Stephen Hawking's New Theory Of God..., (I bet you've already guessed what it is...) Options

...is that He/She/It is a superfluous concept, and that the universe creates itself through the course of natural law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_...britain_hawking

I liked this guy's comment "Look at all you good Christians declaring jihad against a cripple. Jesus would be so proud." Yeah and all the Muslims will be declaring Crusades against him... wait...

Anyway I enjoyed the link. But of course God is not something anyone is going to prove doesn't exist. Not exactly a good topic to touch on as a scientist I feel.

...is that He/She/It is a superfluous concept, and that the universe creates itself through the course of natural law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_...britain_hawking

IT also destroys itself following the same laws...then creates itself again....This is not new news. Mystics have known this for thousands of years.

It's all perspective and it's all relative. The microcosm and the macrcosm. He is simply describing the changing of the seasons.

IF you look at one aspect it would look out of balance, but if you look at it all, you will see the balance.

Actually, I think Hawking is making progress
He still clings to one side only (the science path), but this is one of the nearest approach he and the rest of the science world have been getting in understanding the system from a sceptic-scientific path

What Hawking presented are simply ancient knowledge that are already known to most esoteric seeker, but rediscovered and renamed using the language of modern science
(Just like how the 4 classical elements are in a way presented nowadays under the modern interpretation of the 4 fundamental force of science)
Its sort of reinventing the wheel, but it doesn't matter, at least Hawking did manage to construct the wheel based on his own interpretation

I'm not fond of Hawking's paranoia and unwillingness to open up for non-science knowledge, but I am grateful for what he's doing, continue your research Hawking, you'll play your role eventually

What Hawking presented are simply ancient knowledge that are already known to most esoteric seeker, but rediscovered and renamed using the language of modern science
(Just like how the 4 classical elements are in a way presented nowadays under the modern interpretation of the 4 fundamental force of science)

Not reaaaaally. The only thing they have in common is that the number is 4 and that they're fundamental. "Forces" is a misnomer, since they're rather something along the lines of interactions and here's all those little particles with strange names I can't remember changing places to facilitate that. Besides, the scientist have yet to observe the connection gravity has with the other three - or even guess what gravity actually is.

On the other hand, the LHC results were not very... conclusive. And by 'not very conclusive' I mean that most of the scientific community went 'wtf is this, I don't'. So there's still a lot of playground.

I'm curious whether any of the more formal practices are quantifiable by math. I mean, there's a lot of involvement from numbers and occasionally formulae, there might be something there to link directly to the discoveries physics makes. Too bad people who study math in-depth rarely have time for anything other than math.

The link is dead, btw D:

The most Hawking (or physicists in general) could ever show is that there is no need for a "God hypothesis;" that the universe as it is can be completely accounted for as a result of some equations they write down. So, that would put an end to the "God of the gaps," where God's hand is seen in every gap in our understanding of natural processes. Ex.: Caveman says, "Gee, what's causing thunder? I don't know...it must be God." Later, we figure out how thunder comes about. Now, a Renaissance person says, "Gee, how can a man and woman couple to produce a new person? I don't know...it must be God." Then we find out about meiosis and developmental biology.
History has shown that it's a bad idea to resort to God to explain how natural phenomena come about, and the inception of the universe is a natural phenomenon.

Full disclosure: I'm an atheist, but not a frothing-at-the-mouth one. My fiance is a total devotee (wait, he's male, is that the right spelling?) of Richard Dawkins, whom I think is kind of a tool.

-M

Gravity is something I've always been perplexed by. I don't know if I have my facts straight, but I've read that gravity is based on 2 major factors - size of an existing object (planet, moon) and rotation speed. In essence, I think gravity is either one of 2 things

- A vacume created by the 2 factors mentioned about... or
- The most powerful magic (the dark element) in the universe, strong enough to rip apart planets, even galaxies with its black holes.

But following that concept raises new questions on how a black hole functions. Until I am properly educated on that matter, by descriptian of a black hole is "corrupted gravity". Sure it is born of an imploded star (if memory serves), but what keeps it going?

From the first post, I gotta agree. It really simplified God.

Speaking of gravity as a form of magic, I know its identified as a type of science, but in my opinion, science and magic are really one in the same. What sets them apart is being able to control it mentally, and not physically.

I think planetary rotation is a result of gravity and any initial momentum though... so given the presence of matter means we have bundles of energy all packed into patterns and I guess its probably just some unknown force at the quantum level between groups of matter. Saying that though, it probably has to exist on another dimension or a property to an existing force by some unknown mechanism because the force of gravity effects an object without reducing its ability to effect another object in its gravitional shadow which could underpin the field bit in gravitional field theory.

I'm guessing black holes are the oppossite of nuclear explosions (stars) in that instead of breaking atomic bonds uncontrollably it is actually ramming all quanta together, using the force of gravity of all matter in its range much like all matter in a gravitional field is influenced seemingly uniformly (other then as a function of size and distance which doesnt alter field behaviour just field range). So I assume then that some blackholes are in effect pushing that energy into another dimension which in turn might fuel that dimension, its all a bit of guess work for anyone not a physics researcher!!

On Hawkins I agree with Myrna that science can only discuss so much, and I think that its got a long way to go before they can have any idea if it can have any truthful position on spirituality. Their negativity towards it though I find annoying because their attempts at victimization are crude and obviously inciting emotional support from victims and people who have no real depth of interest in the topics just to recruit support for their position and themselves.