state of nonexistence of everything.”
“In mathematics, "nothing" does not have a technical meaning. The number zero is often used interchangeably with the term. It could also be said that a set contains "nothing" if and only if it is the empty set, in which case its cardinality (or size) is zero. In other words, the word "nothing" can be an informal term for an empty set.”
George Vella
Oct 2nd 2010, 03:19
@ Mr. rgalea: Part 2
“In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense either. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum.”
You were trying to undermine my contribution by quoting from Wikipedia, but as you can see I tried to quote all from Wikipedia for all to know. And by the way you scientific knowledge is very scant because you tried to fool the general public by asserting that in scientific terms both ‘nothing’ and a ‘vacuum’ are the same when scientifically they are completely different, but Wikipedia explained it so well for you.
rgalea
Oct 2nd 2010, 18:24
@George Vella
Do I detect some paranoia?
If my intention was to mislead I would not attach a link that anyone can follow!
I could simply quote something and not give any references.
Thank you for calling my scientific knowledge "scant".I will not respond to personal insults.
As far as I am aware we are discussing the possibility of spontaneous creation by means of a physical process as opposed to invoking a metaphysical entity to do the honours.
Where did I say that a vacuum and "nothing" are the same thing in scientific terms? It is precisly because "nothing" is not used in any technical sense that I gave the link!
What you seem to postulate is that the singularity ( if ever there was one ) was created by a supernatural being.On the other hand I subscribe to the view that we simply don't know and invoking the metaphysical lies outside the bounds of current knowledge.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 30th 2010, 12:54
2) Why! Signor Galileo himself recanted his claims because he decided 'that he would be not use dead'. On a TV program yesterday the new Labour Party leader Milliband declared himself an atheist. You see Gatt, in 2010, in UK, it is much easier to be an atheist and not cause an outcry or worse, risk being lynched.
@Wayne Bartlett. When the world implodes, that's when the Final Judgment will come to pass. In a few billion years from now. A long wait in Limbo I must say. But god is merciful and he will hasten the end. Thank you god. I cannot wait. You had the power to create this uni out of nothing and you have the might to end it at will. See you in the valley of 'the damned be damned' and 'the righteous follow me'. What a joke!! .
Joe Xuereb
Sep 30th 2010, 12:48
1) @Alfred Gatt. The world is beset by catastrophes. You divert the argument reminding whoever that men creates problems. But what about earthquakes and hurricanes? They kill and are not man-made. By your reckoning, they are god-made.
Mother Theresa did NOT even give pain-killers. She held hands and sent them off to Heaven. If I were dying I wouldn't want the woman anywhere near me. When I was at death's door the doctor/nurse helped me. The priest, hearing there was a Maltese patient on the ward, came visiting (everybody and his dog have heard what devout Catholics the Maltese are). I thanked the nosey priest for his interest, told him I was an atheist and he accepted that. We talked about the weather. And he came back because he liked an honest man.
Somewhere on these comment pages I said that Newton (a believer) and Darwin (a ditherer) were dithering because they lived in an age when religion still held sway. Believers get all smug claiming Newton was a believer. It was difficult to self-proclaim an atheist when all around was religiosity.
@Wayne Bartlett. You're right! the universe will eventually implode and end.
continued
rgalea
Sep 30th 2010, 10:34
@Dr.Francis Saliba
Once again.... stating God is not neccesary for creation of the Universe is not the same as stating God does not exist.
In it's quest for understanding , science must inevitably cross into territories that were considered off limits in the past.
The theories might prove to be correct or they might be consigned to the scrap heap of history.
Only time will tell.
In the meantime I'd rather keep an open mind and only discard a theoretical possibility when it is proven to be incorrect rather than base rejection purely on religious belief.
Wayne Bartlett
Sep 30th 2010, 12:00
@rgalea
So true.
Quote "In the meantime I'd rather keep an open mind and only discard a theoretical possibility when it is proven to be incorrect rather than base rejection purely on religious belief."
Allow me to add......"or on a superficial knowledge of the factual reality of the cosmos we observe."
Some of the creationist commentators seem to be oblivious to the fact that the cosmos is a violent , chaotic system that seems to be doomed to a slow heat death caused by it's very expansion and the inexorable march of entropy.
@Alfred Gatt
You have indeed dug yourself into a very deep hole.
Natural disasters have very real physical causes.The idea that God "permits" them is a construct of your brain and culture.
Are you also suggesting that the only motivation to help fellow human beings comes from Catholicism?
The Red cross, Medicines sans frontieres, Emergency, etc etc ......what motivates those people?
