Stephen Hawking's did god Create the Universe discovery documentary

[Tanelorn]

I just saw Stephen Hawking's Did a creator create the Universe documentary on the discovery channel:

http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/space-exploration/did-god-create-universe-episode.htmThis really is one of the best documentaries I have seen on creation event cosmology.
Stephen says that a creator is not necessary at any stage of creation or even before the big bang. It is a zero sum game, positive energy in matter is balanced by negative energy in space itself.
Also Time slows down to zero and actually begins at the big bang singularity (as I suspected and asked here) and this breaks the cause and effect cycle that I personally have never been able to get past.
It means there was no time in which a creator could exist and no time for a creation to occur and the Universe was just a quantum size spontaneous creation event. Presumably such events cannot occur inside a Universe that has already began?I am not saying that I believe all of Stephen's interpretations, I need time to think, but I am grateful to find that someone is asking and answering the good questions that I have also asked here.

In this documentary he doesn't mention the multiverse at all. It is hard to believe that this one universe event is the only one. I interpret it to mean that this Universe is not cause and effect connected in any way to any other universe in the multiverse that he mentioned in his recent book.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't think one can hold a "god" to the laws of the universe, for they must surely exist outside of it to be able to create it. At least in some interpretations of a "god".

As for the "universe", we have defined the universe to be EVERYTHING that exists. All that there is and ever will be. In such a definition there is no such thing as a "multiverse". However, if one takes the view that the "universe" is nothing more than what WE can interact with and that there are others out there that we cannot get to at the moment, that is a different story. We have zero evidence that there is anything other than our one universe, so I wouldn't trust so much in the multiverse idea just yet.

 

[twofish-quant]

I get nervous when scientists start talking theology.

Stephen Hawking is a brilliant theorist, but his thoughts on the nature of God are no better than yours or mine. When talking about events at t=0, it's all speculation.

If you want another viewpoint, read something by Robert Jastrow. If you talk to a number of different theoretical astrophysicists about the nature of God, you'll find quite a bit of variation in what people believe. It's worth listening to Hawking's opinions on the topic, but one thing that you must not do is to assume that anything he says represents some sort of scientific consensus on the topic.

 

[Tanelorn]

thanks for replies. I mention the Multiverse because Hawking mentions it himself as another possible alternative to a grand design goldilocks universe we appear to have here at this stage in in its development.

I was actually more intrigued by the notion that there may have been no creation event at all for our universe, so no creator needed, intelligent or not.

 

[Some Slacker]

Ask a believer:
Where is it that God resides?

Some may point to the sky or simply say 'Heaven', but if you press most people you will quickly decide that Heaven is outside our universe (which makes universe not mean what you think it means).

It is I think the only thing theology has right, there is an 'outside' to the universe (or many).

 

[twofish-quant]

Ask a believer: Where is it that God resides?

Depends. Personally, I believe that God is in front of you, and if you can't see God in front of you, then looking for God at the Big Bang isn't going to help. It's strange because one reason I *don't* have that much interest in the Big Bang is that I happen to think that people who are looking for God there are looking in the wrong place.

Some may point to the sky or simply say 'Heaven'

Buddhists believe that God is inside of you.

"God of the gaps" doesn't work for me.

Again, I think it's interesting to hear what Stephen Hawking thinks about God, as long as you realize that he isn't talking science. I get annoyed when young Earth creationists mess with the boundaries between science and religion, but lately I've gotten equally (if not more annoyed) when scientists do the same thing. If Hawking wants to present his views on theology, that's fine, but if he wants to argue that his views are somehow *scientific* then he isn't any better than a lot of creationists.

Now Hawking hasn't done this, but Richard Dawkins has, and recently I've found this is bizarre but I've been siding with young Earth creationists on some issues. I was actually rather shocked to find that Dawkins has the beliefs that he does.

In any case, I try to avoid talking about religion on science forums, but I don't want people to get the impression that there is scientific consensus that "God didn't create the universe." There isn't.

And it's not something I spend much time thinking about, because I'm going be told the answer in a few decades anyway...

There are actually two theological experiments that I plan on doing...

1) I've decided that I'll do the "quantum suicide" experience at age 120. If "quantum suicide" is correct, then as I get older, more and more bizarre things will happen to me. I figure out age 120, that will be old enough so that I'll do the actual experiment.

