The Beginning
Hawking says:
I believe it's a cosmologist's duty to try and work out where the universe came from. Luckily, it's not quite as difficult as it seems. Despite the complexity and variety of the universe, it turns out that to make one you need just three ingredients. (17:48)He goes on to say that these three things are 1) matter, 2) energy, and 3) space. Oh boy. You can tell we're nearing the conclusion because this show is starting to fall more and more off the edge of reason here. Where would you even start criticizing this?
The complexity of our universe for one thing is not so simple as just "matter, energy, space". Those three things in combination can absolutely exist within a universe which is much different than our own, and which would not support life. Imagine a universe existing of only elementary particles, which cannot become atomic because the strong nuclear force isn't tweaked just right. Numerous other universes, which cannot support intelligent interactive beings like ourselves, could exist with only those three ingredients. Obviously something is missing here.
What about time? A universe that is created with space, matter, and energy but which does not change on a linear progression with each moment will be nothing like our own universe. It would be static and unchanging, and we never would have come into existence.
So Hawking is wrong, we are not so lucky
that the origin of our specific universe is simple.
What Hawking is really trying to do here is say that our universe is nothing, and therefore doesn't require a cause. You may remember Krauss attempting to do the same thing in part 2 of this series. Hawking is going to attempt to philosophically reduce much of existence down into incredibly simple parts so that when he tells you that the universe was created by nothing, it won't seem so absurd. I assure you that it is absurd. Look out your window, or anywhere for that matter, and you'll see that our universe is not as simple as nothing.
However, I will reiterate that Hawking's example of a man digging a hole to create a hill (with the hill representing positive energy, and the hole representing negative energy, both equal and opposite) is counterproductive to his point. Notice that the creation of the hole and the hill required causative action by a person, in the metaphor. This metaphor sounds more like something a theist would use to explain why the universe needed a personal cause (or at least some kind of cause).
Furthermore, Hawking's metaphor argues against his central point here. He says that because the positive energy of the universe balances out with the negative energy, there is no energy at all. Which is ludicrous. But notice that his metaphor is a pure demonstration of why he's wrong. The man digs a hole and creates a hill. Yes, the hill is a positive gain of mass equal but opposite to the negative loss of mass of the hole, but both the hole and the hill exist. The fact that they are equal and opposite in no way implies that neither of them exists to begin with. The idea that two equal but opposite things don't exist relies upon their existence to begin with, and so Hawking's contention is logically incoherent.
Look at it another way. If a universe with positive energy equal but opposite to negative energy means there is no energy, then it should be equivalent to a universe with absolutely no positive or negative energy to begin with. But those two universes would look very different. A universe without any positive energy would mean a universe without stars, without motion, without heat, without you, and so on. If Hawking were right, then what you see in the night sky when you look out at the celestial bodies doesn't actually exist. Obviously this is absurd.
Furthermore, this doesn't explain where space came from. If matter/energy doesn't really exist - and I really can't emphasize enough how absurd that idea is - space still requires an explanation. Even worse we still have to explain the laws of our universe, or the existence of time. We're still stuck with these problems, even if Hawking's assertion that matter/energy doesn't exist was true.
This is the kind of absurd logical gymnastics some modern atheists feel compelled to pull. If you're a Christian, then far from being intimidated by the air of science applied to this philosophy, you could be justified in smugly shaking your head at how pathetic this sort of atheistic reasoning really is. Seriously, atheists have to resort to contending that the universe doesn't exist because they know that they can't avoid the logical absurdity of believing that our universe was created by nothing. To put the "sad" cherry in the "pathetic" sundae, they also have the gall to tell you that this sort of illogical absurdity is scientific.
In spite of all that Hawking has said throughout this video about the controversy between science and religion, you should see now that religion is actually more than capable of coexisting with science peacefully. The religious don't have to jump through false logical hoops to justify their beliefs about the origin of the universe.
But then Hawking pulls a strange u-turn:
He explains that at the subatomic level, particles pop into and out of existence from something called the Quantum Vacuum. Again, I explained this in part 2 already, but here's a brief run down. Just because particles briefly pop into existence from the Quantum Vacuum does not mean they are created by nothing for no reason. They are created out of the Quantum Vacuum, which is a "boiling sea of energy". The Quantum Vacuum is something, and it works on consistent, established principles (laws if you will). If it didn't work this way, then we wouldn't be able to develop a mathematical model of what it even is in the first place.
Even worse, the Quantum Vacuum is an object that exists in our universe. Surely Hawking isn't going to claim that the universe existed before it was created by a Quantum Vacuum? This would be equivalent to saying that the universe created itself. It bears repeating that an object that already exists cannot be created by itself. Hawking is trying to sell you a circular square here. It just doesn't make logical sense.