Dr Francis Saliba
Oct 1st 2010, 00:14
It is logical to continue to postulate that God exists even though the challenge to the existence of God is camouflaged as a milder allegation that his existence is not actually necessary. It is a scientific fact that there was a time when the cosmos did not exist it must have had a definite beginning, no matter how primitive. Pushing that event billions of years into the remote past, does not alter anything. At some time an external pre-existing agency must have brought iprimitive matter and energy into existence. Matter/energy that did not exist could never bring itself into existence!!
Etienne Laplace
Oct 1st 2010, 11:54
@Dr.Francis Saliba
What if the birth of our universe was part of a cycle that has been going on indefinetly?There would be no need for an external agency.
You will surely object that we have no proof and rightly so, but on the other hand we have no proof that the original singularity had not always existed or that some external force must have intervened.
The intellectual divide between your views and those that suggest there are mechanisms that would allow spontaneous creation is characterised by the fact that you consider your opinion to be a fundamental truth.
This is not science but faith.
Arthur Soler
Sep 30th 2010, 06:11
@Alfred Gatt:
Quote....."There are then the natural catastrophes that are not willed but permitted by God."
I think that you are digging yourself into a bigger and bigger hole. Why would a loving Creator permit natural castrophies, but not will them, that cause untold pain and suffering for millions and millions of people? Surely this omnipotent God has the power to subdue Nature at will. What possible motive might he have to witness his own creations suffer to such an extent? For example,could he not have stopped the genetic mutation of the Spanish flu virus that killed 80+ million people worldwide? I think that you ought to come up with better excuses for your loving God.
As for your reference that "the Christian sees God's love for humanity in the suffering Christ on the Crucifix." might I remind you that there are 4.8 BILLION people on Earth who do not believe in him. By your reasoning they must all be wrong and you are right I suppose.
GiovDeMartino
Sep 28th 2010, 18:30
Having such a powerful but cruel God, we'd better be more careful. Much more careful!
Karl Farrugia
Sep 29th 2010, 18:28
I'm scared!
Not of your vengeful and evil God who likes to order people to kill their children for breakfast, but from people like you.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 28th 2010, 15:09
2) Or did he replicate himself on each inhabited planet (if they too were made in his image, then they'd be like us. As there's only one god). The more I think about it, the more absurd it sounds.
I don't need Dawkins. Nor 'awking. Twould be nice for something truly concrete to be proven in my lifetime. I'd celebrate and wear a T-Shirt saying 'I told you so all along' and take another sip of that popular Maltese drink. Prolly won't happen in my lifetime,and that's OK too. And Saliba, who breathes in the rarified air of the upper reaches of Mellieha, and who ministers to people's aches and pains - but not mine - can keep his counsel.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 28th 2010, 15:06
1) DeMartino. Someone created the universe? Someone? like Ninu down the road? And he created us in his own image? No, rather we created Ninu in OUR image to make him graspable, give him credence. Thereafter, it was all spin. I once told a bible-reader that I'd created something (a painting, whatever). She corrected me and said only god can create. Fair enough. But even god, li jista' kollox (omnipotent) must have a tangible beginning. If he's not tangible, he has to be a force, a wind in which case the going back into infinity - no, it would still need a beginning. If he's merely a force, even an omnipotent force with a 'mind' hooked on design, it would still need material to work with. To me all this is something I cannot understand or begin to. I was never one for physics. But scientists are unravelling things and I wish them luck, genuinely. Something thing I cannot do is accept the implausible. One has to have the guts to ask questions and not be afraid of the exploratory answers. Most believers wouldn't allow themselves this freedom. It terrifies them. And I wonder why.
continued
Joe Xuereb
Sep 28th 2010, 15:05
If god is a 'man' with a white beard and admonishing finger, why would he create a universe and an earthly (only earlthy? and why planet earth out of millions?) species that he wanted to adore him for ever (the church teaches humility - this is hardly it). If on the other hand, god were a force, creating a universe and a species within it to adore it, the wind, forever - this certainly does not make sense to me. I guess it takes courage to delve this far (in fact, only the surface). At some point I must have decided I had nought to lose other than my soul. That, too, is part of man's spin. There ain't nothin' there. Nothing cannot go anywhere. See! and not a Darwin, not a Dawking, not even a Hawking in sight. Their intellect is way beyond my grasp. But I appreciate their value in a kind of nebulous sort of way. Rather them than some cleric telling me not to do this or that, otherwise....... Which is futile anyway seeing I don't DO said this and that, so that telling sacramental nosey-parkers, possibly abusive, my shenanigans, real or imaginary, is quite pointless.
