It seems to me that Hawking's critics are simply misreading what he wrote: there is indeed much ado about nothing over his comments.

He simply said that belief in God is optional at this point. God is not needed as an explanation of why the universe exists. One could push the question back further -- as Prof. Barr shows in the above post -- and ask where the multiverse and the laws that govern it come from. But that question ought not to be any more puzzling than the question of where God comes from is.

God will always be needed to guarantee an afterlife with divine rewards and punishments. In fact, this is now and has always been Her only job. It's the only thing She's needed for.

I was waiting for your response.

Thank you Dr. Barr

Hey Shelama, LOL!! You are indeed funny. I'm still laughing at your humorous comments. Keep it up!

Stephen Barr: "The atheist answers, “There is no explanation.”"

Let's be honest. The atheist answers the same as some theists: "We don't yet know or understand the explanation."

Even if one does tend towards an intelligent designer, why in the world would it be the Christian one? Perhaps the Big Bang was the result of an intelligent but imperfect designer and a less-than-wise experiment gone awry. It knocked Her senseless and She's not been right since. Among an infinitely large number of multiverses, each with an infinite number of bubbles, She doesn't even know or care about planet Earth and Homo sapiens sapiens.

There's no evidence in human life or history that God is not a Big-Breasted Lesbian Manic Depressive with Multiple Personality Disorder. There is evidence that all human religion and its gods and triumphalisms are man-made.

I knew such a rash challenge will not go unpunished... One wonders why an intellectual giant like Hawkins did not even bother to ask what philosophy has to say about this question of creation (If he asked St. Thomas he would have learned will sound arguments that even an eternal Universe or 'System of Universes' cannot rule out a Creator);or at least asked how to even ask the question using the right terms (as he has failed to do)...Why should one so well versed in theoretical physics fail to grasp the meaning of the concepts 'Create' 'Something' 'Nothing'?

I don't know why scientists (particularly physicists) make these forays into fields beyond their expertise (and I say this as a PHD physicist myself). I am reminded of Fred Hoyle and the Steady State Cosmology in the 1950's. Many astrophysicists, including Hoyle, were taken aback at evidence began to accumulate of a catastrophic event in the early universe, which eventually was called the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang sounded a lot like Genesis 1:3! So arose the Steady State Theory which avoided the big bang but compromised fundamental physical principles, such as the conservation of energy.

This is much the same. In the WSJ op-ed. the authors refer to the number of truly incredible coincidences that allow formation of matter, galaxies, and eventually, us. How to explain this? Why, by postulating an unlimited number of alternative universes, based on zero evidence!

So, I should not not burn the Brief History of the Universe yet?

One of the funniest stories in the Brief History book had to do with stacking turtles upon turtles upon turtles. And it is even funnier to hear this discussion of stacking universes upon universes upon universes. And so it really does seem like "equations may turn out to be an accurate description of some reality, but cannot "" confer reality on the things they describe. " ... it is only in the discussion of physics that I am not sure a double negative has been improperly used.

In his book "A Brief History of Time," Hawking acknowledged that science is unable to explain the prime cause of the big bang and declared that what happened at the instant of the big bang, how it happened, and why it happened belong in the domain of religion and not science. He argued that physical laws, as we understand them, did not exist in that primordial singularity that erupted into our known universe, and hence those first instances at and immediately following the big bang, during which physic laws were distilling, is beyond the reach of scientific explanation.

Now, he changes his tune, and suggests that he can explain what happened, how it happened, and why it happened in that primordial instant? Every meteor has a peak brightness, and then dims until it fades into a dark background.

Who would have thought that a physicist's (Barr) response to another physicist's (Hawking) poor understanding of theology & philosophy would prompt still another response--from a comedian (Shelama)!

More proof that God has a sense of humor (Bless Him)!

The phrase "big bang" creates a fiction, tells a story.

William,
Thank you for your choice offering of sarcasm. Delicious.
PeteG

Shelama:

Others are calling you a comedian, however I believe you're commenting in good faith. I recognize your views as I held ones almost identical for many years. As long as you remain fixated at what for lack of a better term is the "dry rational" stage of intellectual development then most of theology--and all of Christianity--will make no sense to you. This in no way means you are not an intelligent person -- I would wager you are probably very smart indeed. However matters in this realm move beyond mere ratiocination and enter into the most rarefied human capacities. It is beyond my ability and far beyond the scope of a message here to say much that will sway you, however it is not the case that you (like me in the past) have it all figured out and that these Christian thinkers are just relics of the past. I can't prove it to you, but I guarantee that the deepest Christian thought addresses metaphysical Truth at a much more profound level than anything you are currently capable of comprehending. You are free to call me whatever names you like and dismiss all this out of hand. I won't be offended. Been there, done that ;-)

I would hope though that you would have enough humility and self-respect to put some effort into learning more, for it would be a shame to get stuck in the shallows for life, as do so many smart people.

The author makes a rather absurd argument; not understanding the physics of cosmology he asserts:

"Right up front, it must be noted that this idea is extremely speculative, has not yet been formulated in a mathematically rigorous way, and is unable at this point to make any testable predictions."

The author's anisotropy is glaring. After all, is there any religious POV on creation that is "mathematically rigorous," not "speculative," or that makes any "testable predictions?" If those are really his reasons for believing in something, then he needs to join the atheistic community post hast!

The author's religion is simple superstition based on the writings of ancient Bronze Age Bedouins. The only reason anyone believes in these silly religions is because of emotion and/or tradition; Christianity and Judaism are absurd on their face. Worship Quetzalcoatl or Zeus for all the good it will do -- they are better gods than Jehovah, by a kilometer.

Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science"

Physics is not metaphysics but natural philosophy. It creates theories that must be tested against how the universe behaves. The best of the theories at meeting the universes behavior is not true but the accepted theory until the next theory replaces it. The new theories are based on String theory and 10 or 11 dimensional universes or space time manifolds. If you are a theist you have a theory that God created the universe and 1 experiment to back it up our existence. If you are an atheist you just feel that there is no God since God is an unnecessary addition to reality. Since if God always was, why not just say the universe always was, this works for the atheist. For the agnostic he is not sure and figures his brain is too small to every figure it out and it doesn't matter in his life anyway. There are too many examples of crazy religious fanatics to make it all pretty distasteful.
For me I am amazed by consciousness. I cannot imagine a universe without consciousness. A void without something to observe it is meaningless. This sort of says the universe and something to observe it[ a consciousness] are identical. This kind of fits with the idea of Quantum mechanics that nothing exists until an observer collapses the infinite number of possible outcomes of an observation by doing an experiment. The universe is ever unfolding in alternate universes as we move through our time line of space time. This is a multifold of what has been described as alternity. This isn't so strange since the reality of the universe appears to be just information contained in equations. Equations are ideas from a super consciousness that are somehow linked to human consciousness. For me this is God or a higher power. It is the space that contains all spaces, universes, altiverses, parallel spaces etc. It has always existed and always will.
Religion is the codification of the few mystics that have penetrated this consciousness and come home to try and relate it to ordinary humans. The ordinaries try and write it down, build temples and churches, write scriptures and eventually build big businesses that supply the priests with a way to make a living. Once the prophet is gone, all we have are the crazy religions and mass propaganda they produce. The universal consciousness is there for anyone who wishes to try and contact it, but this ability is a gift of genius and like an Einstein is equally rare.

Steve Macdonald, first, let's keep Stephen Barr honest: ...the atheist answers the same as some theists: "We don't yet know or understand the explanation."

Been there, done that. Probably have read, and do read, the Bible more than you. In the end, there's no reason to believe that any theologian or philosopher knows any more about god than I, the Pope or a DD brassiere. And no reason to believe they know any more about the intent of the authors of any text in the Christian canon than I do.

Even granting an intelligent designer, Christian theology is the most massive house of cards in the intellectual history of man. The Big Breasted Lesbian Manic-Depressive Multiple Personality explains more and explains it better.

"Dry rational" is only a small part of it. Metaphysical truth is pretty much what one believes it to be, is it not? Still, I treasure & embrace the spiritual. I just don't happen to find it in empty tombs, virgin births or bloody human Jesus sacrifice for sin (which, btw, is the answer to a problem that nowhere exists in the Hebrew Bible, nor for Yahweh Elohim, nor mankind created in His image.)

Call you a name? How about, "Sir"?

Duwayne,
Stephen Barr, professor of theoretical physics at Delaware doesn't understand the physics of cosmology...and you do? You can say farewell to Eden all you want, but I think your comment illustrates rather clearly the results of the Fall.

I got distracted by Duwaynes attempt to sell his book and forgot to tell Stephen thanks for a wonderful post!

Yo Duwayne,
Might I suggest that you read the entire article slowly before you cut and paste some lines, jump upon your favorite hobby horse, and sally forth with your glaring anisotropy in full view? Granted, I was edified to discover that you are indeed an author of a book, but methinks you were a bit hast-y. Yours etc.
PeteG

I just read what may very well be a cogent response to Hawking, a book called 'The Genesis Engima' by Oxford biologist Andrew Parker. Highly recommended. I think Parker answers some questions that Hawking doesn't even care to ask.

Mr. Duwayne Anderson,

In the first place, I think I do "understand the physics of cosmology", having written a number of highly cited theoretical research papers in the area. I note that you have a bachelors degree. I am not sure my Ph.D. and 34 years of research in fundamental physics compares unfavorably to that.

I called attention to the fact that quantum creation of universes is "extremely
speculative, has not yet been formulated in a mathematically rigorous way, and is unable at this point to make any testable predictions," simply because it is true, and I thought that readers should know the current scientific status of the idea. I did not mention this status to dismiss the idea --- quite the contrary, I said these were NOT reasons to dismiss it. As a matter of fact, I happen to think the idea of quantum creation of the universe very beautiful and plausible. If I had to bet, I would bet in favor of it. (But we who are scientists also happen to care how testable our scientific theories are.)

You seem to think that I am laying down as my "reasons for believing in something" that it be rigorously formulated mathematically and be able to make testable predictions. Perhaps that is your criterion of credibility, but it is not mine, and it is an idiotic criterion, as a moment's thought will show. I believe you are conscious and have subjective experiences. That is not a theory that can be rigorously formulated mathematically, and it makes no testable predictions. I think murder objectively immoral --- also not mathematically formulatable and no testable predictions. One could go on and on. Much that any sane person believes would fail that test. On the other hand, if one is talking about mathematical theories of physics, being rigorously formulated mathematically is an important thing.

St. Paul and St. Peter were not bedouins, and lived long after people like Aristotle, Euclid, and Hipparchos, whom I suppose you respect. Unless you are making some racial point, I am at a loss what you think you are proving.

How do you know that the "only reason anyone believe believes ... is because of emotion and/or tradition..." That is a might strong assertion. You claim to know how every single person who is religious thinks and his reasons for thinking it. Considering that you are attacking religion on epistemological grounds, this is pretty breathtaking.

Well, I guess that's all the fish in this particular barrel.

@mark
"But that question (the existence of the universe) ought not to be any more puzzling than the question of where God comes from is."

Au contraire Mark. The status of necessary being is quite different from that of contingent being. Contingent being necessarily points to necessary being, while necessary being points to nothing beyond itself. The universe is not necessary, yet the universe is: therefore God necessarily is.
There is nothing more mysterious than the mystery of being, yet there is no fact more obvious than the fact of the mystery of being. Stick with the facts, and eliminate what does not account for the facts, and you are left with God and necessary being.

Evidence, schmevidence. In a world without God the only thing that counts is power: the power to impose my interpretation of reality on the world and on other people. If belief in the Judeo-Christian God gives me power, then who's to say that it is good or bad, true or false? All who say it is bad or false are simply trying to impose their own interpretation upon reality, which is just as subjective, all one has to do is select the evidence that fits it. After all Shelama hits unwittingly upon an important truth: because of his threats of reward and punishment, the Judeo-Christian god provides the maximum power that any other god simply cannot match - afterall, he conquers death itself (something that even the Quranic god cannot do). Zeus et al. are merely wimps! The fact is that, for the atheist, the universe is meaningless and chaotic and vast. If we're so puny and meaningless ourselves, why should we be any closer to the truth today than those "Bronze-Age bedouins" (to use the oh so precious and coy Hitchensonian put-down that supposed to be an argument-stopper)? Why not believe in that which gives us power, whether from the Bronze-Age or not? Unscientifc? Immoral? Again, what is science, what is morality when all that counts is power? This is why, I believe, that Nietzsche has been about the only consistent atheist to have written on these matters.

This is somewhat long for a post, but well worth reading, especially as an antidote to the fatuous posing of one who signs himself Heraclitus and touts Nietzsche as, he believes, a "consistent atheist." (As if consistency was not the last thing Herr Nietzsche would have troubled himself with.)


In Search of the Ground

It is a great relief for a lecturer—you perhaps don’t know how much
so—if he can talk to people who know something about him. It is
difficult, sometimes, to deliver a lecture in a foreign city and not
know to whom one is talking, orwhat these people will think of
every sentence, or whether they will misunderstand; but I feel very
much at home, especially since I have been given a grand tour of
this beautiful city, and now have had a perfect introduction in a
friendly atmosphere.
I have selected as title for this lecture “In Search of the Ground.”
That should be explained or there might be a misunderstanding that
it is a lecture on finding good spots in real estate! That it is not.
In recent years I have tried to find general categories that would
make it possible to compare orders in various civilizations and
find common denominators for their treatment, because, normally
speaking, all the categories in which we talk about politics in the
West have arisen either in antiquity, or through the Middle Ages,
or are oriented by the modern national state and its problems, and
therefore do not apply to political phenomena in India, or even
in Russia, to say nothing of China. In consequence of this inapplicability
we sometimes make ghastly mistakes in politics when
dealing with Asiatic or Afr ican civilizations because we just don’t
know what those are. We have no ready-made political vocabulary
to handle such matters.
One of the simpler categories that turns out to be of importance
is the category of the ground. This is why it is suitable for a lecture

Originally a lecture delivered in 1965 in Montreal, taped and transcribed, this
text was published in Conversations with Eric Voegelin, ed. with an intro. by R.
Eric O’Connor (Montreal: Thomas More Institute, 1980).
224



of this kind; others are much more complicated and would require
much more preliminary explanation. So let me talk about
the ground.
The quest of the ground, or “search for the ground” as I formulate
it, is a constant in all civilizations, as also in all subdivisions of
civilizations in all societies. That is not to say that the search for
the ground, or the expressions of it, always have the same form. As
you will see, they sometimes have widely differing forms. But at
least we can express them clearly in the form that they assumed
in the eighteenth century, especially with Leibniz. There the quest
of the ground has been formulated in two principal questions of
metaphysics. The first question is, “Why is there something; why
not nothing?” And the second is, “Why is that something as it is,
and not different?” If you translate those into conventional philosophical
vocabulary, the first question, “Why is there something;
why not nothing?” becomes the great question of the existence of
anything; and “Why is it as it is, and not different?” becomes the
question of essence.
To the double-pronged question “Why are things at all, and why
are they as they are?” there is of course no answer, because the
ground from which things are what they are, and are at all, is a
transcendent divine Ground; there is no answer except in the symbolisms
of theology or of a myth or of a metaphysics of transcendent
divine Being or something like that—which does not render any
simple propositions for knowing about the matter. The question
itself, you might say, implies its answer; because in raising this
question the very nature of man who is in search of his ground
expresses itself in questioning to the last point, or to the last resort,
what is the ground of everything with regard to existence and
essence. In this questioning one keeps open one’s human condition
and is not tempted to find cheap answers. There are various types
of cheap answers, to which I shall refer later.
The whole problem is, of course, clear even in modern philosophy.
Quests of the ground were made in the eighteenth century, and
the problem of the quest of the ground is a much-discussed one in
contemporary philosophy: You find it, for instance, in Heidegger.
I want to enlarge this treatment a bit and speak generally of the
problem of etiology, meaning by etiology the examination of the
quest of the ground. Aition is the Greek word for “the ground,”

225



and in this sense it was used already in classic philosophy. Hence
the classic etiology will be my topic, and then I shall give some
subvariants of this quest of the ground.
The term for ground, aition, occurs in the philosophy of Plato
and in the philosophy of Aristotle. It has there three meanings,
which must be distinguished or one gets into trouble right from the
beginning. One sense in which the term aition is used in philosophy
is that which in physics we call “cause”: recognizable regularity
between phenomena in time and space.We had better call that “the
cause” in order to distinguish it.
There is a second meaning of the term aition in Aristotle especially.
Aition was translated into Latin and preserved through
scholasticism and into neo-Thomism as the doctrine of the four
causae: the causa materialis, the causa formalis, the causa efficiens,
and causa finalis. These four causae—material, formal,
efficient, and final—are something different, of course, from “the
cause” in physics. They have as their model artifacts or organisms,
but we are interested at the moment neither in artifacts nor in
organisms.
There was a third meaning of aition in classic philosophy: the
ground of existence of man first of all, then also of other things.
The ground of existence in Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy,
but especially in Aristotelian, is the Nous: Reason or Spirit or
Intellect, whichever of these translations you prefer. Let’s call it
Intellect, or use the Greek word Nous. Here the model is man
and his experience of such a ground; hence reason is the ground of
existence for man, and especially the ground for everything rational
in his action. I shall give further explanations, but just now only
the distinctions among the three meanings of aition: the cause, the
scholastic causae, and finally the Ground of existence that is divine.
The importance of this preliminary discussion of meanings appears
immediately when you look at the analysis of rationality of
action in Aristotelian ethics and politics. In our rather secularized
civilization—an “enlightened” civilization since the eighteenth
century—we mean primarily by “rationality of action” rationality
in coordinating means to an end. If we have an end in view (building
a building), we then coordinate means to that end, and if that is done
adequately we say we have proceeded rationally.
In ordinary everyday life we leave it at that; we expect that a man
acts rationally in coordinating means to an end. But in a theoretical
226



examination of the problem we cannot be satisfied with the simple
coordination of means to end because every end can be converted
into a means by asking, for instance, “For what purpose have we
built this building?” And when we have ascertained that purpose we
can further ask, “And forwhat purpose do we do what we do in this
building?” Thus we are led into an indefinite regression in which
the supposed end from which we started always becomes a means
in another means-end relation, and that end a means for the next
means-end relation. We have rational adequacy in the pragmatic
sense within any one relation, but the whole chain hangs in the air
and we do not know whether the whole chain is rational.
Aristotle argued the impermissibility of letting the quest of the
end drop off into indefinite regression, because that leaves the
question of rationality of action up in the air. If we want to know
whether we act rationally, and what it means to act rationally, we
must consider whether we have an ultimate purpose, that is, an
end to the chain, which can no longer be converted into a means
for a further purpose. This leads sometimes to semantic paradoxes
because all really ultimate purposes in our life have no purpose;
they are the last ones and have to be taken for granted: we start
from there. To have an ultimate purpose in life, as unifier for all
single rationalities of action, is a condition of rationality for the
whole life.
Now don’t take that as dogma but simply as formulating a problem
For the moment, because finding an ultimate ground that gives
the answer to rationality in action depends on what Aristotle calls
episteme politike, political science. Political science is thus the
science of the rationality of our actions, including the ultimate
good from which rationality radiates over the whole chain of action.
The formulation up to this point is, you might say, hypothetical.
In Aristotle’s view, if there is only an indefinite chain there is
no ultimate rationality. Therefore if you want to have ultimate
rationality there must be an ultimate purpose but . . . is there an
ultimate purpose? And if there is an ultimate purpose, do we know
about it? Is it knowable at all? These questions are not yet answered,
but a condition is formulated: We have no ultimate science of action
unless we know something about an ultimate ground.
How does Aristotle proceed? What is the detailed argument in
such matters? He starts from commonsense observations as all good
philosophers do, especially the classic philosophers. One should be
227



