Why God Did Not Create the Universe

Discussion in 'Fantasy / Horror' started by Fung Koo, Sep 10, 2010.

  1. Fung Koo

    Fung Koo >:|Angry Beaver|:

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some food for thought (and perhaps Wassnerean debate? ;)) thanks to an interesting new read from Stephen Hawking:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html

    And a review of same from The Independent:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...ic-science-written-its-last-word-2075053.html

    Discuss.
     
  2. Sparrow

    Sparrow Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll start by saying I'm no fan of Mr.Hawking.

    He is totally overblown and way, way overrated.
    If by explaining the Universe you do it right down to brass tacks, that is up to the Big Bang, but yet cannot explain the Universe before the Big Bang... then you have explained nothing except an event and the after effects of that event; if like God, the Universe has alway been, then there can be no purpose, no destiny, no beginning. That is what's known as a disabling contradiction. Furthermore, if the extended goal of your explanation is to answer why the Universe exists, and an even more senseless question, why we ourselves exist, then you're giving humanity an integral role in that Universe, where it simply has no place. That is what Stephen Hawking does, and that my friends, is not science.

    Time has a beginning, really?.. who says so.

    Some of Hawking's views on the cosmos, and evolution and natural selection in particular, are just plain whimsical nonsense. He bestows a poetic quality to things that are unrelently real. The Universe is heartless and mindless, and evolution serves no goal under the sun, these are not purpose driven mechanisms!

    What Hawking is, I mean when you really get to his core, is an Intelligent Design freak who rarely gets called to the carpet by real scientists and physicists. Actually, he is not a covert protagonist of Intelligent Design, he is quite brazenly explicit: "... the designer was God, with a capital “G”. So, the quotation continues: “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us”. Elsewhere he writes: “Yet it appears that God chose to make it [the universe] evolve in a very regular way, according to certain laws”.

    Are you kidding me!.. making God the architect of the Universe!!!
    And this is somehow earthshaking stuff?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2010
  3. Fung Koo

    Fung Koo >:|Angry Beaver|:

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, so you definitely didn't read the articles. Or the title of this thread, for that matter. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Sparrow

    Sparrow Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    0

    Oh I read the article alright.

    I've also read A Brief History of Time where Mr.Hawking mentions God more often then a pastor at a church picnic. So which Hawking is it, the one who unabashedly gives God credit for the Universe, or the one who waves God off in the name of science?

    When did this change occur in Hawking?.. will the real Stephen Hawking please stand up.



    Tell me if the man who wrote this...

    “…the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (the size of the electric charge of the electron and ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron, for example) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”.

    ... believes in a God, or not.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2010
  5. Loerwyn

    Loerwyn Staff

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,209
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just cringed.

    I don't think science can prove there's a God, nor can God disprove science. Yes, I think Professor Hawking is an excellent scientist and one of the greatest minds of our time (not to mention a great example of how people can still be very successful and so forth despite disabilities), but I don't take what he says as gospel (pun not intended).

    I do think there's a lot of "we can't understand it", as evidenced by myths and legends, but I just can't put 100% belief in science. Nothing is impossible, just highly improbable - right? That would make my ability to communicate with others on the Internet the culmination of thousands, if not millions or billions, of highly improbable events, and I just can't wrap my brain around that.

    "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
    No, but it's still a possibility.
     
  6. Sparrow

    Sparrow Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    0

    Depends on what level of proof you require.

    By western court of law standards, 'beyond a reasonable doubt', then science fulfills that arrangement.

    Why is Stephen Hawking "one of the greatest minds of our time"?
     
  7. Fung Koo

    Fung Koo >:|Angry Beaver|:

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems only fair assume that people -- particularly scientists -- can and should change their point of view to reflect changing circumstance. So I propose we go with the current views of Hawking, 22 years further into the future from A Brief History of Time.

    In the public record, Hawking has been known as an atheist since about 1991, 3 years from the publication of ABHoT. The question he grappled with, related to God, was of the primacy of the universe -- what caused the Big Bang in the first place (or, what created the singularity that resulted in the big bang, if you will). At that time, the various elements of today's unified theories were disparate, and QM was (all things considered) in a fledgling state. Over the past 22 years, our observations have improved our models, and the effort to unify theoretical frameworks has resulted in a set of certain broadly accepted 'facts' about the universe.

    That those facts and theories now lead to a system of understanding wherein our universe is only one of many is simply the progression of science, much like the change from the heliocentric model of the solar system.

    The fact stands that Hawking revised and retuned A Brief History of Time with the 2005 release of A Briefer History of Time, which takes into account many of the discoveries and fine-tunings of cosmological theories since the publication of the original.

    In other words, falsification in action. The Scientific Method is such that any scientific hypothesis is falsifiable. So, if Hawking proposed a hypothesis in 1988 that things were one way, and over the next 20 years certain facts and figures weaken that hypothesis, then it has been falsified. For a scientist to then adapt to that change and propose a refined, retuned, or even outright different theory is simply the normal course of science.

    So the real Stephen Hawking has been standing the whole time. You're attempting to discredit a scientist -- who works in the field of empiricism and falsification -- based on the inherent fallibility of science -- which is falsifiable.