2) there is the reading test. If I ever have a near death experience, and find myself in what looks to be like the gates of heaven (or hell). I'll ask for a magazine. One thing about the human brain is that it's apparently impossible to read in a hallucination or dream. If someone gives me a magazine, and the letters aren't "stable" that means that my brain has about six minutes of oxygen left before everything goes black. If someone gives me a magazine, and the words are "stable" that means that it's not a hallucination.

 

[Chronos]

Hawking's arguments merely restate the long held theological assertion that an omnipotent 'god' is unbounded by human logic.

 

[twofish-quant]

One other thing to point out is that Hawking is talking speculating about the science. We don't have any observations for what happens before the Big Bang, and what he has been saying is that "if the universe evolves in the way that I think it does then there isn't a need for a Creator."

The problem is that without too much trouble, I can come up with an alternate scenario in which we end up proving the existence of God. You do it by calculating the number of computations per second. I'm pretty sure that the cup in front of me isn't sentient, because there are no computations per second. You can take a look at my brain and compute the number of effective computations per second (and I think someone has done that).

Now it's quite possible that if you calculate the number of computations per second toward the early universe that it goes off the charts indicating that there was some sort of intelligence, there.

Or not. I'm making this stuff up. But so is Hawking.

 

[twofish-quant]

Hawking's arguments merely restate the long held theological assertion that an omnipotent 'god' is unbounded by human logic.

But one thing that I think is pretty funny.

Most religions now hold that the existence of God cannot be scientifically or mathematically proven. Religions hold this belief because some very smart people spent several hundred years trying to scientifically or mathematically prove the existence of God before giving up.

So you are a medieval scholar circa 1200. It's not obvious that you *can't* prove the God exists. So you try. By 1600, it becomes more and more obvious that it's not going anywhere, at which point you start having religions that turn a bug into a feature and argue that the fact that the existence of God *can't* be logically proved is a matter of "faith."

That sets up a nice division between science and religion.

However, it's pretty clear to me that Richard Dawkins is trying to break (and perhaps Hawking is also). Dawkins seems to believe that you can scientifically demonstrate the God doesn't exist.

 

[thorium1010]

Dawkins seems to believe that you can scientifically demonstrate the God doesn't exist.

I think dawkings knows that you can't scientifically test a supernatural hypothesis. What he wants to make clear is that a said event claimed as a supernatural event(ex. miracle etc.) since it occurs in our physical world can be scientifically tested.

 

[Chronos]

I think most of us are ultimately forced to admit, at least at some level, neither science or theology is absolutely right or wrong. Kind of reminds me of GR and quantum physics.

 

[twofish-quant]

I think dawkings knows that you can't scientifically test a supernatural hypothesis. What he wants to make clear is that a said event claimed as a supernatural event(ex. miracle etc.) since it occurs in our physical world can be scientifically tested.

I think he is going *waaayyyyy* beyond that statement. The argument he seems to be making (and I don't want to put words in his mouth or set up strawmen) is that "God" as defined by most major religions can be scientifically tested to be false, and therefore people that believe in God are delusional.

And then you get into the definition of supernatural. Suppose time travelers from 3000 A.D. go back to ancient Judea and use their resurrection rays. Would that be natural or supernatural? I can state that as a general principle, people don't rise from the dead, but if you try to advance that to an iron law of nature, you run into some well known philosophical issues.

This comes into conflict with Stephen Jay Gould's ideas on the topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

One thing that I do like about Dawkin's is that he is blunt. In arguments like these, one often tries to find a compromise by softening the claims or by redefining the terms or by agreeing to disagree. Dawkins is in a "take no prisoners, make no compromises" mood so, he isn't interested in this sort of thing.

 

[twofish-quant]

I think most of us are ultimately forced to admit, at least at some level, neither science or theology is absolutely right or wrong. Kind of reminds me of GR and quantum physics.

Then again maybe not. How do we *know* that science isn't absolutely wrong or theology isn't absolutely right? For that matter, what is "science" anyway?

Something about Dawkins and people interested in intelligent design is that they just won't make the problem go away. There was a compromise reached. Stephen Jay Gould talks about the compromise, but Dawkins is interested in burning down the compromise.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Hawking makes a useful thing, because the problem with creationism thus can be resolved.
Simply put, the current interpretation of the Creator (creationism), in general has nothing to do with reality.

Talk about God can not be an affirmative way. Physics has a certain limit - such as issues within the plank sizes - behind is everything is based on speculation, metaphysics, and freedom of interpretation, but it's all within a some kind of religion.

I only hope that Hawking would not become like the creationists and try to prove something about God. It is good that such an approach assessing the question of God is shown as worthless.