aware that we always act as if we had an ultimate purpose in fact,
as if our life made some sort of sense. I find students frequently are
flabbergasted, especially those who are agnostics, when I tell them
that they all act, whether agnostics or not, as if they were immortal!
Only under the assumption of immortality, of a fulfillment beyond
life, is the seriousness of action intelligible that they actually put
into their work and that has a fulfillment nowhere in this life
however long they may live. They all act as if their lives made sense
immortally, even if they deny immortality, deny the existence of a
psyche, deny the existence of a Divinity—in brief, if they are just the
sort of fairly corrupt average agnostics that you find among college
students today. One shouldn’t take their agnosticism too seriously,
because in fact they act as if they were not agnostics!
The observation was made by Aristotle also: Everybody acts as
if he had an ultimate purpose, whetherar ticulate ornot, whether
denied ornot, whetherar ticulated wrongly orr ightly. The question
of an analysis is only to bring, if possible, into articulate consciousness
what everybody takes to be true anyway, because he acts as if
it were true.
Raising the level of consciousness means that we have to investigate
first, on the commonsense level, the opinions that people hold
about such matters, and then try to see whether we can find criteria
for the rightness or wrongness of the various opinions expressed.
That is, in fact, what Aristotle did and what one always must do.
He had around him, as one always has, a pluralistic society—it
is not a modern privilege to have a pluralistic society. One can
observe that some people believe that the highest good is to live a
life of pleasure. Others want to lead a life of politics and become,
if possible, prime ministers of their communities. Others believe
that a contemplative life is the most important thing for a man
to achieve. Such types, such opinions, are what Aristotle gives. In
every society there are such opinions. The next question is: Can
we find criteria for deciding between these subjective opinions, and
can we find out whether, objectively, some of these preferences are
more justified than others? Is it justified to lead a life of pleasure? Is
it justified to lead a life only of politics? Should every life contain
also a touch of the contemplative?
We have now two levels: always the empirical observation of the
pluralism of opinions, and then the scientific analysis of criteria to
decide between these preferences, i.e., whether they are objective
228



criteria. That is science. How does one find criteria? It is very
simple. It is done by having recourse to the hierarchy of being in
which man stands.
Man belongs to inorganic being; with a part of his existence he
belongs also to the existence of the psyche; man has also a life of the
spirit, a life of reason. The question then simply is: By what is man
distinguished from animals, from plants, from inorganic matter?
The answer is: by his life of reason. Therefore, conformity to the
life of reason is what is best for man in order to live out his nature.
It is the life of reason, in the sense of a differentiated criterion of
man, that gives the guide for preferences. All preferences on the
merely biological level of instincts and urges, or on the merely
psychological level of hedonism orsatisfactions orpleasur es, or
on the merely metabolic level of having good food, are on a lower
level, which is not worth being considered as the ultimate purpose.
The ultimate purpose is the life of reason itself, whatever that is.
We have to talk about that presently.
In this way one can find out that the contemplative life, which is
the life of reason, must be an important ingredient in everybody’s
personal life whethercontemplative oractive, even if one leads a
political life or even, to a large extent, a hedonistic life. From this
classification in the hierarchy of being also follows the hierarchy of
goods: External goods are important because you can’t live without
them, foryou have to have the means of subsistence; goods of the
body also are important, like health, beauty and so on; but most
important are, of course, the goods of the soul: the various virtues,
the constellation of virtues, and the character—that is the highest
level of goods. We have objective criteria and everybody acts, in
fact, according to this scale of objective criteria even if he denies
that there are objective criteria. One always acts along these lines.
All this is comparatively easy.
But now comes a question: What is this nature of man that is
briefly formulated as “the life of reason”? For expressing the life
of reason we have quite a vocabulary already developed by the
classic philosophers, which in part is identical with the Christian
vocabulary and has remained a constant throughout the history of
mankind. Here comes now that question of the Ground.
The Ground of existence is an experienced reality of a transcendent
nature toward which one lives in a tension. So, the experience
of the tension toward transcendent Being is the experiential basis
229



forall analysis in such matters. Forthe expression of this tension,
a vocabulary has been developed. Already Heraclitus knew three
variants or nuances of the tension: love, hope, and faith [cf. OH
II:228 f.]. Where love toward Divine Being is experienced; where
hope for fulfillment in relation to such a Being is experienced as
the point of orientation in life; where these experiences are present,
there is that openness of the soul in existence that is an orienting
centerin the life of man.
The vocabulary of love, hope, and faith has remained in Saint
Paul: the Letterto Romans, forexample, has those three names for
the tension experienced.1 They are summarized in that openness of
the soul that Saint Augustine has called amor Dei (the love of God)
orthat Bergson in his Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion
has called the openness of the soul toward transcendence—which
means openness toward the Ground of existence, because we all
experience our own existence as not existing out of itself but as
coming from somewhere even if we don’t know from where. That
is the vocabulary with regard to the tension itself.
However, such a tension means a participation in divine Being
because you are engaged in tension toward It. And by what are you
engaged toward It? (Please excuse me if I analyze these things in
comparatively simple terms, but they are simple; I cannot make
them more complicated than they are.) If there is such desire in
existence, it must emanate from somewhere in man. In analogy to
organs of perception—the ear for hearing, the eye for seeing, and so
on—one calls this organ the psyche.
Philosophers have introduced the termpsyche forthat sensorium
of transcendence, that organ of man, by which he experiences or in
which he experiences the various tensions of which I have spoken.
And insofaras it is engaged in such experiences, the psyche can
be called the “noetic” self, “noetic” being derived from nous, the
Greek term for the intellectual self. The first rule therefore in the
self-esteem, the self-treatment of man, is to have some respect for
the organ in himself by which he is aware of and desires a life toward
the ground. And self-love, that is, love of that self and cultivation
of that self, is therefore in Aristotle the first existential virtue.
Self-love in the sense not of a satisfaction of passions but of
having due respect for the cultivation of the noetic self—that is,
the divineness, the divine part, in man. Beyond this, since every


1. Cf. Rom. 13:8–10; 1 Cor. 13:13.—Ed.
230



man participates in love of the transcendent Being and is aware of
such a ground—Ground, Reason, or Nous—out of which he exists,
every man can, by virtue of this noetic self, have love for other
men. In theory, this is the secondary phenomenon—in theory, not
in practice. In practice we love others right away without having
a theory for it. But in theory that is secondary because there is
no particular reason—reason, I say now—to love othermen unless
they also participate in that same divine Nous and have such a
noetic self. If a philosopher drops out that problem of the psyche,
of the noetic self, and if he is moderately intelligent, he makes very
curious remarks. Nietzsche, for instance, on one occasion said, “If
I did not love othermen because they also are an image of God,
I would have no particular reason to love them because they are
just horrible.” So you see why differentiation of that point is of
considerable importance.
Community in the nous, carried by that noetic self, is for Aristotle
the basic political virtue, the philia politike [political friendship],
because only if the community is based on that love in the
noetic self will it have order. A common interest in a profitable
business at the expense of otherpeople will not be a particularly
sound basis fora government orfora political community. What
must always rule is that ultimate reasonableness for which we
sometimes use the term the common good: It is common insofar
as it is the common reason that we have to control our passions.
Philia politike is the noetic love; and if there is, as in inner society,
a factorthat controls passions and keeps them undercontr ol
(because passions are always there), then one can speak, in regard
to outersociety , of a homonoia, a common nous. Now homonoia,
which was developed by Aristotle, is also Saint Paul’s term for the
Christian community: Instead of the transcendent nous as reason,
the Logos of Christ has now entered as that community substance
that constitutes homonoia. But the term is the same. In the King
James Version of the Bible, it is translated “like-mindedness.” At
the beginning of this century, when we had not quite as progressive
a sociology as we have today, “like-mindedness” was still used as
the basic category in sociology—by John Dewey, for instance. Even
in Dewey’s time, secularists like Franklin Henry Giddings would
replace “like-mindedness” by “consciousness of kind,” but after all
it was still the tradition. All had read the Bible and knew what they
meant: homonoia in the classic and Christian sense.
231



I have given you a general picture for the moment, of what form
that whole quest of the ground assumed in classic vocabulary. It
is at the basis of all our thinking with regard to politics—creates
a community substance of the homonoia. I have been showing
you what is meant by “quest of the ground.” It all comes back
to the question: what is that ultimate purpose toward which we
are rationally oriented? This leads us to the question of the nature
of man, and to the answer that his nature differentially, as against
all other creatures, is openness toward the ground. That is reason:
openness toward the ground.2
With those clarifications, we can now go through the modifications
of the quest of the ground in various types of cultures and
civilizations. Let me give you some examples. There were, preceding
philosophical culture as in Hellas, cosmological cultures, such
as Egypt and Mesopotamia, that expressed themselves in terms
of myths. Now, what is myth? There are many definitions, and
I shall not go into that matterin detail. But the best authorities
(people like Mircea Eliade, for instance, in his recent book Myth
and Reality) agree that a myth is a technique of imputing a ground

2. See the discussion in “Anxiety and Reason,” in What Is History? And Other
Late UnpublishedWritings, vol. 28, The CollectedWorks of Eric Voegelin, ed. with
an intro. by Thomas A. Hollweck and Paul Caringella (1990; available Columbia:
University of Missouri Press, 1999), 52–110, at 88. In the little volume from which
the present essay is taken, the matteris furtherelabor ated by Voegelin’s emphatic
words:
What is the reason after all? “Reason” did not exist in language in the history of
mankind until it was formulated in the Greek fifth century as a word denoting
the tension between man as a human being and the divine Ground of his
existence of which he is in search. The consciousness of being caused by the
divine Ground and being in search of the divine Ground—that is reason. Period.
That is the meaning of the word reason. That is why I always insist on speaking
of “noetic” and use the term nous: in order not to get into the problems of the
ideological concept of reason of the eighteenth century.
The word nous is applied by Plato and Aristotle to the consciousness of being
in search of the ground of one’s existence, of the meaning of one’s existence—
the search, the zetesis. One is in the state of ignorance, of agnoia; one asks
questions, the aporein; and the answeris that the divine Nous is the cause
that moves me into the search. Not the mere fact that somebody is searching
is reason, but the movement by the divine Ground that pushes me in that
direction or pulls me in that direction. That is why in the Laws [644d–645b]
Plato uses the mythological symbolism of the god who pulls man by various
cords: the golden cord of reason and the other cords. Then, preserving human
freedom, he can follow the golden cord of reason but he can also follow the
other cords and be a fool. It is a divine pull that pulls you. It is not a natural
movement. (Conversations with Eric Voegelin, ed. O’Connor, Conversation
IV [1976], 138. On the divine puppet-master, see OH III, §3 [original edition,
pp. 231 f.]—Ed.)
232



to an object of experience. That is, if I have experience of men,
of the gods, of a piece of landscape, of a temple, ora custom, or
an institution, and I want to know, “Where does it come from?”
then I tell a story of where it comes from, and that where-it-comesfrom
is now the ground of it, the aition in that sense. That is
now an answer. Everything comes ultimately from a transcendent
Ground—for instance, a Creator-God, or, in a philosophical sense,
the Nous. But in myth it comes from very specific things: A god has
created it, a demi-god has created it, an institution has invented it,
ora dynasty has a god forits ancestor. Various such specific grounds
are given. Or in action: When you look at the Homeric epics, you
will find that Achilles, just on the point of saying a few nasty things
to Agamemnon, suddenly feels Athene lay herhand on his shoulder,
asking “Would it not be better to restrain yourself?” and then he
says something else. Here is a ground of action: a very concrete
divine intervention.
This type of imputation of a ground, imputation of existence and
manner of existence to a ground, one can now more closely formulate
as: imputation toward another intracosmic object or action.
There is a general experience of the cosmos; everything is within
the cosmos, including the gods, and if you want to explain anything
in the cosmos you can explain it only by telling a story: how it
originated from something else in the same cosmos. That is what
we might call intracosmic relating of things to their ground, to other
things oractions within the cosmos; there is nothing outside the
cosmos. Thus myth can be defined, I think fairly exactly and there
are no exceptions to it, as imputation to other intracosmic things of
a ground. It is myth when you tell a story of an intracosmic ground.
In philosophy there is obviously a refinement because the cosmos
has dissociated through that experience of a transcendent Ground
that now requires an entirely new vocabulary. Within the primary
experience of the cosmos that is expressed by myth we can indeed
speak of a cosmos (although that also has difficulties), but when that
cosmos has dissociated and the gods now are outside the cosmos and
there is a divine Being beyond the world, then we need new terms.
This is because all gods are intracosmic, while the One God or the
One Divine Being is outside the world. So the world and God, as
the result of an experience of transcendence, are in a new pattern
of understanding that has exploded the myth where the gods are
all intracosmic. There can be a genesis of the gods also within the

233



myth, but there cannot be a genesis of God in revelation. There can
still be a story of the genesis of the world because there is one God,
a Creator-God, but you cannot have a story of the genesis of God as
you have it in the myth. Thus the term world should be reserved to
the area of philosophy and revelation where the world has become
immanent, i.e., something that is created by one Divine Being that
is not itself the world but the chooser of the world. In this type
of experience (whether philosophic or revelatory), the ground has
become known as transcendent. I do not want to go into the details
of the difference between philosophy and revelation; that would
take too much time. But in both cases we have a transcendent divine
Ground.
And now comes the matterthat is, of course, of most immediate
interest for us: What has happened to this transcendent Ground
under modern conditions in modern political conceptions? All ideologies
operate against the background of an understanding of the
transcendent ground, since the divine ground is part of the cultural
heritage. We are living in Western civilization, which has
philosophy and revelation and Christianity and the Church as its
background, and all our vocabulary is taken from there. We have
no immediate mythical vocabulary; all our vocabulary is revelatory
or philosophical. What has happened to the transcendent ground
in that connection? It has become, let us say, immanentized. We
still have of course, the quest of the ground; we want to know
where things come from. But since God (in revelatory language) or
transcendent divine Being (in philosophical language) is prohibited
foragnostics, they must put theirgr ound elsewhere. And now we
can see, beginning about the middle of the eighteenth century, in
the Enlightenment, a whole series of misplacements of the ground.
The transcendent Ground is misplaced somewhere in an immanent
hierarchy of being.
The first such misplacement would be making an immanent
reason of man the ultimate ground. The eighteenth century has
been called “the Age of Reason” because human, not divine, reason
is considered to be the ultimate measure and ground of all action
and everything within the world. This human reason, however,
is empty of content. A transcendent Reason, the tension toward
transcendence, gives you a criterion, because if you are oriented in
your action toward transcendence and see that “here is the nature
of man,” then obviously certain things are impossible. If the nature

234



of man is to be found in his openness toward a divine Ground, you
cannot at the same time see the nature of man in having certain
kinds of passions orin having a certain race orpigmentation or
something like that. It is in the openness to the ground; there is a
content in it.
With human reason, you have no content whatsoever, and therefore
the immediate consequence of the introduction of reason has
been the necessity of filling up reason from various immanent
sources. You find, therefore, as an example of the meaning of reason,
the profit motive in the economic sense. Rational would mean
operating for the optimum of profit under the given conditions of
economic action and out of that would result an optimum economic
society. Orthe rational motive would be striving forpowerin competition,
which, if it does not lead to the overpowering of somebody
else, will lead to something like a balance of powers in a competitive
society. The balance-of-powermotive is, since 1713 and the Peace of
Utrecht in international relations and domestically in the theories
of Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, the idea of restoring a balance
within society, with the implication (fostered by Herbert Spencer
but also in part by Bentham and Charles Darwin) that the survival
of the fittest ora competitive situation will secure the best kind
of society. Oryou may place the ground, if not in an economic
motive or strict power motive, then in generalized problems, of
productive relations, as Marx did: There are productive relations
and they produce all the so-called superstructure of culture in society.
The productive relations would be objectified, would be “the
cause”; whatever we can explain in culture must be reduced to the
productive relations that determined this or that type of culture.
Or you may explain the cultural phenomena, philosophy, religion,
and so on, not through openness toward the ground but by various
urges ultimately summarized in the Freudian term libido, the ultimate
urge, the comprehended collectivity of urges, and you arrive
at something like psychoanalysis. Or since the first third of the
nineteenth century, you might look to race relations. People belong
to this orthat race and that makes fortheirgener al intellectual
makeup; that is the cause, the ultimate ground, and will determine
the whole course of history. Or you might adopt the very crude
racial conceptions of Hitler.
There is a whole gamut of possibilities of misplacing the ultimate
ground: from human reason down to such phenomena as the Nordic

235



race and, in between, the libido, the production relations, economic
orpolitical rationality, and so on. I have given you only examples,
but I have already introduced into the series of examples something
like a certain order. If you reflect on the whole series (I could, of
course, give more examples) you will find that there is a limit to
such misplacements of the ground; you can misplace the ground
only in more or less identifiable, distinguishable areas of immanent
existence: human reason oranimal urges oreconomic orpolitical
urges or the libido orsex relations orthe colorof the skin, and so
on. But you can go only through: reason, psyche, body, inorganic
matter. We can observe, over the last two hundred years, that
every possible locale where one could misplace the ground has
been exhausted. This expresses itself in the fact that we have,
since the great ideologists of the mid- and late-nineteenth century,
since Comte, Marx, John Stuart Mill, Bakunin (and so on), no new
ideologist. All ideologies belong, in their origin, before that period;
there are no new ideologies in the twentieth century. Even if one
could find a new wrinkle in them, it wouldn’t be interesting because
the matterhas been more orless exhausted emotionally. We have
had it.
Here we come to an interesting fact: Without peering into the
future we can prognosticate that when ideas have run their course
and are obviously exhausted, we can say certain things about them.
First, nobody will be a great thinker of the type of Marx or Hegel or
Comte in the future, because that has all been done once. There will
be no furtherideological thinkerof any stature. We have had them
all. Further, one can say that once ideological misplacements of the
ground are in the world they run for a while, because every one of
those great thinkers has followers, has publicity, and has epigones.
But you cannot have an indefinite sequence of those. In every new
generation there are always some intelligent people who are bored
with seeing epigones and who will soonerorlatertearthe epigones
to pieces, intellectually and by criticism. This is, in fact, now done.
But one must not be too optimistic with regard to the exhaustion
of the power of ideologies. Once ideologies are institutionally
established—the Communist government in Russia or in China
orin the satellite states, orin oursociety (established in academic
institutions) certain intellectual ideologies that do not immediately
become political (like positivism of the various kinds, or various
kinds of Freudianism)—they last a long while, because there is