Alfred Gatt
Sep 28th 2010, 14:40
@Arthur Soler
There is one thing you are forgetting about the miseries that abound in places like Africa and South America which are due to the egoism of the State. There are then the natural catastrophes that are not willed but permitted by God. Man is also endowed with freedom and is the cause himself of the many disasters that abound. Moreover, Science should be at the service of mankind but often it is misused. What about the millions of abortions - who brings these about?
God leaves us to look after people in need and that is on what we are going to be judged. Have you heard of Mother Teresa? What motivated her to do so much work among the poor of the poorest in India? It was her answer to God's calling. I would suggest you read her book: 'Come be my light' - this might give you a better outlook on God's love for those who are suffering and might help you see things in a different light. Moreover, the Christian sees God's love for humanity in the suffering Christ on the Crucifix. That's where we find refuge.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 28th 2010, 04:42
@RGalea.
I am not a cosmologist of any sort. But I know enough astronomy to conclude reasonably that the immense organised complicated and harmonious grandeur of our cosmos could not possibly be due to multiple chance occurrencies between energy/mases that created themselves out of nothing - it is agreed that our universe is not eternal and that it did have a beginning in time.
Karl Farrugia
Sep 28th 2010, 18:00
OK, let's say it had a beginning, and someone created it. Who created the creator? I know it's a common argument between religious and non-religious people.
What I cannot understand, however, is how easily some people refute a concept in a scientific context, but find no issues accepting in a religious one. I, for one, have no problem believing that the mass the Universe never had a beginning (i.e. it was eternal), and only formed into the current state through random occurrences. In a context of infinity, probability does not exist, and if something might happen, it WILL happen, thus explaining the "mmense organised complicated and harmonious grandeur of our cosmos".
M Bugeja
Sep 28th 2010, 18:16
"But I know enough .. to conclude reasonably..."
Sir, I am unaware of your particular field of expertise, however, could you possibly claim so arrogantly to have a deeper knowledge and understanding of the subtleties of the universe than the finest mind of our time?
According to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, there are 2.1B Christians, with the rest of the religions claiming a total of 4,767,700,000 people, over twice that amount.
According to you (and most Catholics), around half the world (subtracting islam from that total) is wrong. You do not offer an explanation of why and how they are wrong, or why their account of creation is invalid, you just insist that they're wrong. Furthermore, you insist that you're right, without any logical proof whatsoever. To add insult to injury, you refuse to acknowledge that there might actually be a scientific explanation, which transcends all religions, accessible to ALL mankind. Should such a solution be found, you would probably insist that it was your particular deity that came up with the whole thing.
Nevermind the thousands of other gods who are just as real as yours.
With all due respect sir, give us a break.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 29th 2010, 19:58
@MBugeja.
I do not claim any deeper knowledge and understanding of the subtleties of the universe "than the finest mind of our time" - as long as these "finest" brains confine themselves to their speciality. It often happens that they diverge outside the boundaries of their expertise and invade the territory of theology. Much more frequently atheists pounce on smart unproven emerging "theories" and misrepresent them as actual scientific proofs that God does not exist. That is when, in all humility, I point out the trickery of treating 'theories" as undisputed scientific proofs that God does not exist.
Arthur Soler
Sep 28th 2010, 01:28
@Alfred Gatt
Quote "......just think of how much God loved you, Mr Sciberras, by creating you".
Interesting comment I must say. God, if he exists, must love different people very differently. There are those like Mr Sciberras, who presumably have all the comforts that life has to offer, thanks to adequate prosperity and to the extraordinary advances in most fields of science. On the other hand there are, for example....
- about 6 million children in Africa yearly, who die a miserable death from hunger and disease.
- countless people who suffer from immensely painful incurable diseases
- Children born without limbs...or indeed "siamese twins"
- People in Haiti who died by the thousands due to an earthquake
- Tsunamis that drowned thousands of people
- Plagues that obliterated entire societies
- Viruses ( eg Spanish Flu that killed more that 80 million people in 1918)
- etc. etc. etc.
Perhaps you can explain the extent and intensity of God's love for these wretched millions of people that he created?
