Thursday, 2 September 2010

Your homework

Your homework for this evening, dear reader, is: what is the logical fallacy in Stephen Hawking's argument about God and the creation of the universe?

My solution tomorrow.

6 comments:

Left-Footer said...

Oi ain't got no book-larnin' loike Prof Hawking, but oi reckon loike this:

If there's a law, say the law of gravity, Who was, and is, the Lawgiver?

Hey?

Moretben said...

The "God" Hawking makes redundant isn't God, but the God-of-the-Gaps or of the Platonic dichotomies,etc etc.; "of the Philosophers, not of the Fishermen" - the "prime mover", and so on.

I can't comment on his logic, which is perhaps perfectly logical within a frame of reference inaccessible to most of us - but it has nothing to do with God. God is not a logical necessity, nor the first thing that moves of all the things that move, nor the "Supreme Being" of all the beings that are. God is "holy" - i.e. - "not like anything else" and therefore infinitely beyond every human category. The cosmos is open to rational investigation, but things deduced in the created order don't necessarily touch upon the Uncreated.

Moretben said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
umblepie said...

'Cause and effect' - law of gravity, from whence did this come? Intelligence, intelligence,- order, order, - 'Supreme Maker of all Creation' - final confirmation by Jesus Christ, God made Man, and His Resurrection from the Dead.

berenike said...

Eeez a fizicyst! Eee don't no nuffink! Mechanics don't prove de feorems of maffs!

GOR said...

Darn, forgot the homework or…I mean…um…the dog ate it.

It’s funny how life imitates art. In this case the ‘art’ being storytelling. The story is that scientists had discovered how to create life and dispatched one of their number to inform God that He would no longer be needed. God proposes a test: the scientist is to demonstrate how he can create life. The scientist agrees. He bends down to pick up some dirt. “Hold it!’ God says. “First, you must create your own dirt…”

It seems that Professor Hawking is missing a step – in syllogistic terms. If he admits the law of gravity – or any law, for that matter – he must deduce the provenance of that law. It can’t have happened on its own.

Ex nihilo nihil fit – about which I think Julie Andrews sang something (Sound of Music, was it?).