 

[Whovian]

I only hope that Hawking would not become like the creationists and try to prove something about God. It is good that such an approach assessing the question of God is shown as worthless.

I agree. Creationism being similar to "Last Thursdayism," (though less ridiculous-sounding to the average person) there's no way to disprove anything based on it, so trying to disprove it is pointless. Showing, though, that it's outside of the realm of science should be a good argument against calling it a science.

 

[twofish-quant]

I agree. Creationism being similar to "Last Thursdayism," (though less ridiculous-sounding to the average person) there's no way to disprove anything based on it, so trying to disprove it is pointless.

That's where knowing theology is useful. One advantage that I have in arguing with young Earth creationists is that I grew up a Southern Baptist so I know the theology from Sunday School. You can come up with extremely strong theological arguments against young Earth creationism.

One interesting thing is that it's hard to come up with a scientific argument against "Last Thursdayism" but Decartes came up with a theological one. I can't (easily) scientifically prove that Last Thursday existed, but I can argue that God just wouldn't create a universe that's overly deceptive.

Coming up with a philosophical argument that the universe exists Last Thursday turns out to be tricky. The closest thing that I've been able to come up with is that since I memory Last Thursday, it must exist, if only as a memory. The other thing that I've been thinking a lot about is what can I do *now* so that I can prove to myself in two weeks that now existed.

One other point is that our ideas of what constitutes "proof" come from logical positivism and that only came about in the 1920's. It's hardly the last word on the topic.

Showing, though, that it's outside of the realm of science should be a good argument against calling it a science.

But what exactly is the realm of science. Richard Dawkins and I obviously seem to disagree on this point.

One problem with this disagree is that it kills "social theories of science." There is an idea that "science is what scientists do". If scientists come to an agreement as to what science is, then we don't have a problem. We can look at the definition and "reverse engineer" it. But if there is any *fundamental* disagreement, then we have a problem.

 

[Whovian]

I would discuss religion a bit more, but that's what I would view as digressing from the original topic.

My view on what science is is that, at a bare minimum, it is rejecting any theories that go against observation, coming up with explanations on what the Universe tells us instead of us telling the Universe what to do and getting mad at it if it tells us otherwise. Consequently, to get any actual learning done, one must test any theories one has come up with to attempt to disprove them. There is no way to disprove a God, therefore, whether or not one exists is outside the realm of science.

This may seem like avoiding the question, but I view it as a logical implication of the nature of science.

 

[Tanelorn]

I agree. I don't want the thread shut down prematurely so let's leave God out of it and discuss whether anything, which is not a part of this Universe, and not a part of the laws of this Universe, is necessary to explain the fact that this Universe came into existence and exists now.

A God of unlimted power could have created this Universe exactly as is just 1 millisecond ago, or any other time, and put in place all the processes that are currently in progress including our own memories and observations. We choose not to accept this because it is not necessary to invent such supernatural forces when simpler natural explanations and alternatives are known to exist.

I believe Cosmologists can now explain all the way back to the very start of the BB and the quantum singularity with natural scientific explanations. However, since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity and an understanding of singularities, I suspect that we are rapidly reaching the point where theories at the first instant are almost as fanciful as alternative supernatural explanations.

Again the question of what is "the first thing" in the cause and effect cycle comes to mind, and whether it is necessary for the BB singularity event to have actually been created at all, or caused from something else? If the BB singularity is created from something else then is this something else outside of our Universe?

 

[Milan Nikolic]

That thing should be left to metaphysics, while physics should be interested only for methods that give results. So the story, such as Hawking's or creationists', have no purpose - are completely barren.

Discoveries in physics should produce concrete results to the progress of humanity - energy, technologically, etc. And does not need to tackle the issues of God's existence or nonexistence.

 

[Tanelorn]

I am not trying to prove/disprove Gods existence, just whether something unexplicable was required to produce the BB. No more mention of God please for reasons given. thanks.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Condition within the Planck size, is defined with an unknown spaceless and timeless entities. Science will probably never be able to affirm these things.

 

[twofish-quant]

I agree. I don't want the thread shut down prematurely so let's leave God out of it

Stephen Hawking started it.

The problem with not discussing God is that then you get into "silence equals agreement" problems. I have theological reasons not to talk about God, but if Stephen Hawking makes statements about God and the beginning of the universe, and I don't say anything, then that may get misinterpreted as assuming that I agree with him which I don't.

A God of unlimited power could have created this Universe exactly as is just 1 millisecond ago, or any other time, and put in place all the processes that are currently in progress including our own memories and observations.