If you cannot, here's the perfect religious answer. We cannot hope to understand the mind of God...but he loves us and we need to have faith in Him. Right !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 28th 2010, 13:00
@Arthur Soler
The " ... perfect religious answer" is not your mockery. The "religious" man believes that the miseries and tribulations of this life on earth are only a trying prelude to the hereafter promised by Christ and that the oh! "so clever and so enlightened" atheists and unbelievers take pleasure in mocking and denying.
charles caruana
Sep 28th 2010, 14:51
Mr Soler,
When I would have seen you undergoing the same sufferings and passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and heard you, before dying crucified, forgiving and praying for your enemies, I might start accepting your views about God's love and suffering in this world. In the meantime, i shall stick to His. Unlike me, Mr Sciberras or even you, Christ knew the extremes of suffering, injustice, and misfortune. I suggest you start a world movement based on your 'realistic' views about God's love and see whether you might have the same impact on human history as Christ did. After all you are more educated and informed than a mere primitiveJewish rabbi. Good luck.
Alex Ellul
Sep 28th 2010, 22:16
May be He created you healthy and rich so that you would put some of your resources to help the:
-about 6 million children in Africa yearly, who die a miserable death from hunger and disease.
- countless people who suffer from immensely painful incurable diseases
- Children born without limbs...or indeed "siamese twins"
- People in Haiti who died by the thousands due to an earthquake
- Tsunamis that drowned thousands of people
- Plagues that obliterated entire societies
- Viruses ( eg Spanish Flu that killed more that 80 million people in 1918)
- etc. etc. etc.
It maybe helpful to remind you that it's people like Mother Therea and other faith-based missionaries who leave everything behind them to serve that section of humanity that is suffering as you said. Meanwhile, atheist dicatotors,that is, dictators who base their political theories on "religion is the opium of the people" and similar ideologies, have murdered/massacred millions upon millions of people globally. Suffice it to say that in Cambodia alone, the atheist/communist Polpot regime massacred 2-million Cambodians.
This does not prove the existence or otherwise of an intelligent creator, but it proves that without belief in one, society collapses.
Alfred Gatt
Sep 27th 2010, 20:38
I would suggest Mr Carmel Sciberras to read the book 'The Origin of Man' (Goya Productions) which refutes Hawkins work. This book has been compiled by 30 scientists who refute Hawkins theory. Mr Sciberras, just like all of us, needs God to keep him alive. He created us and one day we have to go back to Him. So do not delve too much into creation, just think of how much God loved you, Mr Sciberras, by creating you. Man will never find rest unless he finds it in God. Many have experienced this throughout the centuries.
GiovDeMartino
Sep 27th 2010, 19:58
Thallix mirja quddiemek Sur Alan Vella!
Jason Fenech
Sep 27th 2010, 17:59
I'm not sure if you read the book or not but rest assured that it’s a little bit more complicated then how you put it. You actually misquoted the following line from the closing chapter; “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" Trying to understand what this brilliant man is trying to convey in layman terms is personally much more fulfilling and challenging then the tiring unsubstantiated claims based on dogma and religious belief. At least read the book in its entirety before commenting.
GiovDeMartino
Sep 27th 2010, 14:12
Sad indeed when you see so many experts not only discussing but also pontificating on such mystery as the universe. Sad indeed! Why don't you all acknowledge our enormous limitations and stop questioning the great Creator. Whethet it was a big bang or not is immaterial. The nsimple fact remains that out of nothing Someone created the infinite universe.
Alan Vella
Sep 27th 2010, 17:16
Hawn min jiehu gost jghum fl-injoranza u hu kburi li qed jghum fl-injoranza.
Inkredibli!
Joe Xuereb
Sep 27th 2010, 13:11
@Wally Vella-Zarb. I was at the Lyceum middle 50s. The rRE instructor, a dominican priest afflicted with halitosis that knocked the mappamondo clean off the wall, told us 'if we're descended from monkeys, monkeys would have ceased to exist'. Go figure! Say that now.
Likewise, some get all smug about Newton being a believer and Darwin dithering. In a way they were researching in a vacuum, at a time when religiosity still held sway. Same can be said for the great minds laying the foundations for the Enlightenment. The still rampant religiosity reflected somewhat in their inner life as they were after all, human. Burning heretics at the stake was NOT that far behind yet. They were courageous pioneers. Likewise Galileo who reneged to 'I'm no use dead, so I'll play along...'. We live in different times now when news comes in all the time from everywhere. Lots of backup there. I cannot imagine Hawking and Dawkins dithering. Not in these times when Christmas is no more than an excuse for a booze-up. And I don't even touch the bloomin' stuff. I'm a good boy I am. Not given to addictions OF ANY KIND. Those I leave to insecure believers..
GiovDeMartino@Mr Gomez
Sep 27th 2010, 11:17
UI ma tarax Sur Gomez li jien miniex daqstant stupidu u pruzuntuz li nitkellem fuq dak li xi hadd holom li gara eluf ta'iljuni ta' snin ilu? Dak inhallih ghalikom.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Borg Delmarro
Sep 27th 2010, 12:17
Thank goodness your kind of mentality is not the norm.Evidently you think the big bang was dreamed up by someone who is stupid and arrogant.That alone says so much about your goodself.Seems you have no problem commenting without contributing one iota to the discussion.Why bother?
