Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.

 
   
1 of 9
1
A Challenge of Reason to Stephen Hawking’s Rejection of a Creator
Posted: 13 August 2012 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  153
Joined  2012-08-10

Introduction

In August 2011 the Discovery Channel offered a new series called Curiosity.  The first episode was labeled simply, Did God Create the Universe and featured Stephen Hawking who announced   “… there is no God.  No one created the universe and no one directs our fate.”
Stephen Hawking is a renowned cosmologist, physicist, and a self proclaimed dreamer.  When a person of his stature chooses to reject the concept of a Creator, his words deserve our attention and a critical review with an open mind.  That is the purpose of this writing.  The review has been approached from the standpoint of logic and reason, and sets aside popular religious considerations.  Because this paper is devoted to a “critical” evaluation of Stephen Hawking’s finding, little is said about that large portion of the program which I found to be accurate, valuable, interesting, and very professionally presented.

The program touches on the issue of whether God controls the universe.  Creation of the universe and control of the universe are really two separate questions.  Few scientific facts are available to support a discussion of the latter issue and it is not the primary topic in the Curiosity episode.  In this paper I have chosen to simply not address the issue.  The focus of this discussion is limited to the question of divine involvement in the creation of the universe.  The answer to the question “Is God still alive and does he care?” is not to be found here.
 
Our scientists continue to make remarkable progress in the exploration and understanding of the universe.  Respective of such discoveries Stephen Hawking offers: “Each new discovery further removes the need for a God.”  In the eyes of others, each new discovery provides man with another glimpse into the mind of the Creator as man searches for a greater understanding as to the origin and design of the Universe and mankind’s role in it (if any).

While I take exception to several other points made in the aired presentation, this paper focuses upon the program’s cookbook for the universe, a novel setting for this discussion.  Accordingly, the following reflects the essence of content from an email sent to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) regarding possible improvements to his comic Cosmic Cookbook.

__________

“Stephen Hawking’s Cosmic Cookbook”

In an extraordinary oversimplification the viewer is presented with a cookbook for creating a universe.  Amidst a thick book of empty pages one finds only three entries, i.e., energy, matter, and space.  Then, by reference to Einstein’s famous discovery, matter is merged into energy which leaves us with only two ingredients for the universe, i.e., energy and space.

If the cookbook is to reflect a reasonably complete recipe for making a universe, it is missing a few things, for example, A] one additional essential ingredient (and greater specificity with respect to the others), B] preparation instructions, and C] serving instructions.  An outline follows:


A.  Ingredients

•    Space – number of dimensions and size

•    Time (the aforementioned missing ingredient) – beginning and end

•    Energy – electrical, thermal, nuclear, kinetic, gravitational, chemical, biological, magnetic, gas, oil, coal, wind, waves, etc.

•    Matter – atomic elements, sub atomic elements, molecules, mixtures and properties of materials as listed below:
o   mass   o   opacity
o   conductivity   o   color
o   states, e.g., solid, gas, liquid   o   density
o   viscosity   o   tensile strength
o   shear strength   o   hardness
o   magnetic   o   etc.
[A more complete discussion of the properties of materials appears in the book, In Search of the Creator by A.J. Marcout, an e book available from Amazon and Mobipocket.  This book includes the argument that the Creator anticipated the presence of intelligent beings on Earth as evidenced by an analysis of the properties assigned by the Creator to various types of matter.]

•    Electromagnetic Radiation Forms
o     radio   o   microwave
o   infrared   o   visibility
o   ultraviolet   o   x-rays
o   gamma rays

•    Laws of Nature
o   Combined Law of Thermodynamics   o   Faraday’s Law of Induction
o   centripetal force   o   Gauss Law of Electricity
o   Law of Reflection   o   Ideal Gas Law
o   Snell’s Law   o   Coulomb’s Law
o   Kepler’s Law of Periods   o   Barometric Law
o   Plank’s Radiation Formulas   o   Ohm’s Law
o   Ampere’s Law   o   First Law of Thermodynamics
o   Newton’s Laws   o   Etc.

B.  Preparation Instructions

Cook books usually provide preparation instructions immediately following the list of ingredients.  Think about the beginning of the Universe.  It would seem to me that the making of a universe would first require the introduction of space since nothing of substance can exist without space in which to reside.  Time seems like a sensible second step because nothing can exist, move, or change without time in which to be.  Time is so essential that perhaps it is indeed a fourth and integral dimension of space.  If things are to exist in space without chaos then controlling laws and forces must be established next.  We often refer to these as the rules or laws of nature.  With the scene properly established, energy and matter in a variety of useful types could be brought into the universe.  While scientists may poke fun at the simplicity of this version of how the universe could be launched, a stronger and more technically defined scenario would only strengthen the point that only an entity of the greatest talent and power could provide the ingenuity of thought and intense planning that would have to precede the physical creation of a universe.
 