That's something that I've been thinking a lot about. How can you show that the universe *wasn't* created 1 millisecond ago? Saying that it is unprovable seems to be to be giving up too easily.

The closest thing that I've been able to come up with is the Cartesian counterargument saying that this is irrelevant. Decartes pondered the issue of whether or not we live in a simulation (think Matrix), and his answer was that it's irrelevant. If we live in a simulation, then the simulation becomes "reality." Similarly if the universe was "created" a millisecond ago, then what we are investigating are those simulated memories.

Also, let's suppose that we have to assume that the universe wasn't created a millisecond ago. That opens up another question. What are the minimal assumptions that you have to have to do science?

We choose not to accept this because it is not necessary to invent such supernatural forces when simpler natural explanations and alternatives are known to exist.

But there's a problem...

One of the latest ideas in cosmology is the anthropic principle. We have a problem in that it appears that the constants of the universe are "random." There's no reason why the fine structure constant is what it is. One way out of this is to assuming that there are a huge number of universes, and we happen to be in one that supports intelligent life. At that point, Occam's razor gets really dull. I don't think that you can argue and assuming a large number of alternative universes is "simpler" than saying "God did it." You might be able to invoke another philosophical principle, but it's not Occam's razor.

Again the question of what is "the first thing" in the cause and effect cycle comes to mind, and whether it is necessary for the BB singularity event to have actually been created at all, or caused from something else? If the BB singularity is created from something else then is this something else outside of our Universe?

I don't think we are going to get very far with "pure thought." Medieval theologians (like William of Occam) thought about these topics for several hundred years, and they weren't able to get very far.

 

[twofish-quant]

Condition within the Planck size, is defined with an unknown spaceless and timeless entities. Science will probably never be able to affirm these things.

You give up too easily. Unknown is not unknowable.

 

[twofish-quant]

One problem with astrophysics is that you end up with lots of "unrepeatable" and "uncontrollable" events. For example, if you are studying solid state physics, you can put a piece of metal in front of a laser. See what happens. Put the same piece of metal in front of a laser. See what happens. Repeat.

You can't do that with the big bang, Also, if you do a table-top experiment, you can be reasonably sure that the rules don't change on you. You can't assume that for the big bang.

But you can still think through stuff and figure stuff out. Curiously astrophysics isn't the only thing in the world with things sorts of problems, and one reason I think that a lot of astrophysicists end up in finance is that a lot of the philosophical issues you have to deal with in describing the big bang are the same philosophical issues that you have to deal with in describing the financial crisis of 2007.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

You give up too easily. Unknown is not unknowable.

I agree. However, there is a danger that through philosophy, using breakthrough in physics, comes to some kind of religious belief, when also atheism becomes a kind of religion.

It should be understood that neither atheism nor theism should be a matter of science, and that is why I reproach Hawking for his outbursts. While on the other side, anyone can try through a combination of philosophy formulate fundamental questions of physics, only does not make sense is mention of God - because God always should be limited to the notion of belief and some religious community (including atheism), not to science.

 

[Tanelorn]

Thanks for very thoughtful replies. I am unable to add anything right now, but may be able to later.

Myself, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I actually believe as gospel anymore, as they say. I question everything I am told. In fact I sometimes even have trouble with the CMBR leading to the BB theory itself! There we are. One thing that I particularly struggle with is that the Observable Universe is small compared to the whole Universe, which may in fact even be infinite, yet the BB states that the whole universe started as a singularitiy!

Twofish Cosmology and High finance - what a combination. Apparently there is no unemployment amongst Astrophysicists!

 

[Drakkith]

One thing that I particularly struggle with is that the Observable Universe is small compared to the whole Universe, which may in fact even be infinite, yet the BB states that the whole universe started as a singularitiy!

It's important to realize that the singularity is most likely a result of our incomplete knowledge of the way physics works at the energy levels and densities of the very very early universe. When you do math and you start to come up with infinities it usually means you aren't using the right rules. I am of the opinion that however the universe came to be, it was not from a singularity.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Does this mean that the universe existed before the Big Bang?

 

[Drakkith]

Does this mean that the universe existed before the Big Bang?

We don't know. We are only able to observe the universe back to around a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. (Which isn't an explosion or anything like that anyways. It is simply the point in time that the universe began to expand and cool off.)

 

[Milan Nikolic]

But, isn't it inflationary cosmology go down into the earlier period of evolution of the universe? There talking about small parts of a second after the Big Bang.