Mr.Gomez was actually quite right in censoring your use of punctuation.It is plainly pathetic to see how you responded.
You seem to be completely at a loss for arguments and thus resort to childish responses peppered with use of punctuation more suitable for some kids exchanging messages on facebook.
sad indeed.
Alexander Farrugia
Sep 27th 2010, 08:52
Of course, if you include the word 'spontaneous' in your argument of creation, then you can make do without a god.
But I thought that science always required everything to have a reason for why it happened. I don't know about you, but answering 'it was created spontaneously' to the question 'from where did gravity come from?' is not very scientific.
I admire Stephen Hawking's work, and I still do, but I think I do have the right to ask further: 'how does something be created spontaneously when everything in science has (or used to have, apparently) a reason as to why it happened?'
GiovDeMartino
Sep 27th 2010, 08:10
Nghir ghaliha l-intelligenza ta' dawn in-nies. Haw il-Mosta splodiet kamra tan-nar, l-investigazzjonijiet bdew dik il-minuta u sal-lum baqa' hadd ma jaf xejn. U jibqghu ma jafux. Kemm ahna njoranti. Imbaghad issib ohrajn li ghageb ta' l-ghegubijet jafu tant dettalji fuq il-Big Bang (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) li sehhet eluf ta' miljuni (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) ta' snin ilu. Kemm hu sabih l-gherf!!!!!!!!!
raffael gomez
Sep 27th 2010, 11:04
What a sad comment....do you think multiple exclamation marks add any weight to your ideas?
Please learn about basic netiquette.
Why don't you get off your horse and explain to us what your ideas are re big bang etc etc?
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 27th 2010, 07:19
I have deliberately avoided answering any replies to my comment. The reason should be obvious. It is not possible to discuss science with unprofessionals who think that they bemome scientifically erudite because they resort to Search Engines, click and paste extracts from them or indicate websites. They give no indication that they have actually understood anything. They accept as dogmas unproven current theories still under active debate from proven facts. They do not even comprehend that when a scientist provides a scientific proof for a natural phenomenon he is not thereby claing that he has proven that God does not exist.
wally vella-zarb
Sep 27th 2010, 09:36
On the other hand, the reason for not replying to comments could well be the (tacit) realisation that some of what was taught in science classes, especially physics, some sixty years ago is no longer valid. Knowledge proceeds at an exponential rate. Imagine the reaction today if one were to open a book like we had in Form I at the Lyceum back in 1958 and reads a sentence that claims "because life started with a man in a garden and not with a monkey on a tree"! Having already been exposed to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" at that early age, it made me smile; sadly, even today, there are still people who believe in fables...
rgalea
Sep 27th 2010, 10:13
@Dr.Francis Saliba
Are you a professional cosmologist?
If this is so, then your comment might have some justification.
If you are not, then you fall into the same "unprofessional" class that you use to describe other commentators.
I provided a link that explains how velocities are summed using relativity because it's impossible to explain the concept in 200 words.
Perhaps you can do the honours, or do you dismiss this aspect of relativity?
I personally do not hold any scientific law as a dogma.I merely indicated that Newton's law of gravity is an approximation by refering to the fact that it does not provide solutions for some real observed facts.
When science explains a phenomenon that was not previously understood it does not prove that God does not exist, it only demonstrates that divine intervention is not neccessary in order to explain that particular event.
You final remark about lack of comprehension should be addressed to specific contributors and not used to denigrate anyone that does not see eye to eye with you.
raffael gomez
Sep 27th 2010, 11:14
Since you seem to think other correspondents are cut and paste artists that do not understand what they are writing about, you could enlighten us as to YOUR understanding of the main theories that seek to understand the reality we live in. .Don't bother with Newton, as science has moved on quite a bit since those days.
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 27th 2010, 16:39
@WallyVella-Zarb Anyone with some claim to understand scientific subjects would know that the scientific "truths" of today are nothing more than the theories that fit in best with the experimental evidence available today. In due course they are modiied and refined so as to to fit in with subsequent discoveries. Many of today's scientific "facts" purporting (incorrectly) to prove that God "does not exist", or that his existence is "not necessary" to explain the universe that surrounds us, will predictably need to be retouched and modified. It is only blinkered atheists that subvert and misquote pseudo-scientific dogma as a definite proof of their unbelief. Genuine scientists do not due that.
