So here we go oaks. God or the laws of physics is the topic
so please all sit up straight stop scratching yourself and engage whatever
brain cells you might have. Now pay close attention oaks. It’s time for the
boys to drop out as this involves a little thought
A supernatural being or God is an agent who DOES SOMETHING. In the case of the God of the bible, He is a personal agency. Dismissing such an
agent Hawking ascribes creative power to physical law; BUT physical law is
NOT and agent.
Hawking is making a classic category mistake by confusing
two entirely different kinds of entity: physical law and personal agency. God
is an explanation of the Universe, but not the same type of explanation as that
which is given to physics.
To help the oaks Lennox gives an illustration.
We replace the Universe by a jet engine and then are asked
to explain it. Shall we account for it by mentioning the PERSONAL AGENCY of its inventor, Sir Frank Whittle? OR shall
we follow Hawking: dismiss the personal agency, and explain the jet engine by
saying it arose naturally from physical law. (I trust some of the oaks see how ridiculous
that would be?)
IT IS CLEARLY NONSENSICAL TO ASK PEOLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN
FRANK WHITTLE AND SCIENCE AS AN EXPANATION FOR THE JET ENGINE. It is NOT either
or. We need both levels of explanation in order to give a complete description.
It is also obvious that the scientific explanation neither conflicts nor
competes against the agent explanation.
God does not conflict or compete with the laws of physics as
an explanation. God is actually the ground of all explanation, in the sense
that He is the CAUSE in the first place of there being a world for the laws of
physics to describe (And what brilliance on mind is on display says Beeno).
Sir Isaac Newton, a previous holder of the Lucasian Chair at
Cambridge did not make Hawking’s category mistake when he DISCOVERED his law of gravitation. Newton did not say: “Now
I have the law of gravity, I don’t need God”. What he did was to write
Principia Mathematica, the most famous book in the history of science, expressing
the hope that it would “persuade THINKING THE THINKING MAN” to believe
in God. (No God of the gaps nonsense from Newton oaks).
NOW PLEASE NOTE OAKS:
The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works,
BUT NOT HOW IT CAME TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT IS SELF EVIDENT THAT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
COULD NOT HAVE CREATED A JET ENGINE ON THE OWN. TRHAT TASK NEEDED INTELLIGENCE,
IMAGINATION, AND THE SCIENTIFIC CREATVITY OF WHITTLE. Indeed, even the laws of
physics plus Frank Whittle WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE A JET
ENGINE. There also needed to be some material that whittle could use. MATTER
MAY BE HUMBLE STUFF, BUT LAWS CANNOT CREATE IT.
Let’s clear up another matter
Science asks the how questions: how does the jet engine
work? It also asks the why question regarding FUNCTION: why is this pipe here.
BUT it does not ask the why of PURPOSE: why was the jet engine built. What is
important here is that Sir Frank Whittle does not appear in the scientific account.
To quote Laplace the scientific account has “no need of that hypothesis” Clearly,
however, it would be ridiculous to deduce from this that Whittle did not
exist. HE IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
: WHY DOES THE JET ENGINE EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE?
SOME SCIENTISTS FAIL TO SEE THAT SCIENCE DOES NOT ANSWER THE
QUESTION AS TO WHY SOME THING EXISTS RATHER THAN NOTHING FOR THE SIMPLE REASON
SCIENCE (Not the only form of knowledge) cannot answer that question.
They also fail to see that by assumption it is their atheist
world view , NOT science as such, that excludes God.
Now watch this oaks
The scientists did not put the universe there. But neither did their theories, nor the
laws of mathematical physics.
Hawking claims that
all that is necessary to create the universe is the law of gravity. When asked
where gravity came from, he answered “M-Theory”. However to say that a theory
or physical law could bring the universe( or anything at all for that matter)
into existence is to misunderstand WHAT THEORY AND LAWS ARE
Scientists EXPECT
(note that oaks) to develop theories involving mathematical laws TO DESCRIBE
NATURAL PHENOMENA, WHICH ENABLE THEM TO MAKE PREDICTIONS ; AND THEY HAVE DONE
SO WITH SPECTACULAR SUCCESS. However, on their OWN, the theories and laws
cannot even cause anything, let alone create it
Hawking gives the example of physical law as the sun rising
is the east every day. This law however does not create the sun. The law is
descriptive and predictive. Similarly Newton’s law of gravity does not create
gravity –OR THE MATTER ON WHICH GRAVITY ACTS.
The laws of physics are not only incapable of creating anything;
they cannot even cause anything to happen. For instance Newton’s celebrated laws
of motion never caused a pool ball to race across the green baize table. That
can only be done by people using a pool cue. The laws enable us to analysis the
motion, and to map the trajectory of the balls movement in the future (provided
nothing external interferes) BUT THEY ARE POWERLESS TO MOVE THE BALL, LET ALONE
BRING IT INTO EXISTENCE
CRASH GOES STEPHEN
HAKWING!
