Stephen Hawkings - Does God play dice?

[fairnbalncd]

"A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene."

Quoted from Stephen Hawkings public lecture (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html).

Nicely stated.

[Hopey]

It's "Hawking".

[Prodigy54321]

my hero /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene."


[/ QUOTE ]

This is about as arrogant as you can get. He's basically giving us an absolute rule governing all of reality which totally excludes God. There's no way he can KNOW that anything runs independently of God, NO WAY. He's welcome to his atheistic worldview but to pass if off as science is no better than Dawkins. It's religious views like this, masquerading as science, that causes the conflicts over evolution.

Actually, all he would have to do is say something like "As far as we know" or "based on what we observe" - and leave God out of it. They always pretend they are objective right before they foist their atheistic worldview on us.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This is about as arrogant as you can get. He's basically giving us an absolute rule governing all of reality which totally excludes God. There's no way he can KNOW that anything runs independently of God, NO WAY. He's welcome to his atheistic worldview but to pass if off as science is no better than Dawkins. It's religious views like this, masquerading as science, that causes the conflicts over evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

How insiduous and morally reprehensible how much you need twist the truth to suit your agenda?

The only thing that Hawkings said was: " A SCIENTIFIC law...".

Leave religion OUT of science. It has no place there.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The only thing that Hawkings said was: " A SCIENTIFIC law...".


[/ QUOTE ]

I covered this idea in my post - if that's what he meant he stated it badly.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
This is about as arrogant as you can get. He's basically giving us an absolute rule governing all of reality which totally excludes God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? To me it sounds like he's just telling us that it would be pointless to call anything a "scientific law" if there's some kind of supernatural being that "breaks" the law when he feels like it.


[ QUOTE ]
It's religious views like this, masquerading as science, that causes the conflicts over evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the conflicts are caused by people who have no idea what the theory of evolution actually says, and refuse to find out. Those people are almost always motivated by religious beliefs and they do their best to masquerade their religious views as science. Of course, since they are too ignorant to know what science is, they can only make their arguments sound scientific to others who don't know what science is. Unfortunately that seems to be a majority of the world's population.

There is NO conflict about the validity of the theory of evolution among people who knows what that theory says.

[KeysrSoze]

Yeah, it appears to me too he's just saying that you can't call it a scientific law if some being can indiscriminately change it or suspend it indefinately at will. If that were so it would be more of a "scientific suggestion".

And... lighten up, Francis.

[Matt R.]

NotReady,
When put in context, the quote isn't anti-God at all. It's in the second paragraph of the lecture (check the OP's link).

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene."


[/ QUOTE ]

This is about as arrogant as you can get. He's basically giving us an absolute rule governing all of reality which totally excludes God. There's no way he can KNOW that anything runs independently of God, NO WAY. He's welcome to his atheistic worldview but to pass if off as science is no better than Dawkins. It's religious views like this, masquerading as science, that causes the conflicts over evolution.

Actually, all he would have to do is say something like "As far as we know" or "based on what we observe" - and leave God out of it. They always pretend they are objective right before they foist their atheistic worldview on us.

[/ QUOTE ]
isnt he saying the opposite of what youre accusing him of?

[Jdanz]

I'm pretty sure he's questioning scientific laws and not god.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it appears to me too he's just saying that you can't call it a scientific law if some being can indiscriminately change it


[/ QUOTE ]

Re-reading the post I can see I may have overreacted. Hawking wasn't making strictly an atheistic statement. It could be compatible with deism, a God who doesn't get involved with His creation.

I disagree with the idea that anything exists or functions independent of God, but I do think science involves reducing observable behavior to a set of rules. It's just the idea that this somehow excludes God or proves His non-existence that I object to. A scientist can describe the law of gravity but he can never fully explain it apart from God and he can never show that gravity operates independently of God.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
"A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene."

[/ QUOTE ]
I also tend to disagree, based on the "universe in a computer" argument. A group of beings living in the computer could develop "science" (which would really be an experimental process of discovering the rules of the program that governs their existence) -- however, the existence of the "laws" of the program do not prevent the programmer from halting things and making manual changes to the state of the computer whenever he feels like it.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
"A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene."

