

Why God Did Not Create the Universe - jedwhite
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html

======
all
I fail to see how his reasoning abrogates the notion of God and would
appreciate any light anyone cares to shed. Anyone know of any recorded
universes sprouting out of nothing? Why do multiple instances of intelligent
life and mostly consistent laws of physics mean that there is no Creator? It
just doesn't follow for me.

~~~
anigbrowl
If you assert something such as the existence of a demiurge, it's up to you to
provide support for the theory. That the idea pre-exists modern science and is
thus widely believed by default doesn't strengthen it in the slightest, from a
philosophical perspective.

One has to ask why the notion of a creator is necessary to begin with; sure,
we're lucky the universe exists as it does but on the other hand if we didn't
need to breathe space travel would be a lot cheaper, so our current form is a
limitation as much as an adaptation. And if this being does exist, prior to
the universe as we know it, then where? In a higher dimension of some sort? In
this context, the notion of a creator is a proxy for our lack of knowledge
rather than a positive demonstrable.

As for multiple universes, try the number line. Consider how some functions
can iterate endlessly upon themselves without falling into an oscillating or
steady state. In abstract terms, what you have there is a one-dimensional
universe populated by point beings whose only property is that of position,
but which can yield exhaustively complex behavior nonetheless. All iterative
functions 'exist' simultaneously for all permutations of their starting values
whether or not anyone is actually calculating them at any given moment. You
can expand this concept to include more than one dimension, or alternative
geometries, or indeed any axiomatic formal system, with the one fundamental
constraint being that completeness and consistency are mutually exclusive. We
could do worse than consider our own existence from a similar perspective.

~~~
cookiecaper
None of this addresses the OP's point. You stated your opinion that deity was
formed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge (the popular "God of the Gaps"
theory), your opinion that one who professes belief in a deity harbors the
burden of proof (assuming that that person is trying to prove something to
you...), and your opinion that number lines exist (?).

These are all valid opinions if you want to hold them, but they don't address
the OP's point. This article is entitled "Why God Did Not Create the
Universe". So, how does the idea that there are reliable laws that govern the
operation of our universe show why "God did not create the universe"? What
about the idea that an astonishing number of randomly lucky and successful
permutations occurred in the correct succession out of an infinite number of
wrong potential permutations, how does that demonstrate the article's title?

Evolution is the same way; it's all well and good, but none of it explains
_why_ species change, just _how_. Learning how species change is all well and
good too, but it is not useful in the debate over the existence of god(s). I
wish the creationist v. evolutionist group would just accept that already.

I think it all depends on the perspective you take. A religious person would
read this article and spend it marveling at how anyone can believe that God
does not exist, even when presented with evidence of all the effort and
precision necessary to form a world like ours from an infinite expanse of
random blackness, where the potential that things would randomly occur so
correctly as to create intelligent humans and a hospitable environment for
them is essentially as close to nil as possible.

~~~
zemaj
All the article says is this; If I went into a casino picked a number on a
roulette wheel and won straight away, you would be amazed. If I then did it a
second & third time in succession, you would be incredulous. You might wonder
if I was cheating the system or had some strange or divine powers.

However, if you then found out I had been going into a different casino only
betting 3 times and walking away every hour of my life you would understand
that it was just by chance that you happened to be there on the day that I won
three times in a row. There is nothing to explain - no divine powers.

This is what Hawkings is arguing for the multiverse. Because there are many
possible universes, the fact that ours has all the right qualities to sustain
life is an inevitability. It's inevitable that one would be created and
because we exist, we must inhabit one.

~~~
gmlk
The problem is that one has to be convinced that multiple universes (which by
definition can't be observed) exist. Which means rejecting the idea of one
(potentially empirically observable) unknown entity [a creator or "god"] only
to replace it with the idea of an infinite number of universes which however
can never be observed…

So I think that this has nothing to do with empirical science?

~~~
anigbrowl
My comments above are certainly inductive rather than empirical in nature. I
think the potential (or lack of same) for empirical observation is about the
same; I can imagine being transported to 'other dimensions' just as I can
imagine being with miraculous powers of creation and destruction.

However, I disagree with your implied argument that one is unnecessarily
multiplying entities by postulating multiple universes rather than the
philosophically more economical single being. When people postulate a God,
they usually ascribe infinite power and potential to that being. By contrast,
the idea of multiple universes assumes that they are individually finite and
have fundamental limitations, which is in line with empirical experience.

~~~
gmlk
Likewise we could postulate a more realistic and limited creator-god, one
which might even be empirical observable, either directly or indirect. The
point being that we can only know which features a deity actually has after
one has been observed in action.