C.  Serving Instructions

In culinary circles, a meal as magnificent as the universe should not be served by throwing it upon the table.  Planning is needed to determine goals and make arrangements for the orderly and effective distribution of elements.  In the instance of the universe our theories of the designer’s objectives are few and emanate from discoveries made mostly within our solar system.  We know for a fact that the Earth is unique as compared to other nearby heavenly bodies such as the Sun, other planets, moons, meteors, asteroids, etc.  Earth, unlike the other objects, has all of the items in the periodic table of natural atomic elements.  We also know that the Earth has enjoyed a position of hospitality for living things in terms of temperature and atmosphere.  We estimate that materials have been provided in sufficient quantities to fulfill the needs of life on the planet.  As a practical matter we know our portion of the universe is not the product of a random distribution like that which would occur from an explosion.  There are no known laws of nature that would have assured the existence of planet Earth 8 billion years following the Big Bang.  Only an unreasonable dreamer would offer the explanation that, given the infinite size of the universe, the planet Earth was an inevitable product of randomness.

Renaming the Cookbook

Given the amount of new material required to complete the cookbook, it would be appropriate to give credit where credit is due, to both parties, and rename the book to:

“Cosmic Cookbook
By
Stephen Hawking and the Creator”

Signature: Creator
_____________


Closing

This writer believes there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that an intelligent and powerful Creator deserves credit for the intricate design of the laws of nature, the definition and production of different forms of matter, energy, inherent forces, and the properties of materials.  It comes as a great surprise and disappointment that a brilliant scientist could ignore the presence of this evidence and proclaim to the world the non existence of a Creator.

Perhaps as a Freudian slip or as an intentional test of our powers of observation, Stephen Hawking added the ultimate bit of curiosity to the program with the closing sentence, “We have this one life to appreciate the grand design [emphasis added] of the universe…..and for that I am extremely grateful.”  On this point we are in full agreement.
 
Respectfully,

A.J. Marcout
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

 Signature 

When science falters, let reason and common sense prevail. AJ Marcout

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 07:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6455
Joined  2008-04-05

‘This writer believes there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that an intelligent and powerful Creator deserves credit for the intricate design of the laws of nature, the definition and production of different forms of matter, energy, inherent forces, and the properties of materials.  It comes as a great surprise and disappointment that a brilliant scientist could ignore the presence of this evidence and proclaim to the world the non existence of a Creator.’


Deductive logic based on a premise. Working backwards from the belief in a priori creator and filling in answers with speculation, assumption and opinion.

Extremely shallow and ignorant commentary.

 Signature 

‘The supernatural hypothesis is simply untestable and leads nowhere’

Donald Prothero

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 08:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1106
Joined  2011-12-09

Piffle.  Worthless non-sense.

 Signature 

The first thirty minutes of mockery are free.  Thereafter, normal rates apply.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 08:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9414
Joined  2008-02-15

Was that a Sham Wow infomercial or just shitty pointless preaching?

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
The Way of the Mister, Vol. 1: Reparative Therapy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6032
Joined  2007-12-19
Epaminondas - 13 August 2012 07:50 AM

Extremely shallow and ignorant commentary.

Second that. Science keeps pushing back the thresholds of intelligent design, lest they wouldn’t be able to speak in, not on, its terms.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6032
Joined  2007-12-19
GAD - 13 August 2012 08:24 AM

Was that a Sham Wow infomercial or just shitty pointless preaching?

Both, so far. Only time will tell if the guy also has the Charlie Tuna wannabe persistence of an N/A and TwistedSister to never leave. Looks hit and run, though.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3334
Joined  2005-04-29
InSearchof theCreator - 13 August 2012 07:35 AM

This writer believes there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that an intelligent and powerful Creator deserves credit for the intricate design of the laws of nature, the definition and production of different forms of matter, energy, inherent forces, and the properties of materials. . . .

You forgot to add: “. . . , because the writer believes in magic.”

Please correct me if I’m mistaken in any way, ISC.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 06:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  153
Joined  2012-08-10

To those who replied to my posting:  thank you for your interest.  I will strive to respond more specifically later, but first I could use a bit of direction.  Has the forum posted any comments regarding the validity of reasoning, positive or negative, in Stephen Hawking’s declaration that no God was involved in the creation of the universe?  I have conducted some searches but found very few references to an event which I would have thought would be regarded by forum members as a major event.

 Signature 

When science falters, let reason and common sense prevail. AJ Marcout

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 06:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6455
Joined  2008-04-05

It’s not a major event because other Physicists have said the same thing for a long time now. Hawking’s comments were discussed briefly here, as I remember, and I will try to find the thread, but this doesn’t surprise people here because for a long time we have heard scientists say this.

Hawking’s word is actually no greater than many others in his field today, he is just the most well known.

Lawrence Krauss just wrote a book this year called-‘A Universe From Nothing’

Victor Stenger has written many books about a Universe created with no god involved.