George Vella
Sep 27th 2010, 03:42
@ Mr. Carmel Sciberras
Further to your unscientific contributions and assumptions you took it in hand just to publish a short letter (above) to impress the essence of the article published in the Times of 3-9-2010. May I ask where are you basic proofs? Copy and paste do not convince me. You do not offer tangible scientific arguments. As to gravity this can only exists, be felt or manifest itself if matter or energy exist. It is then a matter of simple reasoning that “spontaneous creation”, something that came out of nothing, could not come about by gravity when nothing existed!
Why may I ask that some contributors are trying to be so absurd and blind?
Joe Xuereb
Sep 27th 2010, 03:20
2) Or did he replicate himself on each inhabited planet (if they too were made in his image, then they'd be like us. As there's only one god). The more I think about it, the more absurd it sounds.
I don't need Dawkins. Nor 'awking. Twould be nice for something truly concrete to be proven in my lifetime. I'd celebrate and wear a T-Shirt saying 'I told you so all along' and take another sip of that popular Maltese drink. Prolly won't happen in my lifetime,and that's OK too. And Saliba, who breathes in the rarified air of the upper reaches of Mellieha, and who ministers to people's aches and pains - but not mine - can keep his counsel.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 27th 2010, 03:07
1) Quote: 'the renowned scientist Stephen Hawking investigates whether we might one day become the masters of time, travelling to a distant future or remote past'. Program yesterday on Channel 4. I'm not a scientist so can;t begin to accept this. BUT, whatever the origin of the Universe, whether it's known, or isn't(yet), or never will be. Who cares?! I was taught when still this high that 'Alla jista` kollox, Alla kien minn dejjem u jibqa1 ghal dejjem' (god is omnipotent and has existed since forever). Existed since forever?! Even an omnipotent god has to have some beginning and can't come from nothing. So the argument can shift to that. Exactly the same thing. So in the meantime, I'll sit it out. It makes no sense for a god, who is HUMBLE and BENIGN, to create a universe, create a species (what? only on earth?), dies for them and HUMBLY, promises them eternal bliss if they behave. If there are no people in his image on other planets, why where these other planets created at all? Merely as giant Christmas baubles maybe?
CONTINUED
Alex Ellul
Sep 26th 2010, 23:58
Whatever the cause, out of a 'nothing', of the visible and measurable universe we live in, wether it's 'spontaneous' creation, stupid creation or intelligent creation, it is always creation for the simple fact that the universe was created out of nothing. Previous to Time Zero, nothing existed, not matter, not space nor time. NOTHING. This has been proven mathematically and even Hawking himself agrees with this theory. The mathematics behind this theory reverses the expanding universe into a a contracting one, billionths of a second after the big bang, when mathematics breaks down and chaos takes hold during those few billionths of a second after the BB. Now, Hawking is postulating that before Time Zero, gravity existed in such a way that this gravity created the universe spontaneously. I can claim that I have a brain of my own, like Hawking owns his, and my brain tells me not to accept snake oil as a medical treatment nor gravity as existing when nothing existed.
Hawking cannot even explain 23% of the matter in the universe (dark matter) nor 74% of its energy (dark energy), but then he claims he knows how all this matter and energy got here. Humbug.
Martin Frendo
Sep 26th 2010, 20:03
I would say we all have our own theories and opinions, some sustained via scientific data. We talk about God that humanity have shaped and molded according to its creed, maybe greed at times. Yet we would like to add this concept of another Entity that seems to manage this world maybe this universe. Who knows?
Science is a dimension that we can truly say this equation holds through. But again it is a measured equation within its own dimension .the other option relies on historical events that became etched on stone and sealed as sacred. Yet it still remains within a given concept and dimension.
I believe we are on the threshold of another concept of dimension beyond science and religious believes. Man has evolved and will go forward. Lets keep it at that. Answers will be giving once we shed our Hides and uncover the next dimension of existence
GiovDeMartino
Sep 26th 2010, 18:33
I regret I am too stupid to discuss gravity, relativity, time and light, faces of attraction......etc. I leave such discussions to the Einsteins down below. I prefer to believe that Someone created everything w/o trying to understand what happened 3 billion light years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rgalea
Sep 26th 2010, 19:24
A light year is a measure of distance!
The best estimates for the big bang are 13.7 not 3 billion years.
Now feel free to pooh-pooh the figures, but at least quote current estimates and use basic scientific terms correctly.
You are free to believe in absolutely anything you like .
If you feel you should leave the discussions to other people why are you bothering to comment?