236



a vested interest in them. Every new generation is brought into
them through college education, and it takes a while until they
snap out of it. The college teaching level is usually thirty, fifty, or
more years behind what is going on. There is always a hangover, a
lag, that we have to calculate. As faras science is concerned, there
is no scholarliving whom I know who is an ideologist. That does
not mean ideologies orepigonic movements will disappear, orthat
where they are established their power will melt away from one
day to another. But there will certainly be nothing new of the kind.
That one can say.
Now forthe phenomenon of exhaustion. In a sense, ideologies are
criticized to pieces. We have in ourtime a very peculiargener ation
of scholars who all are clear about it: Ideologies are finished. Each
one in his way has taken this orthat ideology and criticized it so that
nothing is left of it. Nevertheless, he does not quite see what to do
afterward, so we have a peculiar fence-straddling generation. These
people are very serious; but their having seen that all is wrong still
doesn’t mean they know what is right. For instance, there is Karl
Löwith, authorof Meaningand History (1949), who has in an earlier
work, From Hegel to Nietzsche (1941), completely analyzed the
problem of German Hegelian historicism and all its inadequacies.
Nobody seriously today can any longer be an historicist on the
scale of From Hegel to Nietzsche, including Löwith himself. It’s
out; everybody knows that. But that doesn’t mean that Löwith now
knows what to do. The situation has its comic aspects; but it is
very serious for these people because it is not easy to find out how
to get out of the mess. Ortake a case like Philip Rieff, who has
written a splendid book, The Mind of the Moralist. If you read that
book on Freud and psychoanalysis you know psychoanalysis is finished.
Afterthat book nobody can be a psychoanalyst with a decent
conscience. But Rieff doesn’t know what to do now. Orin certain
political utopias you find a peculiarkind of “negative utopia,” so
called. It isn’t that; it’s a satire, in the sense of the Menippean satires:
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World orGeor ge Orwell’s Nineteen
Eighty-Four. The whole sense of utopia is shown up as the nonsense
it is. But that doesn’t mean that Huxley, orOr well before he died,
knew what to do next. They had known that all the utopian excrescences
of their political creeds are nonsensical. But what now?
Ortake the famous case of a Nobel Prize winner, Albert Camus.
If you look at his book L’Homme révolté, you find the ideological

237



perversions of the nineteenth century analyzed into pieces. It would
have been most interesting (had not Camus unfortunately been
killed in an accident) to find out what he would have done now,
whetherhe would only have become his own epigone. Camus was
comparatively young when he wrote book L’Homme révolté, and
there would have been plenty of time—twenty or thirty years in his
life—to start on something new.
I have given you a few examples just to show that we have today,
in those who are in their fifties, approximately, a generation of men
who have done all the critical work on the ideologies that possibly
can be done, work which, however, does not become effective
because it leaves them with nothing at all.
But ideologies are finished. The symptoms show that after this
generation nobody can be an ideologist if he is intelligent to any
degree or a man of any stature. That one can say with certainty, but
again I must warn: no optimism with regard to the actual power
of ideologies. Things go on in China and elsewhere just as they
did in the past, and they will go on fora long while. We have here
an empirical rule that has been studied by Oswald Spengler and
by Arnold J. Toynbee: Periods of great establishment, such as a
Communist government in China or a Communist government
in Russia, have a habit of running for two hundred and fifty years.
They may be finished earlier through foreign intervention, but if
they are undisturbed they usually need, for their exhaustion, about
two hundred and fifty years. That goes generally for observation of
the past. There is, however, one point to be noted that may speak
in favorof a shorterper iod, especially in the Russian case. Russian
Communism takes place on the general background of philosophical
and Christian tradition. If there is established publicly a highly
defective conception that neglects the life of reason, that doesn’t
permit you to find sense in your life by reflecting on problems of
life and death—especially of death—then you get, soonerorlater ,
disappointment that the things promised, like a perfect Communist
realm, never come and the restlessness of this defectiveness. There
is no sense in life because indefinite progress doesn’t work. (If we
had a blackboard here, we could show, by a simple mathematical
formula, why progress doesn’t work!)
That is enough about ideologies. Let me in conclusion say just a
few words about the general importance of the quest of the ground
in a larger context. What is being done today in various sciences—

238



by classical philologists, by comparative religionists, by archaeologists,
by scholars concerned with problems of the ancient Orient,
by medievalists, and so on—is a sort of convergent development of
a science of general structures that are not peculiar to our Western
civilization but have their root in the nature of man and are in their
variants, therefore, to be found everywhere, in all societies. One can
develop a sort of system of the structural common denominators in
such matters; I have given you this evening just one example: the
quest of the ground.
The work has progressed much further, however, and there are
many other such structures, already fairly well known, which are to
be found everywhere. This permits one to judge, to a certain extent,
the point at which a problem has stalled in a society, or the point
that has been reached or that can be foreseen in the future. What
will happen is an acting out of certain types of ideas; and when
they have been acted out, they are finished. Understanding of such
units of ideas is so interesting for us now because some of them—
installed at certain points, say in the period of Enlightenment—
now after two hundred and fifty years approach their end at the end
of our century. The considerable area of general structures known
already will permit far more precise judgment, although it does not
permit action, you see. It doesn’t help for action to know these
matters, because people act by emotions and not by reason. But it
helps for understanding what probably are the processes that have to
run their course before a particular kind of nonsense is completely
finished and out. I have given you examples of the ideology problem
so that you can see one really can say something about it if one looks
forthe phenomena—and one looks forthe phenomena if one knows
what to look for—for example, that certain misplacements of the
ground are finished now.

Stephen Barr: "How do you know that the "only reason anyone believe believes ... is because of emotion and/or tradition..." That is a might strong assertion. You claim to know how every single person who is religious thinks and his reasons for thinking it. Considering that you are attacking religion on epistemological grounds, this is pretty breathtaking."

It seems to me that everybody has exactly the same body of evidence (not counting, of course, the internal varieties of religious experience seen across many faith traditions). Is it safe to say that the ONLY persons who find the "evidence" for Christianity and the Christian God convincing are those who already believe it with a profound psychological investment & emotional commitment?

What is the role of childhood brainwashing in the acquisition and maintenance of that faith? By childhood brainwashing I mean inculcating a child to believe (the irrational?) before they can think. (Is it any difference, for instance, in Christianity v. Islam?) Is it safe to say that many if not most thinking adults who accept Christianity were inculcated as a child to believe the Bible to be the word of God? Or what is the role of adult ignorance, say, for those who encounter and embrace Christianity as an adult? Is it safe to say that they do so in a profound ignorance that extends to the Hebrew Bible presented ONLY in Christian translations and interpretations? And totally ignorant of all the issues & discussions that arise from honest, critical approaches to the Bible? That is, a state of ignorance not totally unlike the child. Why is it that education, information and critical, honest thought & study so heavily prejudice the adult from accepting Christianity and the Christian Bible and cosmology when they haven't already accepted it emotionally while in an earlier state of ignorance?

"Is it safe to say that the ONLY persons who find the "evidence" for Christianity and the Christian God convincing are those who already believe it with a profound psychological investment & emotional commitment?"

As a former agnostic (borderline atheist) and adult convert to Catholicism, let me answer your question: No, it is not safe to say that. Well, that is if by "safe" you mean "in any way approaching accuracy."

I'm really curious to know what attracts Shelama to FT in light of her views; and secondly, if she thinks that the gospel as rewards and punishment, she really doesn't understand it at all, her claims not withstanding....

Why would it be that "Proving the Non-existence of God" would be so important to any physicist? I realize that Dr. Hawking stated that "God would not be required for the existence of the universe" and not that God is non-existent but Why is this so important? We are only beginning to understand the universe as it is without starting conflict over what may or may not lie beyond it, come before it, or exist after it. God was always understood to be internal to our experience and the nature of self. Can't the physicists stick to material things and leave metaphysics to the mystics?

FYI: The scientists of the Vatican Observatory are actively involved in developing and testing new theories related to "Big Bang" (Cosmology) and to the study of other disciplines of Science. Their 2009 Annual Report is a good place to start to for non-Catholics who want to better understand Rome's harmonious acceptance of scientific discovery.
http://vaticanobservatory.org
http://vaticanobservatory.org/AReports/AReport2009.pdf

@ Shelama; I too want to take your arguments seriously though introducing your Big Breasted etc deity as a stalking horse does not make\ it easy. An atheist is a believer of a very different stripe from most,. I say yours is a belief because a negative proposition is unprovable by reason; only an aberrant kind faith can hold what is unprovable by reason such as "there is no God".

I don't think many people make it to adulthood without jettisoning their "childhood brainwashing" because they know the inculcation of beliefs began before they were able to think for themselves. The usual pattern is a quick slide through indifferentism to atheism and then the real reconstruction begins. Speaking only for myself, I have lived in a world without God and I learned that I can't deny my own reason without suffering for it. That's as testable and predictive as it gets. Perhaps you have heretofore escaped. I pray God will fan the spark of faith he has given you.

Bill

Q MacGabhann: posting 16 pages of lifted text is not the equivalent of argument; it is bullying and proves nothing. You'll receive no further attention for it.

Shelama,

FYI

There follows a list of people of note who converted to Catholicism as adults. Some had Christian or Jewish backgrounds, others not. At times I specify the background in parentheses:

Israel Zolli (Jewish)
Alasdair MacIntyre (atheist?)
Marshall McLuhan (agnostic)
Alfred Tarski (atheist)
Allen Tate
John von Neumann (Jewish/agnostic)
Francis Cardinal Arinze (native African faith)
Elizabeth Anscombe
Peter Geach
Ramesh Ponneru
Edith Stein (Jewish)
Mortimer Adler (pagan)
Victor Turner
Aubrey Beardsly
Orestes Brownson
Dave Brubeck (no religion)
Black Elk (native American religion)
Gabriel Marcel (Atheist)
Jacque Maritain
Evelyn Waugh
Dorothy Day (agnostic)
G. K. Chesterton
Kim Dae-Jung
Alec Guinness
Thomas Merton (agnostic)
Malcolm Muggeridge (agnostic)
C. S. Lewis (atheist)
Elizabeth Fox Genovese (agnostic?)
Dietrich von Hildebrand (secular Protestant)
Albert Noyes (agnostic)
Sigrid Undstet (agnostic)
Paul Verlaine (atheist?)

On the whole, not a naïve group.

Best,

Richard

Norris Harrington says:" As a former agnostic (borderline atheist) and adult convert to Catholicism, let me answer your question: No, it is not safe to say that. Well, that is if by "safe" you mean "in any way approaching accuracy."

So, from an agnostic/borderline atheist, with no prior exposure to Christianity and the Christian Bible, you became critically informed and educated about both the Hebrew scriptures and the NT, and then with this knowledge you converted to Catholicism? Ok.
9.9.2010 | 4:00pm

=====

Wild Bill says: "Speaking only for myself, I have lived in a world without God and I learned that I can't deny my own reason without suffering for it. That's as testable and predictive as it gets. Perhaps you have heretofore escaped. I pray God will fan the spark of faith he has given you."

So, you agree with the posting by Mr. Duwayne Anderson, and acknowledge that you believe because of emotion? Ok.

Richard, how many of those converts were knowledgeable about critical investigations into the Bible, both the Jewish Bible and the NT, and the issues they raise? How many so educated converted anyway? How many of those Jewish converts were secular Jews who converted for matters of social convenience?

Including CSLewis in your list pretty much undercuts your entire effort: ... he was indoctrinated as a child into "the Bible is the word of God;" His trilemma (lord, lunatic, liar) is astoundingly ignorant and obtuse, especially coming from an Oxfordian; he shows no evidence of being significantly informed about critical studies of the Bible and the issues they raise. He's not a good example. Your list, regardless of where you obtained it, will not withstand critical review. (I'm a little surprised that you didn't mention Charles Darwin and his supposed death-bed conversion.)

The question was whether, as an adult, people convert in ignorance of the Bible, or genuinely informed about the Bible. Many Jews, particularly secular, are as abysmally ignorant of the Bible as are Christians.

Stephen Barr dismissed Duwayne Anderson's statement about "tradition and emotion", but neither he nor anyone else provides any evidence to the contrary. I wonder about childhood brainwashing and/or adult conversions in a state of Biblical ignorance, and nobody provides evidence to the contrary. Mr.Barr remains silent. Personally, I would find his own story, and the stories of his theologian friends and acquaintances, to be of interest.

The question remains: ...why does education, information, and honest, critical thought so heavily prejudice the adult from accepting the Christian Bible as reliable history without significant prior childhood brainwashing and/or adult ignorance?

MacGabhann: Contingent being necessarily points to necessary being, while necessary being points to nothing beyond itself. The universe is not necessary, yet the universe is: therefore God necessarily is.

Please read the above post carefully again: Prof. Barr has it right when discussing the scientific concepts. The universe in which we live -- the bounded system filled up with matter and energy and defined by certain universal constants and physical laws -- may well be contingent. The larger system in which in could exist -- the so-called "multiverse" or "system of universes" that Barr discusses -- could be a necessary being.

Indeed, we do not and cannot have any evidence on these questions at all. As I pointed out above, Hawking is simply noting one does not need to assume the existence of God to have a workable explanation for why our current universe exists. If you believe in God, by all means continue to do so. Hawking is simply noting that science offers no support for such a belief.

Mr. MacGabhann is obviously irony impaired.
As for Shelama, if s/he believes that there is "truth" out there against which the adequacy of our beliefs can be measured, then he or she is just as much a theist as the pope!

Apparently Shelama has idea that conversions to Christianity are entirely suspect if said convert has had any exposure to the Christian message.

:::yawn:::

"The question remains: ...why does education, information, and honest, critical thought so heavily prejudice the adult from accepting the Christian Bible as reliable history without significant prior childhood brainwashing and/or adult ignorance? "

Shelama: "accepting the Christian Bible as reliable history" is a rather naive and ignorant description of the type of reasoning and experience that leads people (me, for one) to accept the Christian faith. However, yes, I do think that the Gospels provide a reliable account of the person of Jesus, for several reasons that I have accumulated over many years of study and reflection. I really don't need you to tell me that all my years of reading, reflection and observation led me to this conclusion because I was brainwashed as a child, thank you.

Heraclitus says: "As for Shelama, if s/he believes that there is "truth" out there against which the adequacy of our beliefs can be measured, then he or she is just as much a theist as the pope!"

Against which the adequacy of WHOSE beliefs (what beliefs?) can be measured?

In any case, I suggested no such thing, about "truth" or anything else. I did say that, "In the end, there's no reason to believe that any theologian or philosopher knows any more about god than do I, the Pope or a DD brassiere. And no reason to believe they know any more about the intent of the authors of any text in the Christian canon than I do. Even granting an intelligent designer, Christian theology is the most massive house of cards in the intellectual history of man. The Big Breasted Lesbian Manic-Depressive Multiple Personality explains more and explains it better [than does the massive edifice of Christian theology].

There's nothing in any disagreement with Hawking about a god or a designer that rationally recommends the Bible and tenets of Catholicism/Christianity over the Big Breasted Lesbian. If it makes your emotions feel better, or comports with your Biblical ignorance or your childhood brainwashing, then go for it. But don't pretend that Catholicism/Christianity/Christian theology is an otherwise meaningful rebuttal to Hawking.

I don't believe that even Mr. Barr would argue that it is. He'd probably be the first to admit that he was writing to and for the choir.

If we're going to play, let's play fair. 'Creation ex nihilo' is no such thing. It presupposes and is supposed to be the work of a pre-existing deity--and not any old sort of deity, either, but a very specific sort indeed. Let's hear a nice, clean, clear explanation of the existence of such a deity, then, what states/properties/powers/... it might have and how it might have come to have them, how it *does* manage a creation of some sort, and then let's see just how speculative Hawking's story sounds by comparison. A self-caused divinity... is *that* supposed to be any less speculative than a self-caused universe?

Norris Harrington says: "Apparently Shelama has idea that conversions to Christianity are entirely suspect if said convert has had any exposure to the Christian message."

Only in the absence of any honest, informed, critical study of and about the Bible: its authors, time & place of writing, social & cultural history and milleu, transmission and translation history, non-Christian translations and interpretations of the Hebrew scripture, etc. I agree, yawning is easier than honest study.

I appreciate this article and found it quite necessary for me to understand RR Reno's post and linked article on First Thoughts. I was thinking of Hawking's use of the phrase "out of nothing" and the term "universe" in theological/philosophical categories. Understanding how they sit within a context of a system of rules and laws makes the error in thinking more clear.

Mark's comments seem to suggest an idea of God as another being, necessarily caused rather than the ground and cause of all being, completely self-sufficient.

'If one thinks of a universe as a particular structure, then one can imagine a multiplicity of universes, with universes coming into and going out of existence in various ways. For example, a new universe might split off from an already existing universe in a manner analogous to the way a small balloon can be “pinched off” from a larger balloon. Or one can imagine a universe starting off as a point of zero size (which is, in effect, no universe at all) and then growing continuously to some finite size.'

The problem with the concept of 'a multiplicity of universes' (i.e. the Multiverse) is that one then needs to find an explanation for how this entire system of universes came to be. In other words, this idea of Professor Hawking possibly explains only how our own universe originated, which is founded upon the rather baseless assumption (for there is no actual, physical evidence) that there are other, prior and parallel, universes out there somewhere for which we have no explanation.

Can I call this the 'Multiverse of the Gaps', or something similar? It seems to me that certain people will go to any lengths to marginalise the concept of a god/prime mover/spiritual realm (call it what you will, the name is irrelevant), and in doing so make complete fools of themselves.

Shelama
In the end, there's no reason to believe that any theologian or philosopher knows any more about god than I... any more about the intent of the authors of any text in the Christian canon than I do.

Ye Olde Statistician
Really? No reason at all? You seem to adhere to the Sola Scriptura thingie.

Eric: Mark's comments seem to suggest an idea of God as another being, necessarily caused rather than the ground and cause of all being, completely self-sufficient.

Not at all. My point is that simply defining "God" as "the ground and cause of all being, completely self-sufficient" is question-begging. Indeed, any self-respecting monotheist believes in something more than this. Indeed, your definition of God would be equally acceptable to a pan-theist.

Peter A.: The problem with the concept of 'a multiplicity of universes' (i.e. the Multiverse) is that one then needs to find an explanation for how this entire system of universes came to be... Can I call this the 'Multiverse of the Gaps', or something similar? It seems to me that certain people will go to any lengths to marginalise the concept of a god/prime mover/spiritual realm (call it what you will, the name is irrelevant), and in doing so make complete fools of themselves.

So where is your explanation for where God came from? Or are you also going to engage in question-begging like Eric and say by definition God came from nowhere? Hawking and others are trying to grapple with the extremely difficult question of how the universe started through the application of highly complicated systems of equations that have been developed based on observations of physical phenomena we observe in our universe. Any such answer to the question of where the universe came from would necessarily be speculation. Whether it is foolish or not depends on what alternative we are considering.

Your alternative would presumably be to say that these questions were all decided once and for all when your God revealed himself to a particular tribe residing in the Middle East 3,000 years ago and that somehow this revelation escaped the notice of the vast majority of the rest of the world's population. And by the way, do you need to be reminded what your Gospel says about people who throw around the word "fool"?

Carlo says: "I really don't need you to tell me that all my years of reading, reflection and observation led me to this conclusion because I was brainwashed as a child, thank you."

That at least suggests the possibility of insight. Congratulations!

===========

Ye Olde Statistician: "Really? No reason at all?"

Let me rephrase: no rational or sensible reason. What possibly gives a Christian theologian any special knowledge of or insight into The Big-Breasted Lesbian? Or Torah or Yahweh Elohim?

===========

Ye Olde Statistician: "You seem to adhere to the Sola Scriptura thingie."

lol...ok.

Duwayne Anderson: I think that you should apologize to Dr. Barr, for your comments. Dr. Barr has ably defended himself, and certainly doesn't need my help, or anyone else's, but if you would familiarize yourself with his scholarship, you would realize how unfair your comments were.