 

[Tanelorn]

Twofish said, "One of the latest ideas in cosmology is the anthropic principle. We have a problem in that it appears that the constants of the universe are "random." There's no reason why the fine structure constant is what it is. One way out of this is to assuming that there are a huge number of universes, and we happen to be in one that supports intelligent life. At that point, Occam's razor gets really dull. I don't think that you can argue and assuming a large number of alternative universes is "simpler" than saying "God did it." You might be able to invoke another philosophical principle, but it's not Occam's razor."

Yes, I agree with this and suggested similar a few messages ago.

The Universe to me sometimes seems to be almost like a living thing, it was born, grows, matures and dies off. Perhaps there are some parallels to the Gaia priniciple?
Our Universe has an inherent capability of producing ever more deeper compexity, such as life itself.
We don't know how many levels of complexity exist on scales much larger than the Observable Universe. Our Observable Universe could be the equivalent of the microbe level in our daily lives.
Perhaps the physical constants which shape our Universe in a way to be able to create life are the result of something like evolution over many cycles?

All very well and good but it still doesn't explain "the first thing" what ever that was.Coincidentally Occam's commemeration day is actually on my birthday.

 

[twofish-quant]

One point that Hawking makes which I agree with is that when we are talking about events "before the big bang" we are talking about an era in which our concepts of time may make no sense. If there is no such thing as "time", then what does it mean to be "before" or "after" something? It's possible to mathematically define a universe in which time does not exist. It's also possible to define our universe within a larger "system" in which time does not exist and there is no such thing as "before" or "after."

It appears that Hawking seems to think that this is a theological argument against God. Personally, I think this is a theological argument for God. Again we run into a problem. If we were talking about helium abundances in the big bang, we would be arguing with the same philosophical rules. We aren't.

 

[twofish-quant]

The Universe to me sometimes seems to be almost like a living thing, it was born, grows, matures and dies off. Perhaps there are some parallels to the Gaia priniciple?

Then again I could be totally wrong.

There is a very practical reason I don't think about the Big Bang when I think about religious issues. One purpose of a religion is to tell you what you should do. Some beggar asks me for change, do I give it to him or not? Do I go to church or not? I walk past an open window in a tall building, should I jump out of it or not?

I've found cosmology and science to be a *terrible* foundation for this sort of thing. I don't have any clue what happened at 10^-52 seconds after the big bang. But I need to make important life decisions *NOW*. Also physics is uncertain. Without much difficult, I can come up with a great philosophical argument that I should shoot myself. However, I'd rather not do it, because I could come back after lunch and find a flaw in that argument, which case it would be bad if I actually shot myself.

Science is all about the unknown. It would be ridiculous to change my life every thirty seconds, as we find out that everything we thought we knew yesterday was wrong. And if I can come up with a religion or religious philosophy in which what happened at the big bang *doesn't* matter, then well, what happened at the big bang *doesn't* matter.

If it turns out that the universe existed for ever, then I marvel at the fact that the universe existed forever. If it turns out that it didn't, then I marvel at the fact that it didn't.

We don't know how many levels of complexity exist on scales much larger than the Observable Universe. Our Observable Universe could be the equivalent of the microbe level in our daily lives.

It could be. Or maybe it isn't. If we don't know, then we don't know, and if we don't know.

One thing that I find interesting is the rhetorical use of the "subjunctive". Someone says we don't know something, and then says "this *could* be true." This happens a lot in finance. Will Greece default? And someone says "I don't know, but it *could* default, and then spends a dozen pages talking about it." I've always wondered what that means rhetorically and linguistically.

Perhaps the physical constants which shape our Universe in a way to be able to create life are the result of something like evolution over many cycles?

Leo Smolin has suggested this.

All very well and good but it still doesn't explain "the first thing" what ever that was.

Why must there be a "first thing"? One thing that is interesting here is that we are also talking about the limits of language and of thought and of imagination. It's possible for me to imagine a universe in which time does not exist, and in which there is no "before" or "after" (Max Tegmark's paper outlines the universe). This brings up a mathematical question. Is it possible to imagine a universe that cannot be described, and I think the answer is yes.

Tegmark and others raising the anthorpic principle is interesting because at that point there are some pretty deep questions about thought. Tegmark argues that unless you live in a 3+1 universe, intelligence is impossible, which brings up the question of whether "intelligence" requires a universe in which there is a "before" and "after".

 

[twofish-quant]

Myself, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I actually believe as gospel anymore, as they say. I question everything I am told.