Given available evidence at least some postulated deities have become
increasingly unlikely, but this is not the case of all. Some might have merit
if only they where actual observed from time to time.

------
jedwhite
Just having a chuckle over the fact that I posted two stories - this one an
excerpt from an important new book by Stephen Hawking on the sound scientific
explanation for the making of our world. And the other about someone I know
and like getting kicked off a plane. And it's the story about getting kicked
off the plane that gets all the upvotes.

[edit post downvote. I found this genuinely surprising. This Hawking piece
(the full title was "Stephen Hawking on God, Science and the Origins of the
Universe") is a beautifully simple explanation of a profound and complex
topic. Based on Einstein's dictum that if you can't explain something simply
then you don't really understand it, its simplicity was an achievement.]

~~~
jedwhite
There is a lot of activity on social media about this Stephen Hawking piece
though:
[http://www.tribevibe.com/track/link/?url=http://online.wsj.c...](http://www.tribevibe.com/track/link/?url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html)

The book is called The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow.

------
DotSauce
It's rather ridiculous to me how they can shut-down the notion of the
"coincidences" that make Earth so extremely unique to support life. The
precise placement of the moon, the composition of our core to generate perfect
magnetic fields, etc.

 _the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear
spontaneously from nothing_

Really? I'm having as hard a time believing in that as many of you might have
believing in creation.

 _Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing,
why the universe exists, why we exist._

Sounds like God to me.

~~~
TNO
" The precise placement of the moon, the composition of our core to generate
perfect magnetic fields, etc."

How precise are you defining these to be? The Moon's distance from earth
increases yearly for example. The magnetic field fluctuates over time,
possibly causing havoc to migrating animals. This argument seems like a
confusion of cause and effect.

My circular bowl was designed perfectly for my circular water to sit within...

~~~
cookiecaper
Well, consider all of the potential places the Moon could have ended up; space
is big. And then consider that not only the placement of the moon was
necessary, but also the unique physical composition of the Earth and its
atmosphere, the Earth's distance from the Sun and other celestial bodies, etc.
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., and all of the potential states that could have been
selected but were not hospitable to life, and you will see why some people
find it so unlikely that there was no organizing force in the creation of our
world.

~~~
vorg
What is it about the placement of the moon that makes earth so extremely
unique as to support life. Does it merely deflect asteroids to provide more
stability for evolving species? And how intelligent must life be to be
considered the "Destined Entity" of the Anthropic Principle? Were dinosaurs
not self-aware enough?

The moon's placement is also such that it's the same size as the sun when
viewed from the earth, making total solar eclipses more stunning, and
intelligent life viewing them may become a more inquisitive species, and maybe
more likely to innovate Agriculture, and so sit around in cities considering
philosophical questions. But is this the only Destined Entity?

Just as today's humans consider cats and apes to be not self-aware enough to
be Destined Entities, maybe some future specimens of humans will consider
today's humans in the same way. Or maybe humans today will create some future
planet-wide automated intelligence that becomes self-aware, and be the
Destined Entity, and the Anthropic Principle will really be the Robotic
Principle.

But just as today's humans are the result of thousands of trial-and-error
experiments of evolution, an automated intelligence has more likelihood of
becoming self-aware if there are many separate instances of it. If it's
planet-wide, then different vastly separated planets are needed. So perhaps a
moon for the earth increases the ease with which humans can adapt to space
colonization, then Mars providing the next challenge, then terraforming Venus,
more difficult, until humans blast off into other solar systems, eventually
colonizing the galaxy. And one day, one of those planet-wide automated
networks on one of the colonized planets will become self-aware enough to be
considered the Destined Entity the Universe came into existence for.