The notion, that you espouse, that relgious belief is based on "superstition'' and "emotion'', is amusing. Is this a parody? You can't possibly be serious?



By the way, if you read Stephen Barr's comments CAREFULLY, you'll realize that, when he was stating that the ideas proposed by Hawking were "not mathematically rigorous'', he was referring to the SCIENTIFIC aspects of it. He was not talking about the criteria for determining religious truth.

Professor Barr’s response to Mr. Duwayne Anderson recalls to mind Pascal’s observation that we are quite as certain of the Great Fire of London, as of any theorem in geometry.

Bret Lythgoe says: "...[Hawking] was not talking about the criteria for determining religious truth."

What are the criteria for determining religious truth? What is religious truth?

Bret Lythgoe: "The notion, that you espouse, that relgious belief is based on "superstition'' and "emotion'', is amusing. Is this a parody? You can't possibly be serious?"

Are you saying that you believe in Christianity because you've seriously studied all aspects of the NT? Including, for instance, comparing what the evangelists and other authors quote and say about the Hebrew scripture with an honest, accurate translation of them? And that you independently and objectively agreed with their use, interpretation and theology? Or you carefully compared Christianity with a lot of other religious traditions? How does one go from accepting the "Old Testament" as the word of God and then, after careful reading & study of the NT (including an honest, critical consideration of its historicity), conclude that it is too?

Is belief in Christianity (or any specific god) based on superstition and emotion, or is it a conclusion based on careful, honest, critical study of the Bible? Or of the nature of existence and the cosmos? If one concludes that existence, consciousness and the universe requires an intelligent designer god, why (since it is not superstition, tradition or emotion) would one conclude that the Christian Bible accurately depicts such a god?

Shamalamadingdong,

If it is an illusion, it's an awefully appealing one. Isn't it? As a materialist, what impells you to adhere to your blind faith that Abraham, Jesus, the saints, et al. were liars? I mean, you seem to feel pretty strong. Where does that come from? What drives you to reach out to the faceless readers of FT? I think there's something in you tha tlongs for Truth.

On the day you hang from your final cross, that which we all eventually face, you can still call upon God to save you from The Evil One. You are not utterly alone, doomed to permanent shutdown. Never give up hope. Love is real.

In citing ignorance of modern biblical criticism as an objection, Shelama shows a lamentable ignorance, common to most atheists, of the Christian’s approach to scripture.

Unbelievers always talk as if the slogan of Christian apologists was “Let us put the story of Uriah in the forefront of the battle; let Goliath be our protagonist; Jael with her hammer, and Samson with his jawbone, shall lead us to victory; we will stand or fall with the walls of Jericho, we will lash Jonah to the mast." We do not make the battle-ground of the Christian Religion, the morality of Jael or David, the credibility of Judges, or the edibility of Jonah. No one wants to make such questions as these a matter of faith, partly because they have never been defined by either pope or council, partly because (what is very much the same thing) they are not, in any way, central or vital matters of revelation and it is thus, unnecessary to present the whole Bible point-blank at the aspirant towards membership of the Church, for his acceptance in genere et in specie.

On the contrary, the candidate for baptism accepts everything that Holy Church proposes for his belief; what has been defined by the Magisterium, neither more nor less. The Immaculate Conception and the bodily Assumption of the BVM (so little insisted on in Holy Scripture) are articles of faith, solemnly defined and with doubters anathematized, so these must be held with divine and catholic faith; the four sources of the Pentateuch, the priority of Matthew or the authorship of the Pastorals and the like are merely interesting questions of textual criticism.

Is it not possible that a person can have done honest study, read critical works -- and found the criticism wanting, either in its substance or in the directions in which it points, or both?

And I'd be very interested to obtain a list of these reliable critical texts, exposing absolutely beyond question the falsehood of Christianity -- these texts which would, should we bestir our stupid brainwashed selves to read them, rip the lid off all our faith -- to which Shelama repeatedly refers.

"That at least suggests the possibility of insight. Congratulations!"

Sarcasm will not get you free from the fact that your original comment was rude and presumptuous. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a thoughful, informed person. You should give it to others as well.

if the m theory postulate of a multiverse is true the god fearing types can surely take heart in the certain knowledge that ther must ipsofacto be a universe in which god is running the show even if it isn't this one. by extension is obviously also a tooth fairy and a santa clause so good stuff all round really :)

Mr. James Whyte,

You are quite right that creation ex nihilo doesn't mean that nothing is required to give being to the universe. Indeed, God is required and he isn't nothing. In the expression creation ex nihilo, what is meant is that God requires "nothing outside himself" to create.

The traditional Christian view is not that God "self creates". That would not make more sense than the universe self-creating. Rather the traditional conception is that God is a "necessary being" and so is "uncreated". The analogy is with necessary and contingent propositions. A contingent proposition is one that does not have to be true, but just happens to be. For example, there is a peach tree in my front yard. A necessary proposition is one that has to be true, such as 2 plus 2 equals 4. The existence of some things is contingent --- such as the peach tree in my front yard. It didn't have to exist, it just happens to. God is supposed to be a necessarily existent being.
It belongs to his very nature to exist, as it were. That is very different from the idea of self-creation.

As far as what properties and powers the God of Christianity is supposed to have, they would not be some arbitrary properties, but the properties that a necessary being would have --- perfectly simplicity, for example. Actually, in the traditional metaphysics of, say, Aquinas, it would be wrong to speak of God having various "properties".

There are books where you might read about the traditional conception of God. Aquinas is a good place to start, though one may find the Aristotelian language off-putting or difficult to penetrate. If you are scientifically inclined, I would suggest Bernard Lonergan's book "Insight", though even most philosophers find that book difficult. I am told Norris Clark has a good book on metaphysics. You might find certain parts of my own book helpful. If you want to find the explanations of the "properties" of God
they are to found. It takes some serious study and work to understand the theistic ideas, just as it takes some serious study and work to understand the ideas of quantum creation.

I don't know why the anti-theists who are commenting here are latching onto my statement that the quantum creation idea is "speculative". They seem offended by that and feel it necessary to say, "so the idea of God is NOT speculative?" I was merely making a simple statement about the scientific status of the idea. I was not casting aspersions on the idea as an idea. I repeat: it is a lovely idea and I happen to think it is very likely to be true. I think the anti-theists here have the impression that I am making the following argument: "Quantum creation is highly speculative, and so we should prefer the hypothesis of God, which is less so." That shows that they haven't read what I wrote with much care.

What I AM saying is this: The quantum creation idea is not a worse explanation of "creation" than God, it is not really an explanation AT ALL.
It is not an explanation AT ALL of why something exists rather than nothing. All it is is a very beautiful account of what happened at the earliest moments of the universe. Hawking himself really has said this himself.

My point is that if one is asking why is there anything at all, rather than nothing at all, there may be NO answer or God may be the answer --- take your pick --- but a physics theory cannot be an answer, by the very nature of what a physics theory is.

I must admit to getting annoyed at my fellow religious believers when they mock or sneer at ideas in science without having taken much trouble to really learn about those ideas in detail and understand them. I get equally annoyed by atheists who just sneer and mock at traditional theological concepts based on only the barest familiarity with them. Quite frankly, anyone who thinks he is making a decisive argument against theism by asking "Who created God", is on a par with someone who argues against evolution by saying "a monkey cannot have a human baby". It just reveals that he has an utterly simplistic view of the questions involved. He is opinionating and attitudinizing, instead of learning and thinking.

A question, Dr. Barr. You caution your readers in paragraph 5 that the notion of quantum generation of universes is neither verified nor, given current science, verifiable. You then go on to place it within a larger context of physical theory that considers the universe we know as merely one of several possible manifestations of the entire system of physical reality - the Whole Sort of General Misch Masch, as the late Douglas Adams might have put it.

Is this larger context, at least, verified? Is there an aspect of quantum physics that allows us to say with some certainty that there is more to physical nature than the system of laws and entities that contains us? Or does Hawking's thesis really boil down to "Perhaps/probably A, and, if A, then perhaps/probably B"?

If you already answered this elsewhere in the comments, then I apologize for missing it. I'm afraid I sort of skimmed over the middle of this section when it became clear that science was no longer the topic. In any case, if you could repeat your answer, I'd appreciate it.

(There's another thing, too. If the existence of the WSOGMM *is* verified, what, if anything, can be said about its nature? For instance, could it be divided into components?)

Shelama,

You are an angry woman. I don't know why, but it clearlly affects your discourse. Your anger I cannot argue with. So I will try to say something about your propositions.

You should investigate my list of converts (chosen eclectically) more carefully. Lewis was an adamant atheist when he converted. He hated theism. Conversion made him miserable at first. But he had come to see his atheism as intellectually untenable. And to argue that a don at Oxford at that time would be isolated from scholarly scepticism about the biblical and theological traditions of Christianity is on the face of it absurd. Tarski was one of the most ferociously brilliant logicians whoever lived. If anything, von Neumann was more brilliant. His intellectual biography is staggering. He is one of the founders of scientific modernity.

Elizabeth Anscombe was one of the greatest analytical philosophers of the twentieth century. Her book on Intentionality is one of the towering works in the field. She was also one of the favorite students of Wittgenstein (a friend of Bertrand Russell and, I think, a convinced atheist), who did not in general like or take seriously female philosophers. They remained lifelong friends and she was one of his literary editors after his death. She was staunchly Catholic, and surrounded at Oxford by disbelieving colleagues (like the legendary (atheistic) philosopher Bernard Williams) who opposed her publicly on a number of issues. The debates in camera must have been battles for the ages. To argue that she was a naif or unexposed to the various criticisms of Christianity, biblical, philosophical, and otherwise, is utterly untenable. That for starters.

Your declaration that no theologian or philosopher who ever lived knows more about God than you do is so hubristic that one is inclined not to answer but to start looking for the white wrap around vest. Particularly since you have said that no one has as good an idea for the progenitor as your hypothesis of a deranged big breasted lesbian (curious choice of images, that). This, I realize, is possibly meant as a reductio ad absurdum but it tells me more about the proposer than the question.

Mark:

I don't think that Professor Barr is trying to define God. It is a first principle of theology that you cannot define an infinite God. What he has claimed is that, Hawkins notwithstanding, the laws of science do not exclude the possibility of a divine being as the cause of the universe. No philosopher or theologian claims that any philosophical reasoning can give you the God of revelation. That's what biblical studies and theology are for.

As for God electing the Jews, yes, that is a puzzler. As the old saying goes, "how odd of God to choose the Jews." But it is consonant with the teaching of Jesus and Paul that God works through the weak so that the mighty might not be still more puffed up. The fact is that we live in a flat strange universe. The most robustly established principle in science is probably quantum theory, and as Bohr famously said, "anyone not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Besides, as Aristotle remarked, "if something happens, it's possible." In this conceptual universe, the idea of God seems tame to me.

The nub of the issue is this. Stephen Barr has declared that Hawking's declaration on god and science is technically incorrect on scientific grounds. A number of posters have taken issue with the point, but no one has explicitly demonstrated that Barr is incorrect. Until they do, I have to conclude that as a professionally credentialed commentator he could be right.

Best,

Richard

I hasten to add that the last paragraph with criticism of people who attitudinize rather than learning and thinking is NOT directed at James Whyte. He obviously is interested in learning and asking serious questions.

"I must admit to getting annoyed at my fellow religious believers when they mock or sneer at ideas in science without having taken much trouble to really learn about those ideas in detail and understand them. I get equally annoyed by atheists who just sneer and mock at traditional theological concepts based on only the barest familiarity with them. Quite frankly, anyone who thinks he is making a decisive argument against theism by asking "Who created God", is on a par with someone who argues against evolution by saying "a monkey cannot have a human baby". It just reveals that he has an utterly simplistic view of the questions involved. He is opinionating and attitudinizing, instead of learning and thinking."

Very, very nicely said.

dear Qoheleth,

If I understand what you are asking, it is whether we know that universes can come into and pass out of existence by quantum processes, so that there
is a larger system with various states containing different numbers of universes.

The answer, I think, is that we don't know that. Any theory with "quantum creation of universes" has to be a self-consistent mathematical theory incorporating both the principles of quantum mechanics and the theory of gravity (General Relativity). If one does not have a mathematically well-defined theory of that kind, then one cannot do the calculations that would tell you whether universes could be formed in quantum fluctuations, etc. The only theory that people have that incorporates both quantum mechanics and General Relativity is so-called superstring theory (or in more contemporary terminology "M theory" --- superstring theory is a special case of M theory).

While M theory is believed to be self-consistent, people do not yet know how to make the relevant calculations in it, as far as I know to settle the question of what happened at the Big Bang. (There is also the awkward issue of whether superstring theory or M theory is actually true. It is the only self-consistent theory of quantum gravity people have at the moment. But that doesn' t mean it is true.)

A person who would actually know more than I about the question you ask is is Gerald Cleaver of Baylor university, who is a young superstring theorist (and an evangelical Christian). So, my impression is that no one is able yet to really say with any confidence how and if universes can really be spawned as in quantum creation.

So the short answer is that all discussions of quantum cosmology remain at present quite speculative. I say that at the risk of arousing the ire of some of the atheists here who seem quite upset at the slightest doubts being thrown on the latest scientific speculations.

Shelama, you say I have "remained silent" about your comments. Actually, I have scanned the numerous comments you have made looking for any question or comment that was actually about my article on Hawking. Not having seen one, I did not feel called on to comment.

I don't get the sense that you are really here to learn anything. Nevertheless, if you ask me a well-defined question about any statement I made in the article or about the subject of the article, I will endeavor to answer it. The answer may not be immediate, as I actually work for a living, and am not logged onto this site 24/7 as you appear to be. But I shall get to your question in time, if it is on point and interesting enough to answer.

I don't know this Stephen Hawking but I'm sure as a child of God, whether he wants to accept it or not at this time, God love and to prove it, we simply need to examine his ancestors last name. I can't explain how science works into this process or thesis of mine but is the word king not found in his last name so maybe he is or through his ancestors, he was once a king. Now is the work Hawk not also found in his pass generation's last name so maybe they were also as smart and as brave as a Hawk.

My point is that let's not be too hard on him cause God also loves atheist and as a matter of spiritual fact, God loves all sinners including sinner vic, so there! :)

Peace

Shelama: quite the contrary, you ignored what I wrote and substituted your own judgment. I came to faith because I could no longer deny my reason. God exists. The only question left is how will I respond to Him? And, as I pointed out, you too have a faith of sorts - one that is impossible to embrace by logic. I'll leave this thread now. As Dr. Barr points out, you have hijacked the discussion without really engaging it.

Stephen M. Barr says: "Shelama, you say I have "remained silent" about your comments. Actually, I have scanned the numerous comments you have made looking for any question or comment that was actually about my article on Hawking. Not having seen one, I did not feel called on to comment. I don't get the sense that you are really here to learn anything."

You are the one who made Duwayne Anderson's comments about "tradition and emotion," and fish in a barrel, on point. You are the one who said, "There are [only?] two answers to the question: “Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?”, and then proceeded to misstate and misrepresent the first answer. I can understand why you consider being corrected for a glaring and dishonest fallacy to be uninteresting. But, then, I consider your audience.

If being here to learn something from you about god, divine creation and Christian apologetics is what you mean, you're correct. I didn't realize when I followed this link I was ending up in a Christian Junior Sunday School class.

24/7? Not quite but still pathetic, I admit. I've foregone any further surgery or chemo, I'm in the doldrums finishing my book, couldn't sleep, and it was a borderline interesting diversion to see that things are no better, different or more thoughtful in Catholicism or Evangelical Christianity than they are out here in Mormonism.

@ james whyte: "Let's hear a nice, clean, clear explanation of the existence of such a deity, then, what states/properties/powers/... it might have and how it might have come to have them, how it *does* manage a creation of some sort, and then let's see just how speculative Hawking's story sounds by comparison. "

Christians believe that God is eternal. That means there never was a time when He did not exist and He will always exist. He created everything but is not Himself created or "self-caused" as you put it. Without God there is nothing so the question "Who or what created God?" is meaningless. It is not easy to understand this or to accept it but once you do a lot of what Christians say becomes clear.

Might I suggest the agnostics and atheists venting so much spleen on this board read around the subject as if it were one on which they know little (whether they think themselves experts or not)? They will find that there are many people with fine minds who believe in God and at the very least their arguments deserve rather more thought and attention than some of the juvenile repsonses above. I cannot see how Stephen Barr (who has once again elegantly made theoretical physics understandable - thank you Stephen for explain the multiverse) could have written more clearly or moderately.

Finally as Professor Keith Ward said (and I apologise for paraphrasing). If you believe that there are billions of universes and that life on Earth arose by chance after millions of years of evolution then isn't it just possible that the planet you are on came into being just as the Christians say it did?

If the laws universes can create themselves so easily why can't all the labs
in the world produce one single atom of anything. All of Hawkings et all speculations are really just mysticism dressed up as so called science.
As Peter the apostle said " so called science".
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics - NO MORE MATTER ( ENERGY) CAN BE PRODUCED - no matter how many chalk scribbles Hawkings does on his blackboard.
It is about the limelight and selling more books .

For another delightful and sophisticated view on this matter look to Barbara Herrnstein Smith's recent book 'Natural Reflections' and Thomas Nagel's subsequent review in the August 19, 2010 issue of the London Review.

Hawking destroyed his position by insiting that God is not necessary "as long as there is a law of gravity..."

It is fundamental physics that at the point of the Big Bang "ALL our physical laws break down".

Since there is no law of gravity, and the crux of his argument relies on it, he is flatly wrong, or he must to disprove a fundamental tenet of the Big Bang theory and prove that the law of gravity does not break down, but survives the big bang state.

dear Shelama,

I admit that in bothering to answer Duwayne I succumbed to an ordinary human weakness, which is to respond to insults. Actually, it is a pure waste of time to respond to insults. It does the person one is answering no good. It doesn't resolve the anger, resentment, pride, feelings of inferiority or superiority, insecurity, or whatever else is behind their insults and taunting. In fact, it probably makes it worse.

It is an even bigger waste of time to hurl insults. I infer from the fact that you are foregoing chemo and surgery, that you may have a terminal illness. I am sorry to hear that. My heart goes out to you. How you spend your time is your business, but it would seem to me that a person in your condition would not want to spend valuable time visiting websites simply to express contempt for people. That will not enlighten anyone, or make anyone wiser, or make anyone happier.

You mention a fallacy and glaring error of mine. maybe you explain what it is in one of your dozen or so posts here. But I confess that I missed it. If you would be precise (and concise) in stating the fallacy I will try to respond.

I enjoy intelligent arguments, and have had very many with friends and strangers who see things differently from me. I have had very amicable discussions with atheists over the years. It is possible to explore serious questions in a serious way when there is mutual respect. My father was raised an atheist and was a religious skeptic for most of his life. (He was baptised a Catholic at the age of 79.) A very, very close member of my family was a philosophical materialist and we had hundreds of hours of interesting discussions with each other. (He died last year.) Again, what makes possible enlightening conversations is some degree of respect between people.

We can disagree whether the world needs more or less religious belief. But I hope you agree with me that the world needs more respect of people for each other.

I wish you well.

Steve Barr

Dear Charles Allan,

To give Hawking his due, I must point out a couple of things. One can produce atoms in the laboratory. The whole purpose of particle accelerators is to produce particle that were not there before. In fact, every time you turn on a light switch, you produce particles of light that were not there before. As far as the First Law of Thermodynamics (aka the conservation of energy) goes, that does not prevent the quantum production of universes, since the universe in these scenarios has zero total energy. (The positive rest mass energy of matter is canceled by its negative gravitational potential energy.

