That is an incomplete quote Judy: 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.'
This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point to that endpoint'. I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to give a flavour of it, not an explanation. In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Is this it? As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel is. Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which we explored recently here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html). Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe. If this is it, it's wrong because...? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber to NRO? It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one his many pages... Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even some scientists. Mr Ed didn't like it? Stone me! It must be great having all these amazing minds doing your thinking for you. I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's juvenile. Heh, heh.. BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real? Good for him. And it's supposed to affect me how? Here's a question for you: Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe different? When I say "the universe" I mean everything in it, us, our lives, pasts, futures. Everything. What do we lose without this fabulous thing you guys are so into?