Read the work of Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Lee Smolin, Leonard Susskind, or any mainstream Cosmologists-Physicist these days and you will find no account from them of God creating the universe.

here might be the thread you are looking for-

http://www.project-reason.org/forum/viewthread/16188/

[ Edited: 14 August 2012 06:51 AM by Epaminondas ]
 Signature 

‘The supernatural hypothesis is simply untestable and leads nowhere’

Donald Prothero

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 07:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9414
Joined  2008-02-15
InSearchof theCreator - 14 August 2012 06:35 AM

To those who replied to my posting:  thank you for your interest.  I will strive to respond more specifically later, but first I could use a bit of direction.  Has the forum posted any comments regarding the validity of reasoning, positive or negative, in Stephen Hawking’s declaration that no God was involved in the creation of the universe?  I have conducted some searches but found very few references to an event which I would have thought would be regarded by forum members as a major event.

Stating the obvious is a major event?

What’s the counter argument; I just can’t see how it all started by itself and it’s so complicated, therefore it must be a god who loves me and care for me that did it. 

I suppose to anyone who finds comfort in such ignorance that any reason at all is a major event.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
The Way of the Mister, Vol. 1: Reparative Therapy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 08:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6032
Joined  2007-12-19
InSearchof theCreator - 13 August 2012 07:35 AM

Closing

This writer believes there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that an intelligent and powerful Creator deserves credit for the intricate design of the laws of nature, the definition and production of different forms of matter, energy, inherent forces, and the properties of materials.  It comes as a great surprise and disappointment that a brilliant scientist could ignore the presence of this evidence and proclaim to the world the non existence of a Creator.

Well, there you go. Since there is no evidence for it, ID is your belief. No where and at no time has any description, explanation or discovery of existence by science uncovered a hint of a Supreme Consciousness/Creator. Each discovery leading back to the formulation of the present condition of the universe has confirmed the opposite forcing you into the Deist position alone on the religious track. The only reason you are able to hold on to that, is that the verifiable explanation and natural preconditions for the Big Bang have not yet been discovered and demonstrated. The hubbub is not the time it took an individual to assert a Positive Atheistic proposition, it’s the quiet and low-key amazement of just how much we do know in a relativity short evolutionary blip of time of human existence. The same goes for the formulation of life. Indications are that it won’t be long before we can replicate the conditions for that natural event also. Likewise, the religious track has been forced into the Deistic position evidenced by the trend in evolution recognition. In other words, it’s the reason why you’re dropping that part of the discussion. Drawing a parallel to the required condition of our intelligence for replicating it is not apropos because it is not supported by evidence, unless your sole intent is to complete the metaphor that we are indeed Gods and that the Creator God is a product of evolution.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 09:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1106
Joined  2011-12-09
InSearchof theCreator - 14 August 2012 06:35 AM

To those who replied to my posting:  thank you for your interest.  I will strive to respond more specifically later, but first I could use a bit of direction.  Has the forum posted any comments regarding the validity of reasoning, positive or negative, in Stephen Hawking’s declaration that no God was involved in the creation of the universe?  I have conducted some searches but found very few references to an event which I would have thought would be regarded by forum members as a major event.

Why does this conclusion require an analysis of Hawking’s logic?  The proposition made is that god exists.  The burden of proof is on those who assert this proposition.  Nobody can meet this burden.  Thus, the conclusion is elementary.  Slapping down some of the popular assertions of creationists with science showing they are utterly false is merely icing on the cake.

 Signature 

The first thirty minutes of mockery are free.  Thereafter, normal rates apply.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 04:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5759
Joined  2010-01-29

If someone declares they are “In Search of a Creator”, they usually find one.

Good try, though. 

The existence or nonexistence of a creator is one of those “unanswerables” . Eventually, one must ask “Who created the creator?”, which is as imponderable as “The Universe has always been”.

 Signature 

Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6992
Joined  2006-12-17
saralynn - 15 August 2012 04:42 AM

If someone declares they are “In Search of a Creator”, they usually find one.

Good try, though. 

The existence or nonexistence of a creator is one of those “unanswerables” . Eventually, one must ask “Who created the creator?”, which is as imponderable as “The Universe has always been”.

One of the Kantian antinomies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6603
Joined  2004-12-24
saralynn - 15 August 2012 04:42 AM

If someone declares they are “In Search of a Creator”, they usually find one.

It is a rather presumptuous way to go about trying to understand what we can about absolute/omni-genesis. So yeah ... presuming the answer to a specific question (pretty arbitrary) is what will also answer such an open-ended question is guaranteed to create a problematic bias.

 

saralynn - 15 August 2012 04:42 AM

The existence or nonexistence of a creator is one of those “unanswerables”.

Although it’s always easily answerable when the “seeker” is “seeking” a given/particular deity.

 Signature 

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment.  Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”—Albert Einstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 08:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6455
Joined  2008-04-05

Sure. When one starts out with the term ‘creator’ it’s easy to validate or posit ideas of one.

A non-answer is the God answer. Unless and until the non-answer is answered naturally. Then the next non-answer is moved on to.

An intellectually honest person would be in search of truth or knowledge about the origins of the universe, not the ‘creator’ of it.

The decision has already been made, eh?

 Signature 

‘The supernatural hypothesis is simply untestable and leads nowhere’

Donald Prothero

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 9
1