So, if I were you, I would not use these particular arguments.

Dear ted,

As with Charles Allan, you put me in the position of having to defend Hawking against a bad argument. It is true that in classical General Relativity the universe began in a "singularity", which is a point at which the laws of physics cannot be applied. It was Hawking (with Roger Penrose) who proved the famous theorems that said that there had to be a singularity at the beginning of the universe.

However, the proof of a singularity assumes classical (i.e. non quantum) General Relativity. A quantum theory of gravity may get around that. Many physicists suspect that when we know what the correct theory of quantum gravity is it will show that the beginning is not singular, and that the laws of physics CAN be applied there. That is what I would expect.

I hate to shamelessly promote my 2003 book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, but there is a long Appendix in it (Appendix B), where I explain many of these issues in a non-technical way.

@Barr: It was Hawking (with Roger Penrose) who proved the famous theorems that said that there had to be a singularity at the beginning of the universe.

So, Mr Barr, you believe there was a beginning of the universe? Where exactly did it begin? I mean, was there a point in space where the “singularity” occurred, or did it occur outside of space? If it occurred in space, then clearly the existence of the universe preceded any “singularity” for where else was the space located, on the other hand if it occurred outside of space, because there was no space prior to any “singularity,” then you are dealing with a purely insubstantial event. Is a “singularity” an insubstantial event? Or did it occur in an already existing universe?

A minor note to Shelama,

As I scrolled back through your comments looking for something that was about my article, which I might reply to, I noticed that in your very first comment you say, "
God will always be needed to guarantee an afterlife with divine rewards and punishments. In fact, this is now and has always been Her only job."

Now that strikes me as a very interesting. I interpret the "has always been her job" as a historical claim as to what people have always believed about God and why. I think you are saying that people invented God as a being who could reward them after death and punish the wicked (presumably other people). But that actually flies in the face of the most basic facts about the Old Testament. It was very long time before the Jews came to believe in an afterlife where the good are rewarded and the wicked punished. indeed, it is hard to find passages in the Old Testament expressing that belief. For a long time the Jews believed that after death everyone, good and bad alike, went down into a shadowy and quite unsatisfying place called Sheol, very much like the abode of the dead (Hades) of the Greeks.

Only very gradually did the idea of an afterlife with rewards and punishments take clear shape. Even in the time of Jesus, many Jews rejected the idea of a resurrection of the dead (the Sadducees). So the Jews believed in God many centuries before they came to believe in rewards and punishments after death.

You have made a big issue about how Christians would do well to study the modern scholarship on the origins and transmission of the biblical text. (Actually many educated Christians do, including me.) For example, you say, "Is it safe to say that they do so in a profound ignorance that extends to the Hebrew Bible presented ONLY in Christian translations and interpretations? And totally ignorant of all the issues & discussions that arise from honest, critical approaches to the Bible?'

But my dear woman, that scholarship emphatically disagrees with your idea that God was invented as a way to reward and punish us. Indeed, one hardly needs the latest scholarship for that.

I mention this not so much for Shelama's sake, but because I have noticed that many atheists have this misconception that religion is just wish-fulfillment related to dreams of an afterlife. It also illustrates the pitfalls of facile explanations of why other people believe the things they do.

Dear MacGabhann,

In the first place, let me repeat that there may not have been a singularity
at all.

If there was one, it was not 'in' space time. If one considers the simplest isotropic Big Bang model, and the so-called "standard time coordinate" t. then every point in the space-time of the universe has t >0, and there are things in existence for all t values greater than zero. But there is no point with t=0 in the universe. If there were, then various physical quantities would be infinite there (such as the density of energy, and the Riemann curvature of spacetime). But actually one does not include t=0 as part of the spacetime.

Frankly, I think the question of whether there was an initial singularity, or whether it was part of spacetime, is of little or no theological or philosophical importance, though I know some smart people would disagree with me.

Stephen M. Barr: "I infer from the fact that you are foregoing chemo and surgery, that you may have a terminal illness. I am sorry to hear that. My heart goes out to you.I am sorry to hear that. My heart goes out to you."

No need. Nothing sorry or sad about it except for family & friends. Like everybody else, I create my own heaven or accept someone else's. In mine, I free-float, random access, throughout all time, space & history. My first stop is a meeting with the Nazarene, Pilate, Caiaphas, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, Paul, the Evangelists and Josephus. Looking forward to it. Later, a tour of the Cosmos with Hawking. Wanna come?
-----------------

"How you spend your time is your business, but it would seem to me that a person in your condition would not want to spend valuable time visiting websites"

Mostly I do. I succumbed to a weakness in a moment of fatigue, writer's block and of respite, including from sleep. It never occurred to me I would be visiting a predictable exercise in Christian apologetics. (Did any Christian really believe that Hawking or anything else might in anyway be a threat to their faith & apologetic? I accept it as an in-house exercise, not terribly dissimilar from Dembski's. Although I respect your legitimate and higher credibility.)
-----------------

"You mention a fallacy and glaring error of mine. maybe you explain what it is in one of your dozen or so posts here. But I confess that I missed it. If you would be precise (and concise) in stating the fallacy I will try to respond."

**Barr: "There are [only?] two answers to the question: “Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?” The atheist answers, “There is no explanation.”**

The strawman with which you concluded your piece, but actually should have placed as the first paragraph since it's a (false) premise that animates your effort and is calculated to appeal to some types of theists. The atheist actually answers, "The explanation is not yet known and understood, but there's nothing in our knowledge or ignorance that requires, or even argues for, a retreat to God."
---------------

Barr: "I wish you well."

Thank you. I plan on it; it's in progress. It's not without excitement or spirituality even without a god.

Shelama,

I find it quite ironic (not to mention irrational) that you should claim in one paragraph that, "In the end, there's no reason to believe that any theologian or philosopher knows any more about god than do I, the Pope or a DD brassiere," and yet later state conversions to Christianity are suspect, "in the absence of any honest, informed, critical study of and about the Bible: its authors, time & place of writing, social & cultural history and milleu, transmission and translation history, non-Christian translations and interpretations of the Hebrew scripture, etc."

You presume that knowledge and truth cannot be known in the first statement (not by popes, theologians, philosophers, or yourself) then you blithely go on to make claims about "honest, informed, critical study". Apparently, in Shelama's book, only Shelama can assert what is "honest, informed, and critical."

If we're going to peddle in the nonsense of absolute relativism, your view is no better than anyone else's on this board. But if that is TRUE (see that we humans unconsciously all presuming there is an objective standard--we cannot help but do so, even when some argue there is not), why do you so feel the compulsion to defend one view over another?

In spite of yourself, you recognize there is such a thing as Truth and that it demands some sort of relationship, assent, or involvement from honest human beings. That Truth (God) is independent of a human construction (which you claimed all religions to be). You can't have it both ways, Shelama. It's inconsistent--and ultimately nonsensical--of you to try...

I pray the innate hunger for truth you exhibit (a good thing) leads you to the One who Reveals all Truth...

BTW, I'd highly recommend reading the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", by Frank Turic and Norman Geisler. It'd clear up many of your errors (the erroneous claims that the Gospels aren't historically credible) and logical confusions.

"Why is there anything at all?" And if there was nothing at all wouldn't there still be logic and mathematics and some kind of rational structure "existing" in a sense outside of anything?... strikes me as a very interesting question.

Shelama's opinions based on her biblical 'scholarship' are truly predicatable of one who reads as a critic, without faith or enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, something the Bible was never meant for.

To all who need proof of God to accept He exists, all you need to know is that God always was, always will be, always remains the same.

Can't wrap your mind around that? Well why should you? You are confined within His creation. You might as well try to walk to the edge of our universe as try to understand the nature of the Being who created all that is. Anyone who thinks the human brain can know whether or not God exists, based on our OWN efforts, truly lacks any imagination at all; big breasted lesbian being an excellent example.

Shelama: I recommend that you read Kant. He said many of the things you do, but without the venom and with considerably better intellectual arguments. Many fine intellectuals disagree with him, but you would be in better company. Right now you do not come off particularly well.

Dr. Barr: Excellent article, thanks so much. I am not a scientist but these unprovable "theories" (M theory, etc.) sound to me more like saving appearances than trying to really reconcile the math with observable phenomena. I would not be at all surprised if they are close but missing something vital, and eventually something new supplanted it all. Either way, it should not be confused with metaphysics.

dear Shelama,

Point taken. What I was saying (and perhaps I should have said it this way) is
"Atheism has offered no other explanation." But the way I did say it is not unfair to atheists, as I will now explain.

I have read many atheists, and they use the following argument: If you say God explains why the world exists, you haven't explained anything, because you have just pushed the problem to another level: what explains God's existence.
If these arguments are valid as directed against theism, they are valid against ANY putative "ultimate cause of being". If some atheist at some point in the future proposes that he has found the ultimate cause of being and that it is X, his fellow atheists will say: but what explains X?

The only conceivable way around this "infinite regress", is if X is something that requires no cause --- whose existence is necessary, or implied by the very nature of X. But a "necessary being" or one whose existence is implied by its nature (in traditional terminology, its existence and its essence are the same) is the traditional conception of God found in, say, St. Thomas Aquinas.

Either there is such a necessary being (the theist position) or there isn't. If there isn't, then all beings are "contingent", in the philosophical terminology, rather than "necessary". In that case, none of them can be the ultimate source of being, since of any of them one can ask why it exists. One is then left with no ultimate cause of being. Thus, I maintain, one either says that there is a necessary being who is the ultimate cause of being (God) or one says that no such ultimate cause exists.

QED. So, no fallacy was involved in what I said.

How about a little less condescension here, Dr. Barr? "My dear woman" is execrable. And then there is your argument from authority when you cite your Ph.D. and years of study. This sounds very much like 'mine is bigger than yours.'

(1) From the On the Square article the day before this article was posted ("Cogito and Christ" by Mr. Carter)
"Over the past few decades, many Christians—particularly those intrigued by postmodernism—have rightly questioned Descartes’ reversal. They have attempted to dethrone the idol of reason by pointing out the limits of rationality and questioning the human ability to achieve epistemic certainty, particularly about matters of theology. Unfortunately, in trimming away the underbrush they have failed to cut away the root of Descartes error: the faith in doubt.

"Among these Christians, as well as among secular intellectuals, doubt about metaphysical truths—such as the existence and creative actions of God—has become viewed as a form of intellectual humility. Once considered evidence of a poor intellect, agnosticism and atheism are now treated as evidence of intellectual virtue.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. This reliance on doubt requires that the doubter be the supreme judge of what can or cannot be known. Rejecting a dogmatic certitude about what is known in favor of a questioning attitude of whether something can be known with certainty merely shifts the idol of reason to a new location and gives it a more palatable, humble-sounding name. The doubters accept the limits of the human mind, embrace pluralism, and do not impose any one idea of truth upon others.

"However when we put our trust solely in our own reason we either become dogmatic or skeptical, and even dogmatic in our skepticism. But when we set aside our self-idolatry and seek true epistemic humility we can discover that the only reliable foundation for reason is found in special revelation."

(2) From this article:
"There are two answers to the question: 'Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?' The atheist answers, 'There is no explanation.' The theist replies, God. An intelligent case can be made for either answer. But to say that the laws of physics alone answer it is the purest nonsense—as Hawking himself once realized."

I find the two passages above conflicting.

I talked to an in-law who claims to be an Atheist. I basically said that one of us has to be right (there is God or not), but that I respected my in-law's belief. My in-law has reasons, and I have my own.

From the first passage, it seems that the in-law's reasons contra-God's existence are directed to "self-idolatry", and from the second passage, the reasons derive an "intelligent case".

Which one is it? Can it be both at the same time like it is in so many philosophical/religious topics?

Dear Nick Bottom,

I agree. I tend toward platonism as far as "mathematical reality" goes. I think the entities of mathematics have some sort of necessary existence. But I think it makes most sense to regard mathematical entities as mental realities. If the number pi or the tenth root of 17 exists, it exists only in a mind. where else could it exist? So, if mathematical realities have a necessary existence, and they are mental realities, then there is a necessary Mind. The truths of mathematics, like any truths, are acts of understanding. A "necessary act of understanding" implies a necessary mind, it seems to me.
I would say necessary mathematical truths are "exemplars" in the divine intellect.

I am not a philosopher, and this way of saying things may make any real philosopher gag. But even if I am not expressing it well, my thoughts run in this direction.

Yeah, how dare you present your qualifications for presenting a scientific opinion.

While I appreciate reading (with dim apprehension) the goings on in science, particularly physics and such, I have noticed that most people know little or nothing about these things. It does not seem to matter much to them either. I would venture to say that of all of the people that have ever lived the number that understand, even in a rudimentary way, these elevated subjects would not register on any demographic chart. I doubt that this will change much in the future. Yet in spite of this ignorance and indifference we humans will live our lives finding meaning where we can and it will not be in exotic equations though it may be exotic and as the atheists would have it "silly", thus debasing the beliefs of most of mankind, it will fit in with the creaturely rythyms of existing in a world fraught with danger, love, hate, agony and mystery. Down here in the base world of creatures we will look up and listen to words, not every word but the words that speak of meaning and purpose, words that aim beyond us and draw us to better things. This is the world of religion, a wild mishmash of imagination, elevation and musk. Most of all it is about relationship, each to each and each to all. If I were a cat I would say to Hawkins and his theories "can I eat it" and if the answer were no I'd look elsewhere for sustenance, likewise I say does it tell me how to live and how and who to love and why I should. Of course it can't, so stick to your knitting I'd say and I will try to "love God and Love my neighbor as myself".

The following tidbit is from some discussion arising from Kant's expressed contempt or condemnation of homosexuality:

"A Roman Catholic priest once put the argument to me as follows: 'Of course homosexuality is bad for society. If everyone were homosexual, there would be no society.' Perhaps it is true that if everyone were homosexual, there would be no society. But if everyone were a celibate priest, society would collapse just as surely, and my friend the priest didn’t seem to think that he was doing anything wrong simply by failing to procreate. Jeremy Bentham made the point somewhat more acerbically roughly 200 years ago: 'If then merely out of regard to population it were right that [homosexuals] should be burnt alive, monks ought to be roasted alive by a slow fire.'"

It's just a funny story to me. But Gail, why is it that you find Shelama offensive but I don't? I know you can't answer the last part of the question, but Shelama seems gamey if not downright civil in the end [referring to the post at 9.10.2010 | 11:18am]

My problem with religious books centers on how they are nothing more than early science books relating to how one should live in the times such books were written. I cannot embrace them as universal truths. I have out grown those books just as many people have of outgrown Kant's view of homosexuality or the lazy logic of the Roman Catholic priest.

Anyways, I enjoyed the various comments.

May Mr.Hawking and other similarly afflicted persons be blessed , to unite their sufferings , brought on by the hardened cells or the rebellious cancerous cells , from whatever reason , whether through ancestral bondages or curses or even personal /familial spirits , may they be able to offer up all the deep dark black holes of anger and hatred , of enemy holds , from years of unanswered prayers , to what seem like an uncaring God , may they unite all such pain and tears , to the anguished cry from The Cross, allowed for just such events , to know and recieve the grace to trust that their pain and sufferings can have meanings , in Him, with HIm , to garner the power , to set free hardedened hearts , rebellious hearts , before they make the decision , to hate for ever !

May the Mother at the foot of The Cross be their model and intercessor !

Execrable? Wow. I reserve that for more serious matters myself. I suppose that you think it sexist, or something. It isn't. If she had been a man, I'd have said my dear fellow. This contemporary fashion for taking umbrage on other people's behalf strikes me as very strange and rather pointless. Shelama does not appear to have thought it condescending any more than I did. If she does I will beg her pardon, not yours. I think in our last exchange Shelama and I were quite friendly to each other; why are you now trying to start a fight between us? Isn't that rather officious of you?

As far as my comparing my credentials with Duwayne's, why shouldn't I if he is calling my expertise into question? If someone is telling me about economic theory or neuroscience or ancient history, I appreciate knowing his "credentials" so I know how much "credit" to give what he is telling me. I think it a service to anyone reading this site to tell them my credentials, most especially since it was suggested that I might not know what I am talking about. As far as "mine being bigger than his", that is a disgusting way to characterize it, but the fact is that when it comes to credentials mine ARE bigger than his. I don't preen myself on having a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton, but the fact that I do is not without its significance in the present context. And if it makes you feel any better, I admit that my credentials for speaking about matters gravitational are certainly smaller than Hawking's.

@Barr: But there is no point with t=0 in the universe.

So you are saying that there was no beginning to the universe. For there was either a time when t=0 or there was not a time when t=o. If there was a time when t=o, then the universe could never come to be, for there is an infinite distance in time between t=0 and t>0 for any value t greater than zero (one could never reach a first value for t>0); and if there was never a time when t=0, then one could travel indefinitely into the past without coming to a time when the Universe was not.

I agree with you that the notion of “singularity” has no philosophical or theological significance, except perhaps in a negative sense that demonstrates that physics itself has no philosophical or theological significance.

Babs Johnson, one glaring problem with Kant's conclusion. The priest has a choice to be a priest or not. According to homosexuals theirs is not a choice, it is a biological imperative. Big difference if one believes in the imperative.

OR mom,

I think a bigger difference is that celibacy doesn't pretend to be mating.

Norris,

Neither does homosexuality, or the barren, or the aged, or pedophilic priests...

@Norris Harrington:

Way to go! (Or not)

Mike Murray says:
argument from authority

Ye Olde Statistician
This is not a formal fallacy; it may or may not be a material fallacy. That is, it depends on the matter. Scientists pepper their scientific papers with dozens of arguments from authority, known as "footnotes."

MacGabhann says:
Where exactly did the universe begin? I mean, was there a point in space where the “singularity” occurred, or did it occur outside of space? etc.

YOS
As I understand it, both space and time began with the big bang. In that sense, the "bang" occurred everywhere and all at once. Einstein said that general relativity had banished forever the last vestiges of objectivity from space and time, which he regarded as metaphysical intrusions into empirical physics. To put it otherwise: without matter [energy] neither space not time exist. Dr. Barr indicated this by noting that the universe includes {t|t>0}, which goes back to the medieval natural philosophers Bradwardine and Heytesbury and the "doctrine of first and last moments." To wit: there is no first moment at which the universe exists. (Proof: Suppose there were a first moment. The universe being in existence would have a diameter, d, at that first moment. But then, it must have had diameter d/2 at some earlier moment. A contradiction.) Basically, it's a left-open set.

Mark
simply defining "God" as "the ground and cause of all being, completely self-sufficient" is question-begging.

YOS
Except that God is not "defined" in that way. It is a conclusion based on deductive reasoning starting from the existence of change in the world.

Briefly: Since nothing begets nothing, an apple that is not-red cannot make itself red. But if it is *potentially red, it can be moved from not-red to red by a prior mover. But the prior mover must be actually red, either directly [formally red, e.g., dye] or by means of some prior factor [eminently red, e.g., sunlight as it moves a chain of biochemical processes].