Here's a helpful hint: If someone tells you that the strangeness of Quantum Mechanics proves their philosophy to be true, you can be certain they're pulling your leg. If you see someone do this, run away as fast as you can because they're trying to fill your head with nonsense.
Hawking is no better than people who abuse the science of Quantum Mechanics like Deepak Chopra. Atheists, you should be on guard, and putting a stop to this if you truly do care about science. Of course, most atheists I talk to repeat these same arguments verbatim without having applied even an ounce of critical thought to it. I suppose that means some atheists really don't care about science.
Dr. William Lane Craig utterly destroys this video here. (Source, ReasonableFaith).
What Hawking is really trying to do here is say that our universe is nothing, and therefore doesn't require a cause. You may remember Krauss attempting to do the same thing in part 2 of this series. Hawking is going to attempt to philosophically reduce much of existence down into incredibly simple parts so that when he tells you that the universe was created by nothing, it won't seem so absurd. I assure you that it is absurd. Look out your window, or anywhere for that matter, and you'll see that our universe is not as simple as nothing.
Digging a Hole
Later on in the video, Hawking will use Einstein's famous equation
(E = mc²) to show that two of the three ingredients are essentially the
same - mass and energy are unified in this equation. Okay, if mass and
energy are the same then we're further down the path to universal
simplicity, ignoring all of those other factors that Hawking left out.
What's absurd about this endeavor is that no matter how simple the
universe may be, it would still be logically incoherent to say that it
created itself, or that it was created by nothing. Neither of those things are logically possible. From nothing, nothing comes.
There isn't much to quote after this without being redundant. Luckily Hawking is going to get to his philosophy very shortly.At the moment of the Big Bang an entire universe of energy came into existence and with it space. It all inflated just like a balloon being blown up. So where did all this energy and space come from? How does an entire universe full of energy, the awesome vastness of space, and everything in it simply appear from nothing? For some, this is where God comes back into the picture. It was God that created the energy and the space. The big bang was the moment of creation. But science tells a different story.
As I was growing up in England after the second world war, it was a time of austerity. We were taught that you never get something for nothing, but now after a lifetime of work, I think that in fact you can get a whole universe for free. The great mystery at the heart of the big bang is to explain how an entire fantastically enormous universe of space and energy can materialize out of nothing. The secret lies in one of the strangest facts about our cosmos. The laws of physics demand the existence of something called negative energy. (24:33)Here Hawking gives the metaphor of what the positive and negative energy of the universe are like. To see this laid out in more depth, check out part 2.
However, I will reiterate that Hawking's example of a man digging a hole to create a hill (with the hill representing positive energy, and the hole representing negative energy, both equal and opposite) is counterproductive to his point. Notice that the creation of the hole and the hill required causative action by a person, in the metaphor. This metaphor sounds more like something a theist would use to explain why the universe needed a personal cause (or at least some kind of cause).
Furthermore, Hawking's metaphor argues against his central point here. He says that because the positive energy of the universe balances out with the negative energy, there is no energy at all. Which is ludicrous. But notice that his metaphor is a pure demonstration of why he's wrong. The man digs a hole and creates a hill. Yes, the hill is a positive gain of mass equal but opposite to the negative loss of mass of the hole, but both the hole and the hill exist. The fact that they are equal and opposite in no way implies that neither of them exists to begin with. The idea that two equal but opposite things don't exist relies upon their existence to begin with, and so Hawking's contention is logically incoherent.
Look at it another way. If a universe with positive energy equal but opposite to negative energy means there is no energy, then it should be equivalent to a universe with absolutely no positive or negative energy to begin with. But those two universes would look very different. A universe without any positive energy would mean a universe without stars, without motion, without heat, without you, and so on. If Hawking were right, then what you see in the night sky when you look out at the celestial bodies doesn't actually exist. Obviously this is absurd.
Furthermore, this doesn't explain where space came from. If matter/energy doesn't really exist - and I really can't emphasize enough how absurd that idea is - space still requires an explanation. Even worse we still have to explain the laws of our universe, or the existence of time. We're still stuck with these problems, even if Hawking's assertion that matter/energy doesn't exist was true.
...if the universe adds up to nothing, then you don't need a God to create it. The universe is the ultimate free lunch. (28:49)No, not quite. As established above, all Hawking did was use a semantic trick to try to convince you that the universe doesn't actually exist and therefore doesn't need to be created. It's really sad to think that such an eminent scientist could actually contend not only that the universe doesn't exist, but also frame this as if it were scientific.