    It seems that you're trying to discredit a scientist for doing science.

    Onward, demagogue, to the pulpit!

    I don't see anything inherently spiritual or deistic in that statement. It is a fact that the masses of the proton and electron, for example, rest at values that make possible the development of life. Were they different, the balance of forces would be unstable, and the likelihood that life could develop would correspondingly destabilize.
     
  8. Fung Koo

    Fung Koo >:|Angry Beaver|:

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems to me that Hawking is more saying that God is not a necessary condition for the creation of a universe, given that there are multiple extant universes which arise and fall naturally and spontaneously within the broader multidimensional "super-reality" posited by String/M-theory.

    I would say that all Hawking has done is move God up the super-universal structure by one more level, though. Much the same way that the change to the heliocentric model moved God from the starry firmament wrapped around the earth to the boundary wrapped around the universe, a change from a single-universe theory to an M-theory multiverse just pushes God up from being the creator of our universe to the creator of the whole system that our universe is part of. Where did the "super-reality" come from? ends up being the next question and ends up right back at God.

    So I have to wonder if part of the wording of Hawking's Grand Design isn't designed to sound controversial and piggy-back on the recent wave of popular atheistic literature.
     
  9. Loerwyn

    Loerwyn Staff

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,209
    Likes Received:
    0
    My brain just exploded :p So basically he's saying there is room for God (or gods) to exist, but science is saying that he could have created the multiverse rather than just our universe (and before that, the Earth)?
     
  10. BettyCross

    BettyCross Writer by Profession

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mr. Fung, may I call you Koo?

    Excellent point. I have always maintained that religious faith and acceptance of modern scientifc discoveries about the origin of life and the universe are compatible. Also I'm reminded of a conversation some friends of mine in college and I were having one day about proofs of the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas maintained, among other things, that a Creator is necessary because without a Creator, there would have to be an infinite regress of previous causes for every effect. One of the three of us countered that by saying, "Why can't you have an infinite regress?"

    All 3 of us believed in God. The questioner, however, was skeptical about whether reason could prove anything about God.

    As Kung Foo points out, all attempts to explain the origin of the universe are excercises in infinite regress. They merely push God further back in the chain of causation.

    I would say that there probably are some things about the nature of the universe, including its origin, that will always be beyond our comprehension. This still leaves plenty of room for scientific inquiry in the universe as we experience it.

    Betty Cross
     
  11. Sparrow

    Sparrow Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    0

    Bull.

    His journey to a Universe in which God is not necessary was an emotional one... and probably not even a sincere journey. I think he just throws these headlines out there to sell books. String Theory, or whatever hybrid we're currently on, is becoming less fashionable these days. Thank goodness there have been some who call it into question...

    Leonard Susskind is questioning that which he once championed.

    I've noticed over the last five or so years that I'm coming across more science stories taking String Theory to task.
    String Theory has been just about the only show in town for two decades now; in the field of Particle Physics it is still very intoxicating... for those who need more grant money and government funding.

    Do you know what the term "not even wrong" means?


    I personally do not believe String Theory (you go ahead and pick the one you like best) is even the correct model of the Universe. M-Theory will, after much funding, fall by the way. The multiverse concept is a cop out, a kind of halfway house where pseudo-scientific theories find comfort, sober up, take a warm shower, and are finally sent packing.


    Either way, Hawking did not formulate String Theory. Even in its ultimate wrongness there is brilliance, and Hawking lacks brilliance.
     
  12. Fung Koo

    Fung Koo >:|Angry Beaver|:

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    In a sense... The focus isn't on explaining God, but on explaining that life can arise spontaneously based on the laws of a universe. That the laws of our universe themselves allow for the spontaneous generation of life without requiring an act of creation by the/a God.

    But he's a little more dismissive of the notion of God than that, if I'm reading him right. Somewhere he says, "you can call the laws 'God,' if you like."

    Flattery will get you everywhere :)

    Now here's a mind-bender -- Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems. In a nutshell, any defined system of logic/rules relies on a "higher" defined system of logic/rules. In other words, all systems of logic are infinitely regressive. All systems of logic are contextualized as subsets of systems of logic, which themselves are contextualized as subsets of systems of logic, etc.

    As a general question, one would wonder if that's a limitation of our particular universe or a fact of existence, period. Certainly if we can push God up the causal chain infinitely through observing the universe, and we also find that all evident systems of logic flow up the causal chain infinitely, then we also kinda have to wonder if infinite regress isn't actually the nature of the entire, infinite system.

    That, to me, is the sticking point. Without infinite regress, then the universe becomes a finite, linear equation. And as such, it becomes deterministic. I take free will as an article of faith (the article of faith, IMO), and a finite, linear universe, no matter how complex, ultimately precludes free will.

    So in that sense, I think Hawking is wrong to say that philosophy has been outmoded by science. One simply has to know more science to sufficiently grapple with the big philosophical questions. After all, the goal of science and philosophy are both (loosely) to understand the nature of existence.

    ...unless we dismiss the notion of "origin" outright. Even God ends up subject to infinite regression if we stick to the concept of "origin," does he not?
     