Now, a chain of movers A->B->C is essentially ordered if the power of B to move C does not exist unless A is *concurrently moving B. E.g. a golf club. has no power to swing unless the arms are moving it *right now. The arms can't move unless the muscles are contracting/expanding *right now. And so on to nerves, neurons, synapses, laws of chemistry. Thus, an essentially-ordered chain of movers cannot be infinite. (If it were infinite, then there would be no first mover, and thus none of the other movers would have the power of movement *right now.) This is why first movers and creations are operating right now, not in some remote past, like a chain of accidental efficient causes.

Some deductions: The first mover must be purely actual, with no potential. If it were in potency toward some X, then it could be moved to X. But since nothing moves itself, there must be a prior mover, contrary to assumption.

This Being of Pure Act [BPA] necessarily exists, since to come into being means being moved from non-existence to existence, which would require a mover prior to the first, contrary to assumption.

There can be only one BPA, since if there were two, one would lack something the other possesses. But then the one lacking in X could be moved to X, and being the first mover etc.

Since can be only one BPA, all goods have their origin in it. [Hence: all-good]. This includes existence, which is the first form of any being.

Every contingent being thus receives its existence from a singular being which necessarily exists. We can call this being Existence Itself, and express its necessary existence as "Existence exists." If it could talk, it would call itself I AM. And so, etc.

Hope this helps.

I've noticed that several posters have asked "why is this important" or "what difference does it make", or "why would Stephen Hawking care about what happened before the big bang".
I have an idea here.
When you admit to a Transcendent first cause, you have now the real danger that there is a moral authority that is higher than self, and one with the power to make you answer for your behavior. Atheists want to avoid any such reckoning, either through rules of society or through a "judgment day".
I am sure I'll be answering for my "shortcomings"; I have to be Christian because I am just as sure that I cannot make amends without divine intervention, and look -- Christ has provided exactly that!

YOS: ** As I understand it, both space and time began with the big bang. In that sense, the "bang" occurred everywhere and all at once. **

But there was no “everywhere” and “all at once” for it to occur. And as you observe, there can be no first moment in the universe, hence the universe never had a beginning. But if the universe had no beginning, then we would not be at this present point in time, as we would have had to traverse an infinite number of past points of time to arrive here, a (as you say) contradiction.

Who is this Einstein you mention, and what metaphysics ever touted objectivity with respect to notions of time and space?


**This Being of Pure Act [BPA] necessarily exists, since to come into being means being moved from non-existence to existence, which would require a mover prior to the first, contrary to assumption. **

I wish you would elaborate on this, especially the part about “since to come into being means being moved from non-existence to existence.” Do you equate Being with Existence? Surely there can be non-existent Being.

You can discuss the homosexual imperative, MOM! But what Hawkings is doing is extending the so-called religious placemat ... and I'm here as a student. And Stephen Barr seems enthralled with the speculations but not the Hawking's "madison avenue" tactics.

The Kant Tale was nothing more than an illustration of how science and religion can change over the years.

When contemplating such things, I reflect that practically everything we’ve learned about the universe has been counterintuitive. A spherical Earth, heliocentrism, atomic theory, plate tectonics, evolution, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics – none were what anyone had expected, reasoning from what was known at the time. Human intuition only works even passably well when it has some experience to work with.

When dealing with something so far removed from human experience as the origins and/or maintenance of universes, I doubt the competence of human intuition.

"Surely there can be non-existent Being."

What would that be?

I agree with Richard's general point, in his list of "people of note who converted to Catholicism as adults," but C.S. Lewis was never a Roman Catholic. He was a convert to the Anglican form of Christianity.

I would add Whittaker Chambers to that list.

YOS: ** As I understand it, both space and time began with the big bang. In that sense, the "bang" occurred everywhere and all at once. **

MacGabhann says:
But there was no “everywhere” and “all at once” for it to occur.

YOS
Hence: "in that sense," viz., all of space and time was in the expanding universe, much like all the surface of a balloon is "there" in its uninflated state. The point is: the universe *was space-time; it did not inflate out into space-time.

MacGabhann says:
And as you observe, there can be no first moment in the universe, hence the universe never had a beginning.

YOS
Let me try it this way: "There is no smallest number in the set (0,1), hence the interval has no lower bound." Nope, doesn't work. The thing is that the "smallest number" is not within the interval. To say that t=0 is not in the "interval of space-time duration" doesn't mean there was no beginning. Only that, from *inside the universe, we can't ever reach it.

MacGabhann says:
Who is this Einstein you mention, and what metaphysics ever touted objectivity with respect to notions of time and space?

YOS
I assume you joke about Einstein. But it was Newton and his contemporaries that postulated the existence of an absolute space and absolute time. Folks like Augustine and Aquinas knew better.
+ + +

**This Being of Pure Act [BPA] necessarily exists, since to come into being means being moved from non-existence to existence, which would require a mover prior to the first, contrary to assumption. **

MacGabhann says:
I wish you would elaborate on this, especially the part about “since to come into being means being moved from non-existence to existence.” Do you equate Being with Existence? Surely there can be non-existent Being.

YOS
No. A "Being" is something that has the attribute of the verb "to be." It's a bit tricky in English. The better distinction is between essence and existence. We all grasp the essence of a unicorn. We know what is meant. Some of us may know some of the stories told about it. But it does not exist. That is why we say that being is the conjoining of an essence [form, nature] to an act of existence.

'So where is your explanation for where God came from? Or are you also going to engage in question-begging like Eric and say by definition God came from nowhere? Hawking and others are trying to grapple with the extremely difficult question of how the universe started through the application of highly complicated systems of equations that have been developed based on observations of physical phenomena we observe in our universe. Any such answer to the question of where the universe came from would necessarily be speculation. Whether it is foolish or not depends on what alternative we are considering.' Mark on 9/9 11.35 pm

No, no, NO! Why do so many atheists completely misinterpret (or not bother reading in the first place) what has actually been written?

I didn't at any point say that 'God did it', I just merely pointed out the fact that the entire Multiverse concept has become very popular lately due to the perception that it does away with the need for a god-like 'entity' in trying to come to terms with the origin of the cosmos. I didn't suggest otherwise, I did not claim to be a Christian (I am not).

The Multiverse idea raises more awkward questions than it answers. It IS foolish, for the reasons I give.


'Your alternative would presumably be to say that these questions were all decided once and for all when your God revealed himself to a particular tribe residing in the Middle East 3,000 years ago and that somehow this revelation escaped the notice of the vast majority of the rest of the world's population. And by the way, do you need to be reminded what your Gospel says about people who throw around the word "fool"?'

My alternative? My Gospel? Like I said before (above), the Multiverse solves nothing. It is not even a testable hypothesis, so how can such an idea be taken seriously? I don't believe in the Bible, or that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Where on Earth did I suggest this? You are making up 'facts' and 'arguments' to suit your own (warped) agenda, 'moving the goalposts' and creating 'strawmen'.

You've assumed, based upon no evidence, that I am a Christian. Why did you do this? It's wrong to be dishonest.

It's interesting that in these debates that everyone seems to argue physics and philosophy, and very rarely are psychological arguments raised. Has anyone wondered about the possibility that Hawking is generating ideas which reduce cognitive dissonance? It seems to me that when physicists start to go beyond the realms of probability that cognitive bias is most prevalent. Or is it politically incorrect to say that Stephen Hawking might not be thinking straight?

'So where is your explanation for where God came from?'
Mark, 9/9 at 11:35

Oh for goodness sake! Whenever I hear (or read) this comment, I straight away know that the one asking it hasn't a clue. Tell me, do you still picture God as an old man sitting on a golden throne in the clouds? If you do, that's truly pathetic.
If God (or 'god', if you prefer) 'came from somewhere', he/she/it would not be God. One of the defining 'characteristics' (for want of a better word) that this notion (God) would require to qualify as such, would be that it needed no explanation to account for it. The universe, on the other hand, requires an explanation, for it had a beginning and will (presumably) end. That is, it is temporal and physical, wheras 'God' (I hate this word, too theological - lets call it the 'foundation of all being' or something similarly neutral) is not constrained by the limitations of physical and temporal existence, for 'God' both underlies and transcends such limitations.
Got it now?

***YOS
***Hence: "in that sense," viz., all of space and time was in the expanding universe, much like all the surface of a balloon is "there" in its uninflated state. The point is: the universe *was space-time; it did not inflate out into space-time.

You know in one breath you describe the universe as being other than space and time (space and time was in the expanding universe) and in the next you abolish the difference and regard the universe as being space and time. You cannot have it both ways and remain coherent.
Even an uninflated balloon takes up space, and if you wish to begin to expand the balloon there must be an initial (spatial) point from which the expansion begins, i.e. there must be some point t>0 which identifies the beginning.

***MacGabhann says:
***And as you observe, there can be no first moment in the universe, hence the universe never had a beginning.

***YOS
***Let me try it this way: "There is no smallest number in the set (0,1), hence the interval has no lower bound." Nope, doesn't work. The thing is that the "smallest number" is not within the interval. To say that t=0 is not in the "interval of space-time duration" doesn't mean there was no beginning. Only that, from *inside the universe, we can't ever reach it.

Let me put it this way: BEING : (t=0, t>0); Non-existent BEING : (t=0); Existent BEING : (t>0)
You can never phenomenally demonstrate (i.e. through the method of the physical sciences) the beginning of Existent Being because there is no smallest value for t>0.
Yet by the fact of existent Being one can demonstrate non-existent Being (t=0), for t=0 necessarily bounds t>0, i.e. if there is no value t=0 then t>0 cannot be.

***YOS
***This Being of Pure Act [BPA] necessarily exists, since to come into being means being moved from non-existence to existence, which would require a mover prior to the first, contrary to assumption. **

Sorry, but one cannot be “moved” from non-existence to existence; firstly, because there is no pre-existent thing to be moved, and secondly because the temporal-spatial distance between non-existence and existence is infinitely too vast to be traversed by anything that moves.
A better way of saying it is that existent-Being emerges from Being through the differentiation of non-existent-Being, this latter a state of infinite potency and zero actuality, the Parmenidian apeiron.

I would add Ronald Firbank and Oscar Wilde to the list, and Edith Sitwell too, why not, and I would keep CS Lewis as most Anglo Catholics deserve to be rated at least higher than most Roman Catholics. And did we mention Ronald Knox? And if WH Auden may be counted, could we not at least beatify him?

Brigham,

Quite right. I realized my blunder after the post was up. But his case did at least make the point that not all Christians are brainwashed and unreflective from birth. Good get.

Norris Harrington,

Wonderful point. Chambers is anathema to the intelligentsia because he called out Alger Hiss for being a Communist mole, which he was (though he lied about it until his dying day), and spilled the beans on party indoctrination, and converted to Christianity, turning from East to West, even though he thought the West would lose, because he thought it was the right thing to do. Chambers was one of the great souls of the twentieth century, acutely intelligent, acerbically honest, and enormously sensitive. Witness and Black Friday are never read today, because they are on the liberal Index, but they are two of the most beautiful books I have ever read, haunting and somber.

Thanks!

Richard

If the rational structure existing as an "exemplar" of some "uncreated" mind is self evident then what accounts for Hawkins' vacancy from any interest in that question?

How can he declare with authority that God is not needed.

It's not nice to say but it looks like Hawkins is just preening for the paparazzi.

Shelama unlike most atheist(?) commenters these days is a thoughtful, deeply educated and highly intelligent person. Nonetheless she reveals in a numerous ways that she is simply incapable of, what's the right word?, of operating on the appropriate plane in these matters. Everything comes down to razor-sharp argument, logic and rhetoric with her, whereas the deeper realms of Christian thought (Balthazar, Unknown Friend, et al) transcend such categories (a statement she will of course breezily dismiss with a delicate mots juste). Shelama's repeated crass interjections ("a DD brassiere"), puerile use of capitalization ("god") and general combativeness suggest to me a steel-trap mind which sadly is unlikely to relent long enough to even comprehend what millions upon millions of us have experienced. She is trapped in a high-IQ prison where people like her see through all this malarky that is Christianity. (Really? Puh-lease Shelama. Think about that for a while.)

I don't think she will gain much from me, and possibly not from anyone here. If she is interested in going head to head with someone who packs the intellectual horsepower to not only take on and demolish her arguments, but to decisively and consistently prove why she is "not even wrong", try Robert Godwin over at One Cosmos blog.

Steve MacDonald,

I have no wish to intrude on a desperately ill woman, for whom I have deep sympathy, but to put it as mildly as I can, the probative force of the very few arguments Shalama actually formulated was, shall we say, not decisive. The lady is obviously intelligent, and it is unfair under the circumstances to assume that we have seen her best, but in the world of dialogue passion is not victory. This topic elicited some very fine posts. Shelama did not dominate the field.

Best,

Richard

Steve Macdonald says:
"Shelama unlike most atheist(?) commenters these days is a thoughtful, deeply educated and highly intelligent person."

hmm, somehow, these qualities of her are not evident to me.
What is evident, (again, to me) is that Shelama is basically a troll.

Steve,

I'm reminded of Chesterton's "Orthodoxy", particularly the second chapter called "The Maniac".

A sample:

"Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. A bullet is quite as round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions. Now, speaking quite externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable mark of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction."

The whole can be read here:

http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch2.html

Professor Barr,
You observed in your article, "There are two answers to the question: “Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?” The atheist answers, “There is no explanation.” The theist replies, God. An intelligent case can be made for either answer." This seems to be consistent with others who also seek an integration between theism and physics, e.g. Alister McGrath, Owen Gingerich and John Polkinghorne. I understand this assertion from the sense that there may not be a knock down "proof" of God's existence, as in, "You must believe he exists if you make any claim to being a rational person."
On the other hand, I'm curious how you would understand Paul's assertion that, "For what can be known about God is plain to them [mankind], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20 ESV)." At least to an Evangelical Christian of the Reformed tradition, like myself, Paul appears to argue that there's enough "proof" of God's existence for us to be accountable, if not partially irrational, people.
BTW, thanks for your original article. I was hoping you'd post.

To insist that Stephen Hawking is entirely wrong is not something we can comment upon with certainty. To accept biblical explanations of science is indicative of superstition rather than of faith. No, the sun does not revolve around the earth; yes, the earth is more than 6,000 years old; yes, evolution could have occurred without divine intervention. True faith requires unsupported belief. Most of us do not experience obvious miracles or get knocked off our donkeys on the way to Damascus, so we have to make a leap into the unknown. We don't need the brilliance of a Stephen Hawking to have faith, but faith, unlike superstition (often manifested in a deep suspicion of science,) is not entirely irrational. Faith does not require knee-jerk rejection of science because it's a positive affirmation of something that isn't directly proven to us (as opposed to rejection of what, in some cases, is proven to us.)

"But Gail, why is it that you find Shelama offensive but I don't?"

Maybe because you see Shelama for what she is: a Poe. Look at her argumentation, look at the gibberish that passes for a bon mot (or a parody, thereof), there is no way this woman (or man, on the web who knows) is serious.

She's probably some theist or spiritualist troll, giggling to herself as she creates a drunken parody of an atheist. Hardy-har-har....you sure skewered me and my position [/sarcasm].


While we're on the subject:

"But what Hawkings is doing is extending the so-called religious placemat ... and I'm here as a student. And Stephen Barr seems enthralled with the speculations but not the Hawking's "madison avenue" tactics. "

What in the blue hell are you talking about? No seriously, what the hell was that? What were you trying to say? Are you accusing Hawking of something?

The central argument for the ontological existence of God as put forth by Aquinas is based on logic. Something that is conditional could either exist or not exist and cannot therefore be its own first cause without violating the principle of causality. There must be a necessary and sufficient first cause for the existence of the set of possible states of the Universe. The English word "God" represents a theoretical construct that includes the property of unconditioned existence and is necessary and sufficient to explain the observed phenomenon (i.e. the physical Universe). Hawking's argument does not appear to provide a necessary and sufficient alternative to this theoretical construct called "God" and therefore fails the test of parsimony.

Shelama receives a lot of critcism here, both for her comments and her presumed motivations. Could it be that she really is like some of the rest of us who visit FT, people who know that we have not attained the level of religious understanding of the primary posters and commentors and are actually seeking guidance? Her critics are making some very good points that demonstrate and point the way to a higher degree of understanding.

"The Big Breasted Lesbian Manic-Depressive Multiple Personality explains more and explains it better."

Yes, which is why so many people have espoused it as the inspiration to accomplish so much good in the world. I will give you Gallant Lesbian points for jousting here. Courageous and saucy lesbian you are! And the kids are alright. You go girl.

Zabbo, these discussion mark the first time I have ever entered this site. You may or may not believe that. If I'm lying to you, then I'm a troll but to what purpose? So what difference does it make to the arguments? Nothing really, unless we are discussing a known troll or the trollery that has previously besieged this site. I am ignorant of the machinations of this site. I will further say that I know nothing of Shelama but what [it] has posted. So now, troll or no troll, I have only one thing to go by, what shelama posts. I can waste a lot of time considering all the bluffs in an insidious poker game or I can take what seems relevant to the Barr article and allow the inception of some various ideas or criticisms. Concerning Shelama, this I did, once. Unlike most of the posters, I ignored the taunts of Shelama and thus I was not blinded by offense.

OKAY, the site ensnared me because I'm somewhat interested in physics but less interested in the divinity issue. Still, when a world famous physicist claims in one book that g_d is not needed to understand the 'whys' and 'why nots' concerning the 'origins' and perhaps the Scientist has contradicted his previous works, then I may conclude that the body of accepted scientific knowledge has either changed or not changed. I might continue to think about it all.

So now, let me say again, I'm new to this site and a layman in physics--a student of sorts. So I have some difficulty in determining the truth of Barr's explanation of what Hawkings is trying to say. I have a strong sense that Barr is right in saying the divine issues is still there. So I naturally look for weaknesses in the various rhetoric to ascertain the truthfulness of the article. And further, the truth is, I don't even know if the person posting under the name of Stephen M Barr is actually the author of the article, Stephen M Barr. So I decide to trust the site to be honorable and accept that the poster is indeed the author. You must understand, there is no limit to deceptions. But why trouble myself over the poker of who is and is not a troll as long as there is a valid point to argue. And further, I liked the Banking Analogy--what can I say!

So now, consider that Shelama pointed out one problem with Barr's article. And with good grace, Barr accepted the criticism and rationalized the strawman argument....go back and read the exchange. It is clear to me that Barr utilized a weak athiest strawman to make certain conclusions. Suddenly, there is some intellectual dishonesty. But he finds a reasonable retreat in saying that he is accustom to a certain kind of 'atheist' with 'lazy' [my word] logic. He gives some examples. Well, there is plenty of 'lazy logic' to go around the area of Atheism and Theism.

Well, okay. But just as their is no monolithic christianity, there are many kinds of athiests. The most stalwart athiest is the one that doesn't even bother with the discussion, that excludes Me and YOU! Be sure of one thing, there is a bit of troll in us both and all!

So with some humility, I ask you to go back and consider what is a placemat and what might be better called a place marker. I sometimes pull words out of thin air or out of my butt. I wish I'd said:
"But what Hawkings is doing is extending the so-called religious place[ marker] ... and I'm here as a student. And Stephen Barr seems enthralled with the speculations but not the Hawking's "madison avenue" tactics. "

If you consider that in the book, A Brief History of [Time], Hawkings illustrates how physicists have continually tried to pin down the Holy Grail of their Science. It's a long history of speculations and reformulations of the Theories of Physics. After reading his book, one should be suspicious of anyone that claims to have found the Holy Grail! So maybe Hawkings has found something really new and involves many universes...Barr says it's still speculation and not yet a strong theory. Us mere mortals, still can ask, "Um, what is outside the Multiverse"? And any good atheist can ask, "Um, Mr Hawkings, before I believe in you're theories, can you show me just 2 of these universes, please." With a little bit of Madison Ave, Hawkings might just be able to get us to consider his ideas through the purchase of his new book, The Grand Design. So why not bring up the divinity issue to generate sales? It's intuitively obvious and it's the way capitalism works.