Such a self-aware automated intelligence will reminisce with itself that the
moon "Luna" of old "Earth" had the correct placement not only to deflect
asteroids, but also to display solar eclipses with a spectacular corona, and
provide a baby step for space colonization by humans.

~~~
BrentRitterbeck
_The moon's placement is also such that it's the same size as the sun when
viewed from the earth, making total solar eclipses more stunning, and
intelligent life viewing them may become a more inquisitive species, and maybe
more likely to innovate Agriculture, and so sit around in cities considering
philosophical questions. But is this the only Destined Entity?_

The moon has not always been at the distance away from earth that it is now.
The moon is moving away from earth at about 1.5 inches per year. Thus, one
cannot argue about its placement because it has not always been at the
distance it is now. What people knew about the moon before the 20th century is
merely an artifact of when literate man appeared on earth.

<http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html>

------
emit_time_n3rgy
I'm conflicted after reading the comments and the article. On the one hand I
hate wasting time dissecting the article but I like the HN discussion and I
feel the need to express myself about the article and some of the comments. I
admire those willing to pursue big ideas, mysteries, etc but this
article...let's just say I'm glad I don't pay for the WSJ.

I read the whole article but I read less than half of the article before
checking who wrote it and was surprised. I thought it was written by someone
who was not in a 'science' field.

(clipped from article) "Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental
test,in other words, modern science." (Whose "we"?)

"Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is
that it is comprehensible." He meant that..." (Why are "we" being told what
Einstein meant?)

"..latest advances in cosmology explain why.." (I thought science explained
how?)

"Many improbable occurrences conspired to create.." (why the choice of such
terms?)

"We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close (to the sun),
it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze." (who is his
audience?)

"The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned." (more odd
terminology..laws form? And luck forms laws? I understand his meaning, but
perplexed by the choice of words to convey a non-Creator position)

"..the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear
spontaneously from nothing." (so, "laws that allow" existed before "nothing"?)

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing,
why the universe exists, why we exist." (spontaneity occurs when life
exists..how can anything spontaneous occur prior to existence? And spontaneous
creation is the reason why we exist? Again, what happened to how? Back to the
drawing board as far as articulating to John Q Public, no?)

In regards to comments: \+ I like this question: "Why do multiple instances of
intelligent life and mostly consistent laws of physics mean that there is no
Creator?" \+ "..the notion of a creator is a proxy for our lack of knowledge
rather than a positive demonstrable." It's interesting to think about what the
notion of a Creator could be from someone who thinks there is no Creator?" A
"no-Creator-notion" :) Basing a conversation on that notion limits the
conversation...even sucks the life out it.

\+ People saying proof of God tells me that both those who think there is a
God and those who do not think there is a God can provide an identity for God
and therefore know when particular information becomes proof...this to me
seems like pre-knowledge of God claimed by those claiming there is no God (?).
Proof..what is it good for? A court of law comes to mind; a dispute; something
is at stake in a court dispute and an outcome will occur when "proof" sides
with the victor...or does the victor side with proof (?). How do we identify
proof? Proof is conjured up to confront someone...a set of criteria is
demanded (how limiting or fair is the criteria?).

\+ "small minds talk about people, medium minds events, and great minds ideas"
(society needs people dealing with all of these issues...a collective
perspective..but yes, if persons are mono-manic about one of those issues,
watch out)

Sorry if many of you think I've posted excess.

------
gmlk
When people use the word "god" it's meaning is often implicitly assumed,
rarely identified, almost never defined in a testable way.

How do you recognize a deity? Which observable, ideally measurable, features
should one be looking for?

The concept of god used to be simple: _Anything more powerful then me is a
god_. A very simple test and the existence of gods is obvious.

Then we started to add more and more and also expect more and more from our
gods. Currently we seem to expect them to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-
whatever… which is really pushing it beyond even internal consistency, let
alone observable reality.

I wonder what would (in the 21ste century) be considered evidence of a "god"?

Would we classify an actual existing Zeus as "god" or just as a member of a
more powerful intelligent species? Would we apply the term "god" to the god of
the Hebrews? Or would we rather consider it to be a very advanced alien?

Imagine this speculative scenario: Next week a very powerful non-human entity
will manifest itself on earth. It will claim that it is the representative of
the creator of the universe and that has seen how the creator made life on
earth.

What could it present as evidence which would convince you that what it was
saying is actually true? What evidence would convince you that it's not just a
delusional alien with more scientific and technological knowledge and very
advanced technology?

------
Nitramp
The article is weak, there is no real reasoning to follow. This is at best a
teaser at his book, for a real discussion we'd have to get and read that.

But even beyond that, I heavily disagree with the whole discussion. If I
haven't missed some important new advance, the whole parallel universes theory
and much of the theories of what happened before or during the beginning of
the Universe are not really science. Most of it is based on some speculative
interpretation of the mathematical formulas of quantum physics and/or string
theory.

But there is no reason those formulas have to be an accurate description of
the physical laws in those boundary conditions, where they are known to break
hard. So basically they make assertions based on a mathematical theory (which
is not bad per se), but those assertions cannot be falsified, as they all
operate outside the boundaries of the Universe itself. Non-falsifiable
theories are just not science.

The same goes for the strong anthropic principle. This is again making
statements that are inherently not testable. That might be philosophical
speculation, but it's not hard science.

This is particularly strange as Hawking uses those borderline scientific
theories to discount a religious speculation; but both theories are non-
falsifiable by definition, so what's the point? I'm not religious, but I don't
see the big difference between two non-falsifiable cosmologies there.

------
shawndumas
Valid arguments cannot contain in their conclusions any term (or grammatical
mood) that is not present in their premises. In other words: All valid
arguments are made up of one or more syllogisms, which, in turn, are made of
three parts: the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion.

.

Example:

    
    
      o  Major premise: All men are mortal.
    
      o  Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
    
      o  Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
    
    

Each of the three distinct parts contain terms, "men", "mortal", and
"Socrates". "Mortal" is the major term and "Socrates" is the minor term. The
premises also must have one term in common with each other, which is known as
the middle term; in this example, "man". If a term is found in the conclusion
that is not present in either premises than the argument is invalid.

.

Example:

    
    
      o  Major premise: All men are mortal.
    
      o  Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
    
      o  Conclusion: Socrates is a Conservative.
    

.

Furthermore, any argument that excludes 'god' in its premises cannot validly
contain 'god' in its conclusion.

------
DanielBMarkham
I love Hawking, but I have to play apologist here (and I am not a religious
person)

I've spent many, many hours on this God thing, and at the end of the day you
can't prove nor disprove there is a God. Sure, you can assume all sorts of
attributes about a God that don't make sense or are silly -- big old guy with
beard in the sky. But the idea that there is some greater intelligence out
there with some sort of interest in mankind? It's just impossible to know, one
way or another.

Now some will tell you that because it is impossible to know, there must be a
god. I.e, that we can put whatever thing we like under the category "god" --
one story is as good as another. Actually, this "creative story-telling for
stuff we don't know" is a critical part of being a human, even being a
scientist. As long as the stories don't contradict observable reality. So
that's okay, up to a point.

Some will tell you that because we don't know, there must _not_ be a God. If
you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Or put better: why add terms to an
equation where no extra terms are needed? You see this in Hawking's essay --
once we figured out the theory, didn't need a God anymore.

The problem here is that this smacks of the caveman, when told about
airplanes, said that the other person was either a fantastical liar or crazy.
In his mind he is being uber-rational. From our point of view he's being
childish and silly. Certainly things exist that we have not experienced. We do
not know everything, and many things we think we know we are mistaken about.
This is the way it has always been. It is part of being our species at this
point in time.

So we're left not-knowing. And that bugs folks. I had a good friend that was
an atheist tell me last week that sure, he didn't know, _but he felt like he
had to take sides_. He felt like certain Christians he knew were somehow
harming rationality, and it was up to him to sort of balance the scales. Many
other people are profoundly disturbed by not-knowing and go the other way.

As for me? I've decided that while I cannot accept your story about an angry
guy in the sky, the idea of not-knowing -- and the greater idea of our
relationship to not-knowing, our relationship to the unknown, is a critical
part of being alive. I choose to call that Great Unknown God, simply because,
well, that's the traditional name for powers that are outside of our scope of
knowledge. This allows me to enjoy both the work of the scientist and the
priest.

