New and curious with questions

[huggle]

Hello,

Just watched "Did God Create the Universe?" With Stephen Hawking. The conclusion left me baffled. It seems they or he concluded that because the Universe's negative space and mater together would = zero and that because the fact in quantum mechanics protons can appear out of nowhere and disappear for moments in time proves the Universes matter could have just appeared rules out the possibility of a creator? To me I did't think that would have been the conclusion. Something has to trigger the protons to disappear and reappear right? So wouldn't something have to trigger the start when there was no time or space or matter? Also who or what or why for lack of a better word designed the basic laws that we have discovered everything follows? Sorry if this is explained with elementary physics, I'm a nurse never had a physics class, it just interests me.

[swansont]

Something has to trigger the protons to disappear and reappear right?

 

Turns out that as far as we know, the answer is "no". Particle/antiparticle pairs pop into and out of existence all the time, apparently spontaneously.

[Greg H.]

Once thing you have to be wary of is that word designed. It implies an intelligence behind the origin of the universe that, thus far, we have absolutely no evidence to support.

[Ophiolite]

My understanding is that science is not yet properly equipped to answer any of the why questions. That is the domain of philosophy. It does appear, as Swansont has note, that sometimes things just happen. That may not seem very satisfactory, but then the universe probably does not exist for our convenience.

 

That said, I think all that Hawking can reasonably say is that our current understanding does not show any need for a creator. In my view that is different from saying there is not one. What I am reasonably sure of is that the creator is not a he, does not have a logn white beard and is not especially favourable to Jehovah's Witnesses.

[huggle]

Once thing you have to be wary of is that word designed. It implies an intelligence behind the origin of the universe that, thus far, we have absolutely no evidence to support.

That's why I said for lack of a better word.

 

Turns out that as far as we know, the answer is "no". Particle/antiparticle pairs pop into and out of existence all the time, apparently spontaneously.

 

Wouldn't that be contradicting the law for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. So wouldnt an action have to have caused that reaction?

What I am reasonably sure of is that the creator is not a he, does not have a logn white beard and is not especially favourable to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Too funny lol:)

[Ophiolite]

That is a macroscopic, Newtonian law. It does not necessarily apply in the quantum world, at least as I understand it. (Which is marginally at best, even downhill with a following wind.)

[swansont]

Wouldn't that be contradicting the law for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. So wouldnt an action have to have caused that reaction?

 

That's a classical law referring to macroscopic systems. There's a fair bit of Quantum Mechanics that shows that classical physics is only approximately correct.

[huggle]

That is a macroscopic, Newtonian law. It does not necessarily apply in the quantum world, at least as I understand it. (Which is marginally at best, even

 

downhill with a following wind.)

Have to look into that thanks.

[MonDie]

Once thing you have to be wary of is that word designed. It implies an intelligence behind the origin of the universe that, thus far, we have absolutely no evidence to support.

 

Indeed. If time does need a cause, why does that cause need intelligence or mind?