As for me, I'm just sorry I used 'placemat' instead of 'place marker' as a place holder for what is generally accepted knowledge in the area of Science. Anything beyond that place marker is open to scientific and religious speculation and subject to reasonable doubt if not extreme skepticism.

Just for humor's sake and that is all that is really new, maybe g_d stands for Grand_Design.

Thanks, Babs DA TROLL

Let me say at the outset that Mr. Barr is an old e-mail acquaintance of mine, and that I am a big fan of his; having read, I think, every book he's published and every article of his to have appeared in First Things. Of course, as a Christian, it's easy for me to follow Stephen's thinking. When I say "easy," I'm referring to the fact the his views comport with my religious zeitgeist; especially when it come to his admiration for Aquinas. (In no way do I mean to suggest that I have a good command of quantum theory, I don't; though it's not from lack of trying!)

What I do wish to speak to are Mr. Barr's following comments:
"I don't know why the anti-theists who are commenting here are latching onto my statement that the quantum creation idea is "speculative". They seem offended by that...I repeat: it is a lovely idea and I happen to think it is very likely to be true. ...

"I must admit to getting annoyed at my fellow religious believers when they mock or sneer at ideas in science without having taken much trouble to really learn about those ideas in detail and understand them. I get equally annoyed by atheists who just sneer and mock at traditional theological concepts based on only the barest familiarity with them..."
Perhaps the "anti-theists" are so sensitive because they stand on very thin ice. (More about this in a moment.)

In one of our e-mail exchanges, Mr. Barr once expressed displeasure with my notion that M theory and other exotic notions, which offer little in the way of proof (or even progress in the quest for proof) are given an inordinate amount of attention in the scientific community due to political, not scientific concerns. Let's face it, physicists (the vast majority of whom are agnostic/atheist) find the notion of a creator to be extremely distasteful. And so it becomes their task to remove the need for such a hypothesis. But in their quest to remove this hypothesis I'm afraid the scientific community falls prey to a certain hubris that leads to scientific pretensions that involve a great deal of overreach.
Perhaps the best and most succinct example of what I'm referring to is quantum theory itself. I make this claim while cognizant of the fact that I just admitted I'm not well-versed in this area. No matter, David Berlinski is. And it's Berlinski's example which I shall use to demonstrate why people of faith are oftentimes not impressed with the claims of science.

"A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology"
by David Berlinski

"Q: From what did our universe evolve?

"A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg.

"Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like?

"A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird.

"Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions?

"A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious.

"Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name?

"A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter.
"Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe.?

"A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein’s field equations. You may think of that as a good thing.

"Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg?

"A: It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac.

"Q: When was it there?

"A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery.

"Q: Where did the egg come from?

"A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing.

"Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there?

"A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal.

"Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg?

"A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things.”

{But it’s what Berlinski says next that is most striking.}

“This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It *is* quantum cosmology.

“Readers lacking faith, will, I imagine, wish to know something more about its crucial step, and that is the emergence of a mini-universe from nothing at all. They will be disappointed to learn that insofar as the mini-universe is actual, it did not emerge from nothing, and insofar as it is possible, it did not emerge at all. What can be said about the mini-universe according to either interpretation is that Hawking has designated it as probable because he has assumed that it *is* probable. He has done this by restricting the wave function of the universe to just those universes that coincide with the de Sitter universe at their boundaries.

This coincidence is all that is needed to produce the desired results. The wave function of the universe and the de sitter mini-universe are made for each other. The subsequent computations indicate the obvious: The universe most likely to be found down there in the sac of time is just the universe Hawking assumed would be found down there. If what Hawking has described is not quite a circle in thought, it does appear to suggest an oblate spheroid.
"The result is guaranteed—one hunnerd percent as used-car salesmen say.”

Now, Mr. Barr, when I e-mailed you Berlinski's remarks a few years ago, you admitted that Berlinski was "not wrong in his description of quantum cosmology." Though you went on to express your disapproval concerning his contemptuous tone. Moreover, you acknowledged that *all* quantum cosmologists would readily admit that they don't yet have a real theory of the beginnings of the universe because they don't *understand* quantum gravity well enough.

Therefore, those of us believers who toil outside the scientific community might be forgiven if we sometimes demur, even sneer, when presented with some scientific claims.

Lastly, you were correct in one of your replies to me to point out that this scientific ignorance is no reason why scientists should not try to understand what happened at the beginning of the universe. As you said at the time, "What could be a more interesting scientific question than how the universe began?"

Amen to that!

Dear RAPrice,

I agree with you that there is enough evidence. And naturally I do not reject what St. Paul said. The Catholic Church also teaches that the existence of God "can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason." This was taught by the First Vatican Council, and the Scriptural basis was precisely the text of St. Paul that you cite.

To me personally the existence of God is obvious. And yet I know very intelligent people who don't believe in God. Of course, intelligent people may believe in things for unintelligent reasons. But there are some arguments against God that are hard to dismiss as simply unintelligent. The argument from evil, for instance.

One can be intelligent and yet have certain kinds of intellectual blindness. And some people are perhaps too distracted by quotidian concerns ever to stop and wonder at the world and ask themselves the really deep questions. And some people who are very bright are shallow. And yet, I have known a few people who were extremely bright and not at all shallow who found it very hard to believe in God.

Even though the evidence is there, it may take grace to open a person's eyes to it. "Those who have eyes to see, let them see."

Babs,

Dear, dear, dear, Babs....

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I never said you were a troll. I was discussing Shelama as the troll (she's an obvious Poe).

Now I may not agree with Barr (to put it mildly) , but come now...intellectual dishonesty? I saw no such thing. Heck, it doesn't take much of genius to knock down the obvious strawman(woman) arguments Shelama was putting up (hence why I began to suspect that she's just a parody character some theist put up just to have others point and say "Look! Look! Look at this obviously real, 100% genuine atheist make stupid statements! See! See!" )

Thank you clarifying your statement, though. I was thinking for a moment that you were claiming Hawking was some kind of covert theist.

Did he do it to drum up sales? Yep. Probably also to cover the fact that he probably doesn't have anything new to say (so keeping your copy of "BHOT" might be a good idea).

Personally, I'm not fond of the idea though. Physicists should stick to physics especially when the alternative is filling the gaps in the data with philosophical hoodoo (especially when it's badly argued). Quentin Smith took Hawking to task when he did this in BHOT, I would hope that the man learned from his mistakes.

Mark, we do not need to know how God exists in order to understand that He exists.
There must be a Creator Who is not subject to The Laws of Physics Who created the Laws of Physics since The Universe exists, to begin with.

I'm reminded of this...

"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."
— G.K. Chesterton

AMERICAN - In fact the rest of the West - NEEDS TO START INVESTING IN THE HUMANITIES AND ESPECIALLY PHILOSOPHY CLASSES. Too many smart people are falling down for no reason because the opposition has twisted and taken things out of context. Science will NEVER prove God does not exist and science ALONE will never prove that he does.

Human perceptions of time, space, and matter have evolved through the semi-porous spiritual filter referred to in Genesis as "the knowledge of good and evil." No sensory perception, small or great, is beyond the influence of this ancient knowledge; spiritual knowledge so ancient, and now so much a part of every human character that its influence is either forgotten or discounted as myth.

I am 64 years of age today. I was 32 years of age when, by his Spirit, Jesus of Nazareth did for me precisely what he said he would do for any Soul willing to acknowledge him as LORD and saviour. Up to that moment the pursuit of power, money, luxury and pleasure only seemed logical and worthwhile. Dog eat dog, king of the hill. After that moment when the process of salvation began, the tongues of all the world's genius became insufficient to describe "the peace surpassing all understanding" which for a time overwhelmed me. Am I now serene in perpetual godly peace with myself and the world? Sometimes but hardly. Early on I thanked the LORD for the prophet-poet John Milton's guidance in "Paradise Lost" helping me and many others to understand a little more about character of our present situation.

Along the way I have learned a few things about the darkly effective, once-forbidden, and then rebelliously misappropriated knowledge of good and evil. That dark knowledge confuses me and my fellow-citizens as badly now as it did in the garden of our Great Progenitors. That once-forbidden spiritual knowledge shattered the unity of mankind's Soul with God. Can there be any honest denial of the spiritual and physical agonies caused by this supernatural/spiritual knowledge?

I believe one solution to this agony (one among many given by the LORD) was summed up @ Jacob's Well when Jesus of Nazareth a.k.a. God Incarnate revealed himself outright and with great compassion to a whorish Samaritan woman. The Christ-man's dealings with women are most instructive.

Looking in the mirror now, facing the wrinkly aging face that used to be the fresh countenance of a happy child and seeing the effects of decay and death brought on by the knowledge of good and evil is teaching me a lesson I will remember a trillion years from now should God allow the memory of "time" to remain. The lesson? When God says don't do something, don't do it.

I have always been impressed with the ability of Catholic Intellectuals to engage in public discourse about science, philosophy, the arts, and especially issues pertaining to public morality (abortion) etc. As a conservative Presbyterian youth pastor, I am sometimes tempted to convert to Catholicism based on their prowess in the public arena. Dr. Barr has done an excellent job engaging science on its own terms, and Id be curious to hear his thoughts on the Intelligent Design movement. Perhaps he could comment on the possibility of it replacing Evolution as the accepted paradigm within scientific circles?

Dr. Barr has done an excellent job engaging science on its own terms, and Id be curious to hear his thoughts on the Intelligent Design movement. Perhaps he could comment on the possibility of it replacing Evolution as the accepted paradigm within scientific circles?

See here:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

ID is bad theology before it is bad science.

I miss the days before FT Web 2.0 when I used to come here to read thoughtful posts by intelligent people of faith. Now I find myself exhausted trying to wade through all the responses, rooting for this one or that one, only to come across someone else's point that turns my head around again.

Thank you, Professor Barr. I'm always find your commentaries rewarding. I guess I just have to learn quit while I'm ahead!

God Bless!

It seems to me that by invoking and unproven -- and possibly not scientifically provable -- infinity of universes to explain where we come from, this theory doesn't so much eliminate God from the discussion as suggest its own kind of deity. There is still an absolute infinity whose potential allows for us to exist. What is eliminated from his model is a concept of divine will, and thus purpose and thus eliminates the notion of demands made of us.

There is also a basic question of why the universe has laws altogether, beyond the question of why these laws. M-theory explains why those laws involve constants that have the values they do, but not wider questions about the kinds of laws we have.

With all due respect, Dr.Barr, the Universe consists of all matter and energy seen and unseen regarded as a whole. The first Law of Physics is nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could and yet the Universe exists. In order for the Universe to exist, there must be a Creator, Who exists outside Time and Space, Who is not subject to The Laws of Physics , because He created The Laws of Physics, to begin with. The theory of multiple universes and time travel is known as Science Fiction.

So Shelama is the Atheist troll on this thread.

Ye Olde Statistician mentions Barr's article on ID. In it I found the following statement:
"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong." The End of Intelligent Design? Stephen M. Barr, First Things/On the Square, Feb 9, 2010

Barr's thrust appears to be an objection to ID based on tactical considerations rather than flaws in the general concept, which the quote above admits could be valid. Among other things, he is concerned that ID might end up being exposed by science as another failed "God of the gaps" hypothesis. (Although not mentioned by Barr, Robert A. Millikan's idea that cosmic rays "were the 'birth cries' of new atoms continually being created by God" [Wikipedia] is an instructive example.)

I've been working on a piece that is very much concerned with tactical issues (especially see the last six paragraphs). I gave it the deliberately provocative title of "Forget Evolution!" (http://forgetevolution.com) I admittedly do not have strong qualifications in either biology or cosmology, but the argumentation is not heavily dependent on such credentials.

I'm aware of the netiquette of online forums and have no interest in any kind of attempt to hijack this discussion. However if YOS or any other readers might be interested in providing constructive feedback on my work in progress, feel free to contact me. I go by westfalr and the domain is acm.org.

"There are two answers to the question: “Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?” The atheist answers, “There is no explanation.” The theist replies, God."

Well, maybe it's harder for me to believe that there can be a state of nothingness at all. Thus you get other answers to the above question, It has no solution or it's a bad question. Or it's a question that may be asked under the limited circumstances where one can still stack turtles or present an answer that involves stacking mind-boggling universes.

Of course, we may have faith in a deity that possesses the equipment to answer what we cannot answer. This allows for the agnostic. Perhaps agnosticism is anathema to aggressive religions and forceful science.

Professor Barr:
Thank you for your article. I am illiterate for the most part when it comes to physics but find the topic extremely interesting. I appreciate your writing about such at a level I can understand. In one of your comments above you mentioned the following:

"To give Hawking his due, I must point out a couple of things. One can produce atoms in the laboratory. The whole purpose of particle accelerators is to produce particle that were not there before."

Could you explain this to us in layman's terms? Does this mean that scientists can actually create atoms and particles from nothing? If so, how do they create "nothing" in a laboratory which is clearly made of matter? Is it just through mathematical equations? Can they create the "nothing" condition at the LHC?

My brother is an atheist and I am Catholic. We have agreed to read the Hawking book and get back together to discuss - so glad I found this website!

Dear shescooking,

In the laboratory, one can make particles, but not out of nothing. Rather, out of some other form of energy.

But one may even make particles outside the lab: every time you turn on a light you make particles of light that were not there before. Of course, as in the lab, since these particles of light have energy, and one needs a source of energy to make them --- electrical energy, for instance.

May I suggest that you and your atheist brother read a book by a fellow named Stephen M. Barr called "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith"? Maybe it could be an exchange: you'll read Hawking's book if he'll read mine. In Appendix B of the book I explain some of these things. But in the rest of my book I think he may find plenty to make him think about the relation of faith and science in a different light.

Dear Professor Barr.

Hawking's new book has forced me to examine my faith and understand theology and phyisics better. I see how you can make an argument for a creator but the stumbling block I run into is Devine Intervention. I haven't yet been able to understand how God can intervene in the nature. I heard that Hawking has also said that God may have created the laws of nature but he doesn't intervene. I am currious as to your opinon on this, and what works you would reconmend on this subject of Devine Intervention in the natural world (books, articals...etc).

Dear Professor Barr

Hawkings new book has forced me to better understand my Faith I have been taking a closer look at theology and science to see how they fit. the big stumbling block I run into is the theological doctrine of Devine Intervention. I don't understand how God can intervene in the natural world. I belive Hawking has also said that God may have created the laws of nature but he doesn't intervene in them. I am curious for your opinon on this idea, and your reconmendation of works (books, artical and the like) that would be helpful in understanding Devine Intervention.

For God's sake, we need to seize upon every scientific development in our understanding of the universe and insist on the relevance of our God no matter what unless we want the ever-more enlightening series of scientific revelations enables people to come fast to realize that our universe is, in fact, just one of a gazillion of simulated realities created by highly advanced extraterrestrial and unfathomably ultra-dimensional civilizations for their own scientific research purposes, or maybe just for a fun video game.

Long live our God, not the aliens!

I miss sentence structure.

You are quite right that creation ex nihilo doesn't mean that nothing is required to give being to the universe. Indeed, God is required and he isn't nothing. In the expression creation ex nihilo, what is meant is that God requires "nothing outside himself" to create.

This quote from Stephen Barr is reassuring and shows that some scientists do have an excellent scientific mind. Hawking and his fellow science fiction writer and physicist do need to read this paragraph again and again. I am writing my own first book, a prelude to my second later, after my relativity paper SAJS 104 221-224 which was recommended by world famous cosmologist George Ellis for publication. It will be followed by the second one, a totally original book that will show how God, in my way of reading God's mind, created the universe. We have to think that our universe is not just a bundle of physical constants but a lot more. Hawking needs to remember that even God had to reckon with the Law of Conservation of energy and mass when he decided to go ahead to say be and it is.

"When dealing with something so far removed from human experience as the origins and/or maintenance of universes, I doubt the competence of human intuition. "

I wish someone had told Hawking that before he used his intuition to pronounce judgments that the science cannot back up.

As it stands we have another giant made to look like a dwarf by his own hubris.

'Hawking needs to remember that even God had to reckon with the Law of Conservation of energy and mass when he decided to go ahead to say be and it is.' - Professor Abed Peerally (20/9/2010, 2:25 A.M.)

This statement is really... strange. Are you stating here that God was limited in his/her/its ability to select the attributes that would go towards creating the universe by a law of nature (specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics) that could not, by definition, exist outside of this universe to begin with?

If God is so constrained, should we call him/her/it 'God'? Isn't God supposed to be 'all-powerful' or have I just missed something here? When you made the above comment, were you perhaps thinking that the best of all possible worlds required God to 'reckon with the Law of Conservation'; in other words, a universe without such a law of nature would have been far worse than the one we ended up with (i.e. there would be more 'evil', or chaos)?

"Isn't God supposed to be 'all-powerful' or have I just missed something here?"

Well, God can't create an uncreated being such as Himself.

So perhaps omnipotent doesn't mean quite what you think it does.

THIS IS THE ULTIMATE and only relevant question here: “Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?” (All other topics/threads are meaningless noise in my opinion.)

Here is the answer, and I welcome feedback:

That question itself is an inherent flaw in the nature of human logic that stems from how are brains are designed to make sense of the world/universe. This is because all content that is WITHIN the universe (or multiverse) has an origin. In other words, there is evidence or at least theory behind the explanations for all that comprises what we know as the universe. (From star, planet and heavy element formations, to galaxy clusters, down to the subatomic level described by quantum theory.) We explain all phenomena within the universe in terms of cause and effect, and correctly so. For example, babies come from mothers, the heavy elements that make up planets and life come from supernovas, the inflationary universe comes from a big bang and dark energy, etc. HOWEVER, to apply this cause and effect logic we use within the universe to the universe as a whole is where the flaw in human thought arises.

To demand that this "system," inside of which contains observers and the content they try to make sense of, be forced to fall within the "cause-and-effect" construct we are accustomed to is fundamentally flawed. It is as naive and anthropically biased as thinking that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

It is this flaw in the nature of how we rationalize and learn that prevents us from seeing a very plain fact about the universe: that it has ALWAYS existed and it will continue to exist in perpetuity. ('Perpetuity' is another concept we humans have trouble grasping for obvious reasons.) There is no necessity for a reason that there has to be a "something" rather than a "nothing" any more than there is a need to explain why a three-legged flying goblin on a unicorn DOES NOT exist. This is the nature of existence: it exists and always had. Questions to the contrary are inapplicable. Or more precisely, we are not capable of asking what the "right" question is.

Personally, I feel very comfortable with the answer to that ultimate question as it relates to resolving this mystery. Admittedly, it is quite simplistic. But it is also elegant and logically more comprehensive and intact than all other explanations, most especially the god one.

What do you think?

THIS IS THE ULTIMATE and only relevant question here: “Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?” (All other topics/threads are meaningless noise in my opinion.)