One important theological concept is "dogma". A "dogma" is something that you aren't allowed to question. Science considers "dogma" a bad thing, but I've found that "dogma" is useful in things outside of science. Why shouldn't I shoot myself? Well, I just shouldn't.

In fact I sometimes even have trouble with the CMBR leading to the BB theory itself!

One definitional issue is "what is the big bang theory?" and "what is the big bang?" Personally, I consider anything before the "pre-inflationary era" to not be part of the "big bang theory."

Also CMBR in some sense *is* the big bang. If you are looking at the CMBR, you are looking directly at the big bang. Something happened, we call that something the big bang. Now based on CMBR, you can infer a lot of stuff.

There we are. One thing that I particularly struggle with is that the Observable Universe is small compared to the whole Universe, which may in fact even be infinite, yet the BB states that the whole universe started as a singularitiy!

No it doesn't. You see the big bang from the CMBR, you ask what happens, and you can work out the details up until the inflationary era, and before that it's a big "I don't know". There are several models of cosmology (loop quantum gravity or the epryatoric universe) in which there is no singularity.

There is a terminology issue, because people often refer to the big bang to mean "event zero". I don't. I refer to the "big bang" as "that thing that you see that causes CMBR".

Twofish Cosmology and High finance - what a combination. Apparently there is no unemployment amongst Astrophysicists!

There are also interesting philosophical issues. For example, working in finance makes me doubt philosophical materialism. There is this idea that only material objects are "real". That causes people a great deal of difficulty when dealing with large sums of money.

 

[rbj]

i am really pleased that they haven't nixed this discussion. the moderators seem to do that just as it starts to get interesting.

I think he is going *waaayyyyy* beyond that statement. The argument he seems to be making (and I don't want to put words in his mouth or set up strawmen) is that "God" as defined by most major religions can be scientifically tested to be false, and therefore people that believe in God are delusional.

This comes into conflict with Stephen Jay Gould's ideas on the topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

One thing that I do like about Dawkin's is that he is blunt. In arguments like these, one often tries to find a compromise by softening the claims or by redefining the terms or by agreeing to disagree. Dawkins is in a "take no prisoners, make no compromises" mood so, he isn't interested in this sort of thing.

twofish, i think you're being very accurate in describing the position of the author of "The God Delusion".

and while i like Gould, i don't believe that his non-overlapping magisteria quite applies to some/many religious claims. there are certainly some religious claims that intrude upon the magiseria of science. probably the foremost is resurrection which is certainly something that should never go into a physiology textbook.

That's where knowing theology is useful. One advantage that I have in arguing with young Earth creationists is that I grew up a Southern Baptist so I know the theology from Sunday School. You can come up with extremely strong theological arguments against young Earth creationism.

One interesting thing is that it's hard to come up with a scientific argument against "Last Thursdayism" but Decartes came up with a theological one. I can't (easily) scientifically prove that Last Thursday existed, but I can argue that God just wouldn't create a universe that's overly deceptive.

Coming up with a philosophical argument that the universe exists Last Thursday turns out to be tricky. The closest thing that I've been able to come up with is that since I memory Last Thursday, it must exist, if only as a memory. The other thing that I've been thinking a lot about is what can I do *now* so that I can prove to myself in two weeks that now existed.

One other point is that our ideas of what constitutes "proof" come from logical positivism and that only came about in the 1920's. It's hardly the last word on the topic.

i've never heard of the term "Last Thursday" but i looked it up. interesting.

i've known since high school that theologically Young-Earthers were on shaky ground describing a Universe and Earth that was "created with a history". terrible explanation of the astronomical and fossil record. and really crappy theology.

The problem with not discussing God is that then you get into "silence equals agreement" problems. I have theological reasons not to talk about God, but if Stephen Hawking makes statements about God and the beginning of the universe, and I don't say anything, then that may get misinterpreted as assuming that I agree with him which I don't.

i've had this problem on this very forum that when i would pipe in, rather than remain silent, the thread would heat up and a moderator would kill it.

One of the latest ideas in cosmology is the anthropic principle. We have a problem in that it appears that the constants of the universe are "random." There's no reason why the fine structure constant is what it is. One way out of this is to assuming that there are a huge number of universes, and we happen to be in one that supports intelligent life. At that point, Occam's razor gets really dull. I don't think that you can argue and assuming a large number of alternative universes is "simpler" than saying "God did it." You might be able to invoke another philosophical principle, but it's not Occam's razor.

boy, it's refreshing to read this, twofish. and before they shut the thread down.