Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Here's the thing: Stephen Hawking scoffs at the idea of irreducible complexity. That quote you just used has been taken out of context. Allow me to pull another Hawking quote straight out of his latest book, "The Grand Design" (which I am holding here in my hands).
"Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
This entire book is about why recent developments in science have made it unnecessary to invoke God when attempting to explain the beginning of all things. So let's be crystal clear for a moment: Stephen Hawking, one of the most prominent quantum physicists in the world, thinks that God is not a necessary element in the equation of life. Another interesting fact is that a famous Gallup poll from 1998 found that only 7% of members in the National Academy of Sciences believe in God.
This leads me to conclude that it is almost never in religion's best interest to appeal to science when seeking proof for the supernatural. In regard to Duce's hypothesis, I'm still not entirely sure what he's trying to get at, but I will say this:
If someone claims to have knowledge, with certainty, that God exists, or that something supernatural has occurred (such as Astral Projections or Out-of-Body experiences), it becomes clear that either they are lying, or their brain has for some reason short-circuited and tricked them. So yes, I will say that God is most certainly in your mind because there is no evidence that he/she/it is anywhere else.
|
I don't think irreducible complexity can be so easily ruled out when it comes to the birth of the universe.
I can't be so arrogant. While I'm not religious, nor do I believe in the Bibles story of creation, I cannot allow myself to draw these kinds of conclusions. The book cannot yet be closed. We still have much to learn.
Stephen Hawking may be a very renowned physicist - but as I mentioned earlier - so is Roger Penrose. He shared the Wolf Prize with Mr. Hawking in 1988 for his contributions to our understanding of the universe. Penrose is an atheist and I'm sure he doesn't think a god was necessary for life. However, he still has beliefs such as this:
"I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."
I don't necessarily believe in any deities, but I will not call myself an atheist. I remain agnostic towards the subject. There doesn't have to be a god or deity in order for this life to be more than just a "survival of the fittest".