Your sarcasm directed at other commentators is totally uncalled for and belies a total lack of arguments
Albert Bezzina
Sep 26th 2010, 17:21
Our concept of the three dimensions of space and time is limited to that. To deal with the concept of God is to have to admit that His/Her (I prefer genderless) presence is not restricted to occupying our four dimensions (otherwise haven and hell should be in some far off or not so far off section of our Universe).
Increasing scientific knowledge and advancement are often hijacked by the God/No God debate. What ever for? If the existence of God is a matter of opinion (faith or no faith) let it be so. Those who do not believe should be happy with their opinion. Those who do, should also be happy with theirs. If anyone wants to change opinion let it occur, There is no need to shove one's opinion down any other's throat. Mutual respect is something that still needs to be widely practiced within any opinion or belief. The recurrent primordial goal seems to be convincing others to share one's opinion even at the cost of abuse.
renald williams
Sep 26th 2010, 14:51
Spontaneous creation is an old story,
the explanation some scientists wrote in the middle ages.
Spontaneous creation has been proven as unscientific, by the microscope.
My sms 79280325 offer for free English booklet about how scientists went unscientific,
is always available.
The elimination of the need for God the Creator from the equation,
is also an old story… peace health
the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. John 1:10.
Jean Azzopardi
Sep 26th 2010, 16:27
The Biblical creation story is even older. Peace and health.
Christian Sciberras
Sep 26th 2010, 14:01
Pule' Carmel,
You know where the web came from? CERN
Industrial refrigeration (stasis)? CERN
CERN has been doing bleeding-edge research ever since it started.
It's a collection of trained individuals, a scientific research hub.
...also happens to be the best we have so far.
I don't understand how people love the conspiracies like secret scientific meetings during the middle-ages and completely forget what's going on around here.
Oh, and as to the doom theory? According to people like Mr Reiff, we're supposed to be dead last year. Then ere comes to 2012 theory, and they postpone the expiration date.
GiovDeMartino
Sep 26th 2010, 11:19
Tibqghux taghmluha ta' l-ghorrief u tal-professuri l-ahwa gha x il-limitazzjoni taghna huma enormi. U ahna domna s-snin biex tghallimna li wiehed u wiehed jaghmlu tnejn u issa tridu tiddiskutu misteru enormi bhal holqien.? Tkunux pruzuntuzi ! Possibbli ma tindunawx?
Christian Sciberras
Sep 26th 2010, 14:14
Donni qed nisma il-Papa ta mitt sena ilu...
rgalea
Sep 26th 2010, 17:24
@ Giovedemartino
Perhaps it's high time you update what you learned at school.
Are you aware that in relativity velocities are not simply added up?
It's impossible to sum this up in 200 words, so the link below is included for your benefit
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
What is wrong with discussion and trying to find answers?
With no discussion and no attempt at improving our knowledge, we would still be living in caves.
C Gatt
Sep 26th 2010, 18:17
@Dr M Cachia, your words not mine
@Mr Pule, even not finding the God Particle would be deemed a success. Your cynical assessment of the Cern project is difficult to understand. Science is about asking questions for which we have no answers. The point of the project is that we don't know what we a will find. That is why it is called research. As for the government not having joined the project, more's the pity, it means that Maltese scientists have less chance of enjoying the benefits of working with other brilliant minds and allowing the country to share in the benefits of that project
@C Sciberras, just because we cannot understand something from nothing, or don't want to understand something from nothing at the moment, doe snot mean that there must be something
Christian Sciberras
Sep 27th 2010, 17:10
C Gatt - I can assure you science has traversed through even the most unorthodox ideas out there. Grab a piece of matter, it is *there*. Some theories state that it's existence is due to subatomic states. Other theories believe it is just a load of energy kept together by a special particle. But, it is definitely *there*, sure it could be virtual, an illusion, but even illusions exist. Anyone may want to believe that he himself doesn't exist, it's everyone's rightful opinion. How much that makes any argument *credible* is an entirely different matter!
Dr Francis Saliba
Sep 26th 2010, 10:53
The laws of gravity deal with forces of attraction between existing masses - this assumes the pre-existence of those masses. Hawkins should try to explain how he would postulate the "spontaneous" appearance of those masses on his "spontaneous" gravity acts and how this eliminates the need for a Creator. Hawkins should restrict himself to the solid facts of his astronomy without meandering into theology. Sir Isaac Newton, the discoverer of the laws of gravity was a firm believer in a Creator of a universe governed by the laws of gravity!