[/ QUOTE ]

More nonsense from the priests of science.

Requiring a principle of natural causality to supersede the Creator of the universe is to define an empty set. That doesn’t mean a “scientific law” can’t be useful in context, given an understanding that the concept of the Creator is not defined within science.

[HLMencken]

YES, GOD PLAYS DICE.

He is a notorious craps addict. He once went on a run a few dozen billion years ago or so and looked like he was going to break the bank. As you might expect, his spending got out of control, and he blew much of his winnings on a shiny new universe. Of course, his run was short-lived and the odds caught up to him. He took a terrific loss, his wife left him to raise their only son, and he started drinking heavily. His drinking led to violent mood swings in which he was one day as loving as a teddy bear and the next he was smashing cities ina fit of rage. His universe fell into disrepair. He had trouble with his son, eventually kicking him out of the house (he later came back, but not before failing to make it on his own). I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't already dead.

Dude should have stuck with checkers.

[BluffTHIS!]

Hawking, as I have pointed out to atheists here many times when they are resisting First Cause argumentation for the existence of a Creator/Supreme Being, calls the First Cause of the quantum singularity that produced the Big Bang "God", while stating that he doesn't believe in a personal god. And yet, he seems to want to limit that First Cause, which logically cannot be ascribed limits by reason of its ability to create. This limitation can either be understood to be one of ability, or one of how such a supreme being might choose to act with the creation it created and the scientific laws he created for same.

The supreme being does play dice - He is the house running the craps game. But He lets us bank with Him and take part of His action, or to make bets that are to varying degrees -EV. And he lets us make a freeroll if we run out of dough. So we can either choose to bank with Him, or bet the line with odds (intellectually honest non-believer who may or may not go bust), or bet the hard 8 every roll (militant atheists who say even if they observed a series of miracles they would still never believe).

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
Hawking, as I have pointed out to atheists here many times when they are resisting First Cause argumentation for the existence of a Creator/Supreme Being, calls the First Cause of the quantum singularity that produced the Big Bang "God", while stating that he doesn't believe in a personal god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, The cosmic singularity makes no distinctions in either direction. But it doesn't directly follow that Hawking bases his disbelief of a personal God on this.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Hawking, as I have pointed out to atheists here many times when they are resisting First Cause argumentation for the .........

[/ QUOTE ]
There's nothing to resist as the first cause argument has no logical merit.

chez

[chezlaw]

god created the intergers.

chez

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene."

[/ QUOTE ]

More nonsense from the priests of science.

Requiring a principle of natural causality to supersede the Creator of the universe is to define an empty set. That doesn’t mean a “scientific law” can’t be useful in context, given an understanding that the concept of the Creator is not defined within science.

[/ QUOTE ]

i like how you play at combining words with actual meaning

[KeysrSoze]

Every time Sharkey goes on about the Priests of Science and uses his Acme Big Word Thesaurus(TM), he reminds me of classic Rush songs, making it even more humorous.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
god created the intergers.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know about that. They can be constructed from ZF set theory, so I guess we can say that Zermelo and Fraenkel created them. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif That word is spelled "integers" by the way. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
god created the intergers.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know about that. They can be constructed from ZF set theory, so I guess we can say that Zermelo and Fraenkel created them. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif That word is spelled "integers" by the way. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry about the spelling but proof that I'm right (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0762419229/026-2847604-8483616)
/images/graemlins/smile.gif
chez

[IQ89]

[ QUOTE ]
It's just the idea that this somehow excludes Santa Claus or proves His non-existence that I object to. A scientist can describe the law of gravity but he can never fully explain it apart from Santa Claus, and he can never show that gravity operates independently of Santa Claus.


[/ QUOTE ]

[soon2bepro]

In fact, he can't say it's not santa claus himself making gravity work.

[IQ89]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact,..

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

[billygrippo]

i was playing dice w/ god the other day. i beat him in ceelo. he beat me in yahtzee.