<p>I get the feeling that Hawking is, sadly, on the way out. He said some pretty wacky things earlier this year concerning why mankind should not try to contact hypothetical extraterrestrials ([Don’t</a> talk to aliens, warns Stephen Hawking - Times Online](<a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)). Now this. One is left to wonder if grabbing headlines is the one last push for additional fame and book royalties.</p>
<p>Nobody knows anything for sure and nobody ever will. </p>
<p>Are you sure about that? </p>
<p>-not at all, how do I know, goes back to “nobody knows anything for sure…” I am not sure about anything. We can only attach labels and go from there. If is do not attach labels than we will not understnd each other at all. As it has proven white is not white at all as well as black is not black. And who said that this proof is coorect either?</p>
<p>
Exactly! I would love to see how someone like Stephen Hawking answer: “If the universe was a product of laws of physics, what was the products of the laws of physics?”</p>
<p>No matter how well-understood our understanding of the laws of physics become, there will always be the question of where the laws of physics came from.</p>
<p>Physicists have long been searching for a Theory Of Everything, which explains everything we’ve observed in a nice simple equation. But even if this was found, you’d still be left with no explanation as to it’s existence.</p>
<p>In the end, you have to have faith in an arbitrary existence of something, because otherwise you’d be stuck in an endless repetition of “why does that exist?” “then why does that exist?” etc. even assuming you could keep answering. Some people choose an infinite intelligence (God), others choose a set of equations (Science).</p>
<p>For the record:</p>
<p>de·ism
/ˈdiɪzəm/ [dee-iz-uhm]
–noun
- belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
- belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.</p>
<p>the·ism
/ˈθiɪzəm/ [thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
- the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
- belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).</p>
<p>
I suppose the only way we could know would be if there was a God. If there is a God (complete with an afterlife), then we will discover this upon our deaths. If there is not an afterlife (the concept of which usually contains a God, but does not have to), we will be dead, possessing no knowledge or consciousness, not even being entities that can be said to be anything. Also, if there is no God, there is no way to conclusively prove this, as an omnipotent God that does not want to be conclusively proven by humans can always be invoked, even if the entire populace did accept that there was not. If, however, there is a God that will one day be revealed, then we will know then, in the affirmative. So “knowing” is an interesting concept in thoughts like these.</p>
<p>
Well, he is dying, so on the way out in that regard. Anyway, the extraterrestrial point is a good one, at least worthy of consideration. We do not have the technology to travel to another solar system yet. Thus, if we made remote contact and were to meet soon, the extraterrestrials would be doing the traveling. Thus, they would be more technologically advanced, at least in that regard. What has happened all throughout human history when an advanced civilization has made contact with a less advanced civilization (or group that is not yet a civilization)? Humans often don’t view less advanced humans as people. How do you think an unrelated sentient species will regard a technological inferior? We could get lucky. Or we could not. Also, if we found a less advanced civilization and somehow interacted, we could seriously screw it up. That said, I still wish to seek out extraterrestrials. But the point is still a good one.</p>
<p>
St. Thomas Aquinas</p>
<p>
I have no idea who that is.</p>
<p>Those were just my own thoughts on the matter, nothing else.</p>
<p>
I sense that you would like his 5 proofs for the existence of God. As for who he is… That’s a lot of information, but basically, an intellectual Catholic saint.</p>
<p>Northstarmom - My image of God is sort of a hybrid of George Burns and Morgan Freeman, so I guess the old man that I picture is multiracial. 
I hope Hawking’s creation theory has room for Georgan Burman, because I really like that image!</p>
<p>This has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread, but while most 15-year-olds’ heroes are movie stars and athletes, mine’s is Morgan Freeman. When I ask him why, he says because Morgan Freeman is “the epitome of awesomeness.” And when I told him that for me, Morgan Freeman contributes half of the face of God, my son said “See - I told you.” And now that he’s made “Invictus,” Freeman is the image I picture for both God AND Nelson Mandela. So clearly, my son is absolutely correct.</p>
<p>
I looked those up, found something about 5 “natures of God” he wrote. While a few seem to make sense, overall it seems to lack a sort of axiomatic consistency, at least in my opinion.</p>
<p>I like to think we can logically define the universe and the nature of its existence, just that nobody really has yet I guess.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who created this who?</p>
<p>
Exactly why at some point, you just have to believe that something just plain exists, without precondition. This is called faith, and believe it or not, even the most atheist scientists have it :)</p>
<p>
[Quinque</a> viae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae]Quinque”>Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Largely based on the same concept of infinite regression that you articulated.</p>
<p>
One might surmise that a set of universal laws and/or this Creator would have always existed. This does not prove either side, though.</p>
<p>I’m not sure the “who created who” (ie, what came first) question can be answered as long as we limit knowledge of our existence to linear time, and if we expand beyond linear time, the question no longer has any meaning…</p>
<p>
I’m looking forward to the second dimension of time.</p>
<p>“I’m looking forward to the second dimension of time.”</p>
<p>ah, but even thinking in terms of a “second” dimension would still be linear… ;)</p>
<p>If it is the case that a Creator has always existed, perhaps time has as well - past, present, and future. No beginning, no end. Just eternity.</p>
<p>
But a bit more interesting. I don’t see it as likely that I’ll be able to achieve the third dimension of time. Particularly since I won’t be able to achieve the second.</p>
<p>BillyMc: Ahh, those descriptions make more sense. Not formally a proof of anything, but still interesting. To be picky, there are big differences of those from my thoughts, but I definitely see some basic similarities you refer to.</p>
<p>My view is more something to apply to scientific theory. We are trying to figure out how the universe works, why we’re here, how we’re here. We’re learning more every day.</p>
<p>What I believe though is that ultimately you need to have faith in some fundamental existence (be it an equation, or an intelligence), otherwise you can’t really say anything exists at all.</p>
<p>It’s not that atheist scientists don’t know this, they simply prefer to believe an arbitrary Equation exists as the fundamental existence, rather than an arbitrary Intelligence. The same applies to those who believe in an Intelligence/God.</p>
<p>The book actually says god wouldn’t have been needed to create it, not that he didn’t.</p>
<p>I’ve got to put a shout out to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.</p>
<p>Can’t wait to meet God face to face in Eternity.</p>
<p>If the existence of something as complex as a watch necessarily implies a watchmaker, then who made God? (Just a question I’ve never seen a satisfactory answer to, because if the answer is “nobody made God; God just exists,” then why can’t the answer be exactly the same for the universe itself? But I try not to get into arguments about God and the Universe! So I won’t pursue this here. Except to say that I find the existence of both God and the Universe to be extremely unlikely. And the thought of eternal life to be horrendously depressing. I’m sure I’d get very bored, at least after the first trillion years or so.)</p>
<p>
And now we’ve gone to St. Anselm. Anyway, God would have to be eternal, to prevent infinite regression, as St. Thomas Aquinas said (he also found Anselm’s Ontological Argument inadequate). Either way, something has to be eternal, and that doesn’t prove either side.</p>