sarmad
Senator (1k+ posts)
This view of his doesn't add up. According to the current inflationary model of the Big Bang, time and space start at the point of the big bang after an initial burst of inflationary energy - how is it possible then that gravity could start the big bang if gravity cannot even exist without time and space?
Are we to suppose that gravity and other such laws of physics are supposed to be eternal and that they function outside of the current universe? If so, then the current big bang model requires a lot of revision.
It seems to me that Hawking has not given a full answer here - I suppose it's a case of "read my book to find out." I do wonder what this additional piece of the puzzle is however.
Besides which, it is unfortunate that scientists feel the need to comment on the idea of god after every theoretical advance, not least by the militant atheist Richard Dawkins. God, in many theological interpretations, is understood beyond the means of logic and the rational method - what use is it to try and disprove god through logic when logic cannot grasp the very idea you are trying to disprove?
Science has its place in the world - namely to provide an algorithmic theoretical basis for causality laws that are repeatable and falsifiable hypotheses. It has no place attempting to answer metaphysical questions and indeed it shouldn't try such a thing because then it betrays its own empirical basis.
Are we to suppose that gravity and other such laws of physics are supposed to be eternal and that they function outside of the current universe? If so, then the current big bang model requires a lot of revision.
It seems to me that Hawking has not given a full answer here - I suppose it's a case of "read my book to find out." I do wonder what this additional piece of the puzzle is however.
Besides which, it is unfortunate that scientists feel the need to comment on the idea of god after every theoretical advance, not least by the militant atheist Richard Dawkins. God, in many theological interpretations, is understood beyond the means of logic and the rational method - what use is it to try and disprove god through logic when logic cannot grasp the very idea you are trying to disprove?
Science has its place in the world - namely to provide an algorithmic theoretical basis for causality laws that are repeatable and falsifiable hypotheses. It has no place attempting to answer metaphysical questions and indeed it shouldn't try such a thing because then it betrays its own empirical basis.