Chris Reiff
Sep 26th 2010, 11:14
Oh come on. Don't you realize that god is an excuse for ignorance? What created this? GOD. What created thunder? GOD. What is that shiny thing up there (sun)? GOD. Where did planet Earth come from? GOD. Ok, it came from the Big bang. What created the Big Bang
? GOD. Ok, it wasn't created by God, it was created by these particles. What created these particles? GOD.
While people like you always jump to irrational and illogical conclusions, scientists actually work to find out the real answer to these questions. They've debunked the God theory so many times, i wonder what happens in 2012 when Cern find the so-called 'god' particle.
Patrik Larsson
Sep 26th 2010, 12:17
You completely missed Prof. Hawking's point. He postures that after demonstrating that mass CAN come from nothing.
Further, we know now that Sir Isaac Newton - genius as he was - was actually wrong in many of his theories. His genius lies in coming up with a system lasting three centuries to be proven wrong.
C Gatt
Sep 26th 2010, 12:33
If Dr Saliba used his scientific analytical mind to read the sentence it says: Hawking postulates that possibility of the spontaneous creation of the law of gravity without the necessity of a God. He IS sticking to facts. He does not go into whether God exists or not. He simply shows that on this issue there is no need for a creator
On the other hand Dr Saliba's retort that Sir Isaac Newton, the discoverer of the laws of gravity (at least in the western world, the eastern world got there before him!), was a firm believer in a Creator. So what?
Pule' Carmel
Sep 26th 2010, 12:39
It will not!
Cern is a European project to employ people in the same manner as Mintoff employed people in Dirghajn il Maltin and other groups, when unemployment was rampant.
The only difference is the people at Cern are more qualified. I bet Cern one day will finish as an underground train station. Yes of course some particles will definetly be found to account for the expenses. But it will be the same as when Howard Hughes spent all that National Money on the SPRUCE GOOSE and then to exonorate himself flew it once at 70 feet for a mile and then landed where the SPRUCE GOOSE has remained in limbo for the last 60 years. Addmittedly it assisted research to build the Jumbos of today including the A380. The SPRUCE GOOSE is still the largest plane on earth and it was not built of spruce but ofanother type of wood which escapes at the moment. Europe is panicing in competition with the east, and so such projects are launched. Hitler incidentally launched the German Highways when he had a lot of unemployment. Incidentally Cern came to Malta to ask our Government to contribute to the finances to run cern!!!!!!
Dr. M.cachia
Sep 26th 2010, 12:58
I would just like to thank Mr. Reiff for calling me, my family and my friends ignorant. Cheers mate, nice to see that you are an accepting fellow of other people's beliefs.
Christian Sciberras
Sep 26th 2010, 14:13
@Dr Saliba -
@Chris Reiff - The thing is, whatever the amount of knowledge we gain, there is always a huge gap. How were we created? Big bang. What is the big bang? .
Let's do a little thought experiment.
I assume you agree with my earlier point that no matter what we can't know "everything".
So let's say that an event which caused a myriad other events finally caused the big bang, and for the sake of the argument, the initial event is completely paradoxical, beyond our understanding. One might conclude that that is God. The thing about the code theory is, it transcends down over time. God created certain laws, and a spark (perhaps some exotic particle). All this, after a very loooong time create us. But who is the creator?
In my understanding no matter the amount of scientific knowledge we gain, some things remain way beyond our understanding.
rgalea
Sep 26th 2010, 17:47
@Dr.Francis Saliba
Sir Isaac Newton law's are only an approximation of the real effects of gravity.Using Newton's laws it is impossible to account for the perturbations in Mercury's orbit.One has to apply relativity to account precisly for these observed discrepancies.
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html
Believing or nor believing in god has nothing to so with arriving at the correct conclusions.
In relativity gravity is a distortion in space time , other theories seek to explain gravity as an effect caused by a particle (the graviton) other still consider gravity to be an illusion (Erik Verlinde).what's your position?
Gerard Cassar
Sep 26th 2010, 20:52
DR F.Saliba. If you followed preceding articles on the subject of creation, gravitation and so on, you would have noticed that a certain Erik Verlinde from the University of Amsterdam has given proof that gravitation is an illusion. Look for the name of this scientist on your P.C. to learn more about the matter. His theory is better explained therein.
Ramon Casha
Sep 26th 2010, 10:34
Even if Mr. Hawking is wrong, there's a significant leap from "We don't know how the universe came to be", to "therefore God did it".
Alex Ciantar
Sep 26th 2010, 10:39
which god may I ask? there are so many!!!
Pule' Carmel
Sep 26th 2010, 10:33
See comments on" Mortals cannot create a God" Friday 24 th September for an interesting debate amongst commentators.