This is the kind of absurd logical gymnastics some modern atheists feel compelled to pull. If you're a Christian, then far from being intimidated by the air of science applied to this philosophy, you could be justified in smugly shaking your head at how pathetic this sort of atheistic reasoning really is. Seriously, atheists have to resort to contending that the universe doesn't exist because they know that they can't avoid the logical absurdity of believing that our universe was created by nothing. To put the "sad" cherry in the "pathetic" sundae, they also have the gall to tell you that this sort of illogical absurdity is scientific.
In spite of all that Hawking has said throughout this video about the controversy between science and religion, you should see now that religion is actually more than capable of coexisting with science peacefully. The religious don't have to jump through false logical hoops to justify their beliefs about the origin of the universe.
Quantum Mechanics in the Beginning
But then Hawking pulls a strange u-turn:
Since we know that the positive and negative in the universe adds up to zero, all we have to do is work out what, or dare I say who, triggered the whole process in the first place.What could cause the spontaneous appearance of the universe? (29:14)I find it strange that Hawking is still searching for clues for a universal cause when he feels he has already established that the universe is a so-called "free lunch". Does he really feel that his own reasoning is inadequate? Yes, because he explains we do not experience things coming into existence by nothing for no reason. He knows that some people will rightly find this absurd or at least counter-intuitive. So how does he try to explain that this isn't absurd? By doing what a lot of peddlers of bunk philosophy do: retreating to the weirdness of Quantum Mechanics.
He explains that at the subatomic level, particles pop into and out of existence from something called the Quantum Vacuum. Again, I explained this in part 2 already, but here's a brief run down. Just because particles briefly pop into existence from the Quantum Vacuum does not mean they are created by nothing for no reason. They are created out of the Quantum Vacuum, which is a "boiling sea of energy". The Quantum Vacuum is something, and it works on consistent, established principles (laws if you will). If it didn't work this way, then we wouldn't be able to develop a mathematical model of what it even is in the first place.
Even worse, the Quantum Vacuum is an object that exists in our universe. Surely Hawking isn't going to claim that the universe existed before it was created by a Quantum Vacuum? This would be equivalent to saying that the universe created itself. It bears repeating that an object that already exists cannot be created by itself. Hawking is trying to sell you a circular square here. It just doesn't make logical sense.
Here's a helpful hint: If someone tells you that the strangeness of Quantum Mechanics proves their philosophy to be true, you can be certain they're pulling your leg. If you see someone do this, run away as fast as you can because they're trying to fill your head with nonsense.
Hawking is no better than people who abuse the science of Quantum Mechanics like Deepak Chopra. Atheists, you should be on guard, and putting a stop to this if you truly do care about science. Of course, most atheists I talk to repeat these same arguments verbatim without having applied even an ounce of critical thought to it. I suppose that means some atheists really don't care about science.
Hawking is Bad For Science
Here I go again.
This
sort of thing is bad for science. 90% of the video above is an attempt to pass unscientific philosophy off as if its scientific. What happens when
laypeople are told that science is an ideological tool like this? They try to
fight back by using science as a tool for their own ideology. Or they
irrationally reject science, because they're led to believe that an
acceptance of science is an implicit acceptance of atheism (or
religion). This includes both atheists and Christians.
Do
you want to know why this country is falling behind other countries in
scientific literacy and education? One of the big reasons is that
science has been hijacked by atheists (and other ideologues). Some conservative Christians on
the other end try to hijack science for their religion because they feel
that if they don't, they're losing some culture war.
When
you hear a Christian who says they reject evolution or whatever else,
it's not because of science, it's because they see it as a threat to
their beliefs. Why? Because atheists have told them it's a threat to
their beliefs. Many Christians who reject evolution don't even know what it is, precisely because they've been misled about it by atheists.
Atheists have conflated science with their atheistic philosophy. In turn, science is devalued and looked down upon, and we have started to become a country not of rational, critical thinkers, but of ideologues fighting for control of the culture.
Atheists have conflated science with their atheistic philosophy. In turn, science is devalued and looked down upon, and we have started to become a country not of rational, critical thinkers, but of ideologues fighting for control of the culture.
Atheists, you are in part directly responsible for the very same lack of scientific literacy that you pretend
to find so bothersome. If you claim that science and religion are at
odds, which simply hasn't been demonstrated, then you're no better than
the creationists you dislike so much. Neither of you are concerned
about science, you're concerned about proselytizing for your particular
unscientific ideology. You are bad for science, and you're bad for the
country. Knock it off.
If
you, atheists, are going to keep damaging science in an attempt to
promote atheism, at least stop pretending that you care about science. Let everyone know that you are ideologues who only care about spreading your beliefs.
Nothing is more annoying in this debate than seeing the blatant
hypocrisy of atheists when it comes to science.
Dr. William Lane Craig utterly destroys this video here. (Source, ReasonableFaith).
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a Comment: