Non-existence of God, Hawking, Spontaneous creation, law of gravity

[bmamland88]

This question came to me during my reading of "A Brief History of Time" and learning of Mr. Hawking's statement of the universe arising spontaneously from chaos as a result of the law of gravity, which would preclude a God's role in creation. ABHT states that "one could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the Big Bang or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang". My question is: Is it possible to ever prove the non-existence of God if it is possible that God created the universe at any time from the Big Bang with the exact properties of spontaneous creation and the law of gravity?

 

[mathman]

God's existence is undecidable. Godel's theorem might even apply.

 

[James A. Putnam]

I don't know what God may be; but, I am certain that there is no answer to the cause of the origin of the universe until the existence of intelligence is explained without resorting to the unsatisfactory mystical veil of the fog of incomprehensible theoretical complexity.

James

 

[Drakkith]

If I'm not mistaken, you can never prove something is impossible, doesn't exist, or ETC. It only possible to say that we've never observed it happening, that it would break all laws of physics, or that we have no reason to believe that its possible. It's kind of the double edge sword of science. So many people take it as a failing of Science that we cannot disprove something.

 

[VeryEvilDude]

Well, Science is something that has to be proven on hard facts and gathered evidence. Nobody is claiming science is a law until it can be proven true. Unlike creationism which claims it's self true without any evidence. True, you can never really prove something 100% wrong at it's basic level. Though some things are just so ridicules that you shouldn't believe in them. Spontaneous creation is interesting, but I actually don't think it will ultimately prove how we came to be except for maybe the greater universe as a whole. Just this month their has been suggested theory and possibly evidence suggesting that we may in fact be in the center of a black hole and that we are not the only universe(though in that case multi-verse would probably fit better).

 

[chiro]

Usually if you want to prove something you have to either

a) Show a single case (or more) that contradicts said proposition
b) Show that case is true by exhaustion (assuming proposition encompasses a finite range of states)
c) Prove the general case logically

With regards to the above you can also do the following:

d) Assume that said proposition is false and arrive at a contradiction

In the realm of science the easiest thing to do is to cleverly do a). b) often won't prove something but it will instill confidence that something may indeed be true. c) is pretty much impossible at least at the stage of human intellect now.

Another thing to remember is that the scientific method is actually relatively young. Not long ago people use to burn witches at the stake, thought that the Earth (and sometimes themselves) were at the centre of the universe, and that the Earth was flat.

Deny it or not, we still possesses the same kind of thinking that we did back in the days of witch hunts, but thankfully not to the same degree.

There's a book by a Physics Professor at Tulane university (if he is still there) called the Physics of Immortality which is an exposition of how modern physics supports the ideas of immortality. I'm not a physicist though so I can't comment on its authenticity or soundness of argument.

I have however read a series of books called Conversations with God and there was something very interesting in that book. As a quick background to the series, there is a guy called Neale Walsch who claimed to have god communicate with him where he wrote down things unconsciously that God was telling him.

For the moment let's suspend our disbelief and listen to what he has to say and not "shoot the messenger" immediately.

There was something that he mentioned about what God actually is. Basically he said that God is an entity that divides itself eternally and comes into existence to experience itself.

What was actually interesting to me as someone who studies mathematics was what he said about the process behind the experience:

He said that in order to experience something, you need to experience something as well as its complement. So its like in set theory you have an experience and its complement within some universal set.

A conjecture based on what he said can be that God is essentially this being that is aware of the universe of all experience in which they (it?) choose to experience all that is based on the specific experience and its complement.

The argument he gave for the complement is basically the same idea as a fish not knowing they are in water until someone scoops them up and puts them on land.

Now whether the guy went through a religious experience, made it up creatively or not in his head, or is trying to cash in on vulnerable people is one thing. But some of the ideas in his series of books including this one in my mind is incredible and for the moment I will suspend my disbelief but at the same time not turn myself over to him (ie idolize)

 

[VeryEvilDude]

Though science is a process, it has long existed just not in terms we have always understood. I wonder what a person would think about an apple falling from a tree before it was observed by Isaac Newton. Would one simply say, oh that apple fell from the tree. Or would he actually question the process of how that apple fell from the tree.

 

[Drakkith]

Still, the thing is that you cannot DISPROVE god, especially when peoples view of god can change. I used to believe that god created the universe and made it follow all the laws in it. This wasn't the view that any of the major religions had, but simply my own view. I have since stopped believing, but you get my point.

 

[geophysics10]

ABHT states that "one could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the Big Bang or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang".?

Yes, you could assume that God precludes the Big Bang, but now you are just back to square one. What precludes God? Is it turtles all the way down?

My question is: Is it possible to ever prove the non-existence of God if it is possible that God created the universe at any time from the Big Bang with the exact properties of spontaneous creation and the law of gravity?

It is not enough to not disprove an idea, it also requires at least a sliver of evidence. A solid theory requires concrete evidence and rigorous testing. There are an infinite number of ideas which cannot be disproven, essentially because they are unknowable and do not fit into our reality. Often times common sense rules them out as fairytales.

 

[bp_psy]

God's existence is undecidable. Godel's theorem might even apply.

Do you think the concept of GOD such a well defined mathematical/logical concept that it makes sense to use that framework when dealing with GOD.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, you could assume that God precludes the Big Bang, but now you are just back to square one. What precludes God? Is it turtles all the way down?

You've confused the words preclude and precede.

'preclude' means mutually exclusive. 'God precludes the Big Bang' means 'If God exists, then the BB did not happen.'

'What precedes God' simply means what became before God.


What you meant to say above is 'you could assume that God precedes the Big Bang, but now you are just back to square one. What precedes God? Is it turtles all the way down?'

 

[geophysics10]

@Dave: Yes.

 

[VeryEvilDude]

I think part of the issue is that people keep on stretching the meaning of God because they seemingly don't like change. At first it was God Created the Heavens and the Earth. Though at that point in time the heavens most likely meant the star scape. Back in those days cultures believed that the stars would be were they went when they died(at least some of them did). Now they have expanded God to included the whole universe. Science has already proved that you don't need god to explain why we are here. As science expands, so does god. Simply put, the knowledge of God Expands with the knowledge of the human mind. So you can rule him out as all knowing. If one only new of God and then learned of science. He would either disprove him self(or rather, the knowledge of God). Or learn to incorporate the knowledge of science into his own personal belief systems.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think part of the issue is that people keep on stretching the meaning of God because they seemingly don't like change.

Odd. In the science world, when our current definition if something is inadequate, and needs to be modified, we consider that a good thing. :uhh:

 

[VeryEvilDude]

Odd. In the science world, when our current definition if something is inadequate, and needs to be modified, we consider that a good thing. :uhh:

As a CS major I agree, but one could quote Proverbs
30:6 NIV Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.


Edit: Of course I tend to avoid using scripture as much as possible since I'm an atheist :P.

 

[VeryEvilDude]

Annnyway, before getting into a religious debate let's move back on topic. Spontaneous Creation I think is a very novel concept. It'll take some time before people fully accept it like any great concept.

 

[DaveC426913]

Spontaneous Creation I think is a very novel concept.

You mean abiogenesis? Never understood why it's all that difficult a concept. There is a continuum from lifelessness to life by way of amino acids and nucleotides.