~~~
alexandros
What Hawking said is not that god does not exist, but that god is not required
for the universe to exist. Subtle but important.

~~~
steve19
_Evolution is not required for Homo sapiens to exist._

The above statement does not in any way infer that evolution did not result in
humans. Subtle but important.

~~~
jeromec
_Evolution is not required for Homo sapiens to exist._

How do you know? If you were framing your statement scientifically it would be
"Evolution _may not be_ required for Homo sapiens to exist", which, of course,
scientists already understand. Theories are subject to change, and even be
discarded altogether in light of better information, unlike faith which cannot
change.

~~~
steve19
Your definition of faith is very narrow.

What certain institutions define as faith may not have changed in thousands of
years.

Peoples personal beliefs and understanding of the spiritual change over time.
I know mine have.

~~~
jeromec
Faith that a Creator exists without verifiable proof is inherently
unchangeable -- that's why it's called faith. How one chooses to arrive at, or
express that faith certainly may be subject to change.

------
yanowitz
Robert Sawyer wrote a great book on this subject, Calculating God. He has a
way of writing about science and philosophy that's incredibly engaging and
accessible because it's in the form of fiction. It's one of the few scifi
books I can recommend to people who normally don't like scifi (Ender's Game is
another).

I don't want to give any spoilers but it takes up the various issues raised by
the Hawking article and in this discussion.

------
abdulhaq
When we draw a circle it has no beginning and no end, but there is most
certainly a creator of it.