Here is the answer, and I welcome feedback:

That question itself is an inherent flaw in the nature of human logic that stems from how are brains are designed to make sense of the world/universe. This is because all content that is WITHIN the universe (or multiverse) has an origin. In other words, there is evidence or at least theory behind the explanations for all that comprises what we know as the universe. (From star, planet and heavy element formations, to galaxy clusters, down to the subatomic level described by quantum theory.) We explain all phenomena within the universe in terms of cause and effect, and correctly so. For example, babies come from mothers, the heavy elements that make up planets and life come from supernovas, the inflationary universe comes from a big bang and dark energy, etc. HOWEVER, to apply this cause and effect logic we use within the universe to the universe as a whole is where the flaw in human thought arises.

To demand that this "system," inside of which contains observers and the content they try to make sense of, be forced to fall within the "cause-and-effect" construct we are accustomed to is fundamentally flawed. It is as naive and anthropically biased as thinking that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

It is this flaw in the nature of how we rationalize and learn that prevents us from seeing a very plain fact about the universe: that it has ALWAYS existed and it will continue to exist in perpetuity. ('Perpetuity' is another concept we humans have trouble grasping for obvious reasons.) There is no necessity for a reason that there has to be a "something" rather than a "nothing" any more than there is a need to explain why a three-legged flying goblin on a unicorn DOES NOT exist. This is the nature of existence: it exists and always had. Questions to the contrary are inapplicable. Or more precisely, we are not capable of asking what the "right" question is.

Personally, I feel very comfortable with the answer to that ultimate question as it relates to resolving this mystery. Admittedly, it is quite simplistic. But it is also elegant and logically more comprehensive and intact than all other explanations, most especially the god one.

What do you think?

What Hawking means by God is a bunch of initial conditions. For instance, one can imagine a scenario where the success of the big bang depends on the initial temperature. Perhaps we have good reason to propose that the temperature could now be arbitrary. Hawking would say God is now less necessary. I fundamentally reject this God-of-the-gaps approach.

Joe

"This is the nature of existence: it exists and always had. Questions to the contrary are inapplicable. Or more precisely, we are not capable of asking what the "right" question is. Personally, I feel very comfortable with the answer to that ultimate question as it relates to resolving this mystery. Admittedly, it is quite simplistic. But it is also elegant and logically more comprehensive and intact than all other explanations, most especially the god one.

What do you think? "

What do I think? I think you missed the definition of "logical" and "comprehensive" in grammar school. What you gave wasn't an answer, it was a shrug, a white flag being waved, an admission that you have no ideas and no ambition to find the knowledge necessary to answer the big questions and as a result, your response is below the level of any explanation currently on the table. This includes the "God Explanation" which you seem to loath so much.

What do I think? I think you've abandoned all pretense of making a scientific or rational argument, in favor of word games and junior high philosophy (all of which are empty as can be).

Don't waste our time.

Refer to the website address at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy pertaining to dark energy.

The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’:

According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.

The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’:

The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the "cost of having space": that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter , the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..

E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since 0 is multiplied by c2 always equal to 0. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance. Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy could exist even though there could not be any matter existed prior to the formation of the universe.

Refer to the website address at: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html pertaining to the law of universal gravitation. The following is the extract of the definition of law of universal gravitation:

Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)//r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant. From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.

What is Big Bang Theory? The following is the definition of Big Bang theory that has been extracted from the third paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, under the sub-title of ‘Big Bang’:
‘The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, THE UNIVERSE WAS ONCE IN AN EXTREMELY HOT AND DENSE STATE which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe. After its initial expansion from a SINGULARITY, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.’
As the phrase, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state, is mentioned in the definition of the Big Bang theory, it implies that something would have caused that universe to be once in an extremely hot and dense state. If nothing would have caused the universe to be extremely hot and dense state, how could the universe be in hot and dense condition? Or in other words, there must be something that would have caused the universe to be hot in order that Big Bang theory could be triggered off. This certainly contradicts Stephen Hawking’s theory that supports that something could be generated from nothing. This is by virtue of Big Bang theory requires heat and dense state instead of nothing in order to trigger off Big Bang theory and yet the phrase, something could be generated from nothing as suggested by Stephen Hawking, implies the absence of anything and this includes also heat and dense condition.
The phrase, After its initial expansion from a singularity, as mentioned in the same paragraph in the website address above gives us the impression that Big Bang theory is the continuation theory of General Relativity.
The following is the extract from the first paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Timeline of the Big Bang’:
‘Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using GENERAL RELATIVITY yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. THIS SINGULARITY IS SOMETIMES CALLED “THE BIG BANG”, but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe.’
Both phrases, general relativity, and , singularity is sometimes called “the Big Bang”, as extracted above give us the idea that Big Bang theory is meant for general relativity.
What is General Relativity? The following is the definition of General Relativity as extracted from the second paragraph under the sub-title, Introduction to General Relativity, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity:
‘General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Eistein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time.’
The phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, as mentioned in this definition gives the implication that the general relativity has their derivation from three elements and there are masses, space and time. It is only at the existence of masses that has been coordinated with the warping of space and time that these would contribute the gravitational attraction.
As mentioned early that Big Bang theory has to deal with General Relativity and yet the General Relativity is only at work among masses, space and time. As masses have to be needed to be in existence in order to have the creation of General Relativity and yet Big Bang theory has to deal with General Relativity, it gives the implication that the masses of substances have to be present in order to generate Big Bang theory. As the existence of masses of substances would then generate Big Bang theory, Stephen Hawking’s theory that Big Bang theory would create something out of nothing would be wrong. This is by virtue of it is the must to have masses of substances to interact with time and space so as to generate Big Bang theory.
Now a question has to be raised. As it is a must to have masses of substances in order to generate Big Bang theory that would result from their warping of space of time and yet Big Bang theory requires nothing to generate something, all these point to the fact that the Big Bang theory itself is unscientific and contradictorily and cannot be reliable.

Does the absence of cosmological constant from Einstein Field Equation supports this universe could be created to be something from nothing?
The following is the extract under the sub-title, Einstein Field Equations, from the website address, http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Cosmological_constant:
(…where G is the gravitational constant. .. This "cosmological constant" was what Einstein added in order to achieve a static universe, and it is given the symbol .
R 1/2 Rg + =8GT (2)
When is positive it acts as a repulsive force. )
As the phrase, the ‘cosmological constant was what Einstein added in order to achieve a static universe, is mentioned in the extract above, it implies that Einstein presumed that the universe should be in static stage and that was why he inserted into his equation.
At the absence of cosmological constant, , from the above equation, the universe would turn up not to be static universe and the equation should be:
R 1/2 Rg =8GT
From the equation above, the space time as expressed by (R 1/2 Rg ) has a direct influence upon G, the gravitational constant.
What is gravitational constant? The mathematical formula of gravitational constant could be located in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation, under the sub-title, Newton’s law of universal gravitation as indicated below:
{F = G (m1 m2)/(r) the power of 2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}
From the above formula, it is obvious that F, the force between the masses, has a direct influence upon G, the gravitational constant. If the gravitational constant is zero, the force between the masses should be zero too. Or in other words, there should not be any gravity at the absence of masses. This certainly would not support Stephen Hawking’s theory that mentions that gravity could exist at the absence of masses so as to generate something out of nothing.
As gravitational constant has to deal with masses and the Eistein Field Equation, i.e. R 1/2Rg =8GT , has to deal with gravitational constant, it gives the ultimate conclusion that Eistein Field Equation has to deal with masses despite the absence of cosmological constant. Or in other words, in order that Eistein Field Equation to be at work, masses of substances must be in existence in order to generate General Relativity. Thus, it opposes the theory that supports that universe could be generated to something out of nothing.

Stephen Hawking mentioned before that the universe would be formed through Quantum Theory.
The following is the extract from the third paragraph under the sub-title, Vacuum State, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state:
‘According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void." According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.’
As the phrase, vacuum is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence, is mentioned above, it implies quantum vacuum could never be empty. Instead, it consists of electromagnetic waves as well as particles. Questions have to be raised. What would have caused electromagnetic waves to exist? If nothing should have existed prior to the creation of quantum vacuum, why should there be electromagnetic waves? What should thing have existed to give rise to electromagnetic waves in order to generate quantum vacuum? The electromagnetic waves give the implication that something should have caused the waves to rise or else there should never be any electromagnetic waves to be generated. As there would be particles that pop into and out of existence at the function of quantum vacuum, it implies the existence of particles in which something must have created them into beings.
Thus, the above explanation objects the explanation that quantum vacuum could create something out of nothing since the existence of electromagnetic waves would give the information that something should have created it or else why the waves should be in existence. Besides, the existence of particles that pop into and out of existence in the quantum vacuum gives the implication of the existence of matter in quantum vacuum condition. If one comments that quantum vacuum could create the universe, who then should be the one that would create electromagnetic waves so as to trigger off quantum vacuum then? Besides, who was the one that would have created particles that would have popped in and out of existence in quantum vacuum condition?
From the above analysis, it would come to the conclusion that quantum vacuum is not the creator of the universe since how quantum vacuum could be able to create something out of nothing especially there are particles in quantum vacuum.
Some might argue that the word, mass, as mentioned in Newton’s principle or General Relativity might not refer to substances but energy since there is mass for energy. Discuss.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Definition and basic properties, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity:
‘Paraphrasing the relativist John Archibald Wheeler, spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.’
The word, matter, as extract above gives the implication that the word, mass as mentioned in General Relativity is meant for objects or substances instead of energy.
The following is the extract from the 2nd paragraph under the sub-title, Geometry of Newtonian gravity, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity:
‘A simplified version of this is embodied in Einstein's elevator experiment, illustrated in the figure on the right: for an observer in a small enclosed room, it is impossible to decide, by mapping the trajectory of bodies such as a dropped ball, whether the room is at rest in a gravitational field, or in free space aboard an accelerating rocket generating a force equal to gravity.’
The phrases, elevator experiment, and, dropped ball, and accelerating rocket, as mentioned above gives the implication that Einstein has performed the General Relativity on matter instead of on energy. Thus, the matter as mentioned in Einstein’s theory is meant inevitably for substances or objects instead of for energy. As Einstein has performed his General Relativity’s experiment successfully on matter, it is obvious that the word, mass, in his General Relativity’s theory is meant for substances or objects instead of for energy.
The following is the extract from the third paragraph under the sub-title, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation in the website address, http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l3c.cfm:
(But Newton's law of universal gravitation extends gravity beyond earth. Newton's law of universal gravitation is about the universality of gravity. Newton's place in the Gravity Hall of Fame is not due to his discovery of gravity, but rather due to his discovery that gravitation is universal. ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance that separates their centers.)
The phrase, ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction, as mentioned above gives the conclusion that Newton referred the word, mass, is his definition to be objects or substances instead of energy.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Law of Universal Gravitation, from the website address, http://schools.wikia.com/wiki/Newton%27s_Law_of_Universal_Gravitation, gives an absolute truth that universal gravitation has its derivation from the discovery from an object, i.e. apple, instead of energy:
(Many people know the story of Issac Newton sitting under an apple tree; when an apple fell on his head, he suddenly thought of the concept of gravity. It is actually much more complex than that; the situation brought about Newton's law of universal gravitation.)
As the word, apple, is mentioned above, it implies that universal gravitation has its derivation from objects instead of energy. Thus, the word, mass, in his theory refers to objects or substances instead of for energy.

Science could be used to prove the existence of God and to strongly oppose Big Bang Theory or whatever, i.e. quantum theory or etc., that supports that this universe would be created to something out of nothing.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of mass, from the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass:
(The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time…The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles;…)
As the phrase, the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time, is mentioned above with the phrase, mass can neither be created or destroyed, it gives the implication that mass could never be increased or reduced. If mass, such as the mass of space in this universe or air or energy or etc., could never be increased or reduced, how the Big Bang theory could play a part to cause the universe to increase. If mass could never be increased or reduced, how the universe could be formed to be something out of nothing. This is by virtue of the same amount of masses of substances or energy should have existed prior to the formation of universe in order to generate the same amount of masses of planets; space in this universe; stars; and whatever that have existed in this current and sophisticated universe in accordance to the law of conservation of mass. Unless the principle of the law of conservation of mass states that the mass could never remain constant over time since it could be reduced or increased, it is then justifiable to use it to support the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory by means of the generation of additional masses of space and planets in this universe. As the law of conservation of mass states that mass will remain unchanged despite it might be transformed into another form, the mass that our universe has now must have the same amount as the mass that would have appeared prior to the formation of this universe especially mass could never be created or destroyed. Thus, the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory has found contradiction with the law of conservation of mass. How could this universe be created through Big Bang Theory when it supports that the mass of the space could be generated with bigger and bigger space and yet the conservation of mass supports that mass could never be created in the first place? If the conservation of mass and energy could change, all the scientific mathematical formula would be wrong since none of the formulas could be equal especially when we talk about the change of transformation of energy from one to another or the transformation of matter from one to another, i.e. Hydrogen and oxygen turn up to be water, and etc. As scientists have proven that the mass could never change over time, how could Big Bang Theory be true then? How could this universe be created to something out of nothing if the mass will remain constant over time? Or in other words, if the world prior to the formation of this universe would be nothing, there should not be anything created. The formation of this universe would only occur if the same mass would have appeared prior to the formation of the universe.
Even if one might argue that the same amount of energy might have existed prior to the formation of this universe so as to generate matters, i.e. earth, moon and etc.,, in this modern universe, the existence of energy implies the universe would still be created from something and that is energy instead of from nothing.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of energy, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy:
(The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system…but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.)
As the phrase, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, is mentioned above, it certainly opposes Big Bang Theory in which something could be created out of nothing since the mass of energy that would have existed before the creation of the universe must remain constant or equal in size even after its creation. Even if one presumes that energy should have existed prior to the creation of the universe, the energy as well as its mass prior to the creation of the universe must be the same as the current universe. As the mass and energy can never be created, how could the mass of the space in this universe be created for further expansion as supported by Big Bang Theory?
As Big Bang Theory has turned up to be unrealistic, it might turn up to be irrational to compute the age of the earth or the universe since the creation itself is questionable. If that could be so, the computation of the age of fossils could have problem since they might have existed permanently in the past and might not have even the beginning.
As the mass, i.e. the space, matter, energy and etc., as well as the energy could never be created nor destroyed, and yet this universe could be created in the very beginning, it implies that something should have existed with supernatural power so much so that nothing would be impossible for him to do and this includes the creation of matter and energy in which there should be no way for it to create. Religious people call it to be God.

a)What is the impact on mass-energy equivalence (E = MC^2) and energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete? Should the law of conservation of mass and energy be abandoned? Should we abandon the law of conservation of mass and energy to accept Big Bang Theory since there are contradictory?
Indeed, all the things in this universe are in the operation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. The following is the possible scenario if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete:
All chemistry and scientific formula could never be equal due to the possible and unexpected creation and/or destruction of mass and/or energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete. Let’s give you an illustration. As we know H2 + O = H2O (water). What if there would be a destruction of oxygen, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2. What if there would be a creation of nitrogen in the interval, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2 + O + N. The absence of the law of conservation of mass and energy would turn up to be that H2 + O could never be equal to H2O. As the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass cannot be created or destroyed, H2 + O would turn up to be equal to H2O. Let’s give you another illustration. E = MC^2 (mass –energy equivalence). If the law of conservation of mass and energy does not work on mass-energy equivalence, the equation could never be equal. What if there would be a destruction of energy, the equation would turn up to be E – E1 = MC^2. What if there was a creation of mass by 10000 times during the process, the equation would turn up to be E = 10000*MC^2. What if there was a destruction of mass by N, the equation would turn up to be E = (M-N)C^2. What if there was a destruction of energy by 80%, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2*20%. As mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2. If the law of conservation of energy and mass is not at work, the General Relativity’s formula could never be established as Ruv - (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv. What if the energy would be destroyed by 80%, the equation would turn up to be as Ruv - (1/2) guv R = [(8 Pi G/c4) Tuv.]*20%. Besides, as we know G = gravitational constant and gravitational constant has been established as {F = G (m1 m2)/(r) ^2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}. If substance could be destroyed completely in the interval, the equation would turn up to be F = G(m10)/(r)^2. What if there would be a sudden creation of m3 in the interval, F =G(m1m2m3)/[(r1)^2*(r2)^2*(r3)^2]. Note: r1 is the distance between m1 and m2; r2 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m1 and m3; and r3 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m2 and m3. All these would alter the result of gravitational constant and have direct influence upon the equation of General Relativity. What if there would be a creation or destruction of energy, T, the General Relativity would turn up to be as Ruv - (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv + or – T. Or in other words, the mathematical formula for mass-energy equivalence could never balance if the law of conservation of mass and energy has become obsolete. It is upon the law of conversation of energy and mass that the formula has turned up to be equal due to there would not be any creation or destruction of mass or energy.
Mass-energy equivalence expresses that E = MC^2 and that implies that matter could be converted to energy. However, this equation does not imply that energy may be converted to matters. There is no evidence from scientists that energy can be converted to matter currently. As energy could not be converted to matter, how could Big Bang Theory support that the creation could start up with energy from a very hot condensed state in a very tiny point whereby the energy could be converted to mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this modern universe as if that mass could be created in which the law of conservation of mass states that it cannot?
b)How could the density of the hot condense state in a very tiny point as suggested by Big Bang Theory be greater than the density of rock of any planets? If the density of the hot condense state could not be greater than the density of rock of any planets, how could the mass in this very tiny point be equal to the total mass of all the planets and etc. in this modern world? This is by virtue of the total mass that would be in the hot condense state must be equal to the total mass of all the planets, stars and etc. that are among all galaxies since the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created.
c)Some might comment that the particles in the space might not carry much mass. As we know there is electromagnetic wave in the space and each wave carries much particles. As much space in vacuum state implies more particles for much electromagnetic wave, much space implies much mass and carries more weight.
d)If you would know the experiment that has been carried out through Large Hadron Collider at CERN, you should have known that it serves no purpose to convince the world that universe in the very hot dense could produce a mass of a huge planet. This is by virtue of we have heard of the production of matter and antimatter through it and yet none of the experiments have come to our mind that it could produce a big planet through this machine and not even a small little sand. For instance, if LHC could be so efficient to create an environment that would meet the condition that is required by Big Bang Theory, the experiment should show a creation of a planet or a small little rock instead of a tiny particle. Some might consider the existence of 6 dimensions to be at work. Why is it that the possible existence of 6 dimensions could not cause LHC to generate a piece of rock instead of tiny small particles currently when this system has generated the environment that seems to meet the condition that Big Bang Theory should be? If LHC could not create a piece of rock but small particles, how could we be sure that the very tiny point that has been assumed by scientists in Big Bang Theory in the beginning could create the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this current universe?
e)Would there be possible that LHC could create new particles?
The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/What+is+the+LHC/11833.aspx:
(The LHC accelerates two beams of atomic particles in opposite directions around the 27km collider. When the particle beams reach their maximum speed the LHC allows them to ‘collide’ at 4 points on their circular journey.
Thousands of new particles are produced when particles collide and detectors, placed around the collision points, allow scientists to identify these new particles by tracking their behaviour. )
As the phrase, Thousands of new particles are produced when particles collide, is mentioned above, it implies the new particles could be generated from LHC. However, question has to be raised about the two initial beams of atomic particles in opposite directions before the collision. Where should they be after the collision? It seems to be that the initial two beams should have vanished. The two initial beams should have been transformed into these thousands of new particles after colliding instead of being treated as new particles are created out from nothing. This is the same logic as why a new product, water, should be formed when hydrogen is burned in the air.