  13. Fung Koo

    Fung Koo >:|Angry Beaver|:

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is there another theoretical approach you think is a better way to go?
     
  14. Sparrow

    Sparrow Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    0

    I can't say for sure, except that whatever the better way to go is, it won't be blazed by Stephen Hawking.

    I will agree with Hawking on one such thing, philosophy is not near as important in understanding things as Science is. You can however have a nice balance between Philosophy and Science, they coexist rather well I think.
    Science and Religion cannot coexist as equals. You must choose one over the other.
     
  15. expatrie

    expatrie 4/25/11 published!!!!

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well....

    Well, that's pretty dismissive. Science is about causes, religion is about faith. While I may not believe in God, I'm not exactly happy about it, considering it might give me some solace in the long reaches of the night and other dark spots, but I just don't.

    As to the supremacy of Science or Religion, while Science has a lot to do with daily life and various improvements since the Middle Ages, Religion can be nice to people who run that way, and it's been there the whole time.

    As to the "current trend of popular atheist literature," don't make me laugh. That may be so in the UK, where 80% aren't actively in church, but here in the U.S? What is the percentage here? 10%, that are brave enough to admit it? We have one representative in Congress who's an atheist. Muslims outnumber them in Congress.

    Anyway, while it's nice (can't think of a better adjective) to expect Science may one day trump Religion and disprove the existence of god, that will probably do nothing for the folks who actually enjoy religion. And seriously, what evidence can I point at that religion isn't real? My lack of faith is as much a leap of faith as other's faith. I can't prove God doesn't exist, it just doesn't seem thermodynamically required, hence Occam's razor says probably not, and that's just my hand-waving for how I actually feel. I just don't feel a divine presence. Others do. Who am I to say who is right?

    But seriously, Science and Religion are like food and water. They don't have much to do with each other and both work fine on the psychological dinner plate of humanity.

    On the other hand, I tuned back into this thread thinking it would be an array of ad hominems on Hawking or back and forth name-calling, and congratulations on not dropping to that level yet.

    As to String Theory, I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss it without studying it, and I've not the time to attend graduate level Physics courses to learn. Thus, I have no opinion. Well, no knowledge based opinion. My understanding is that the "funding" complaints from everyone is that you need a big collider to get to the energy levels where string theory will have testable results. As such, there's a lot of funding needed, etc. etc, etc. But without funding it, there's no way to disprove it. Once the LHC and others are done in about ten years and we start analyzing results as to Higg's Boson or not, supersymmetry or not, dark matter or not, if the data fits, well, then the theory's pretty credible. If not, time for a new theory and more experiments. Remember that Standard Physics clunked along just fine making automobiles and radios and such thus until nagging little details on the edges (the photoelectric effect, for example) started building doubt that eventually led to the death of classical physics and the rise of quantum mechanics. Relativity was a whole other deal, but as I understand it, Mercury's orbit has some relativistic effects that contributed to support for Relativity.
     
  16. Loerwyn

    Loerwyn Staff

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,209
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try earlier. Greeks, Egyptians, Romans - Perhaps even civilisations before them. It wasn't science as we know it, perhaps, but scientific theories and discoveries were made well before the Middle Ages. The term "atom" comes from the Ancient Greek word "atomos", and I believe that term arose from a Greek philosopher who had effectively predicted the existence of atoms.

    But anyway, I have to strongly disagree with Sparrow (Oh, there's a surprise). I believe that religion and science can coexist, and in fact they do. Everyone interprets their religion differently. There's no reason why a scientist who believes in evolution cannot also hold a belief in God or other gods. It's not mutually exclusive - i.e. a belief in God does not rule out a belief in science.

    There's also no reason why both science and religion could be right at the same time. What if God is bound by the laws of the Universe? Could it not be that God (or gods) created our universe (or the multiverse), but due to the resultant laws of physics, He/they were consumed in the Big Bang? Could the very existence of the universe/multiverse block them from being involved?

    Yes, I believe religion played a huge part in explaining things in the absence of education. Gods/God filled many roles we now have answers for. There were gods who brought the Sun up, which we now know doesn't actually happen - What happens is the Earth rotates and it creates the illusion of a rising sun.

    However, that just made me have an idea. If God/gods could create a planet, a universe, life - All of this, surely it's not too far fetched that they could mask it all? Could it be a "Tree falling in the woods" situation? If you weren't there, how could you prove it?

    Fact about Dwagginz:
    He is agnostic with influences from pre-medieval religions (Specifically iron/bronze age gods such as Thor, Freya, Minerva etc), Christianity and quantum theories (e.g. Schrodinger's Cat, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and so on) :p
     
  17. Sparrow

    Sparrow Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    0

    Religion is about faith, faith that the religion you follow has substance.
    Since there is no God, no supernatural being, no afterlife, no spiritual world whatsoever, then there is no substance, save a placebo effect. It's not dismissive to call a lie a lie. All those religions that answer to a higher being or a supernatural force are categorically, a lie. Science has solved that mystery to my satisfaction.

    Religion most probably played a critical role in our evolution as a species, indeed whatever reaches in our ancient brains entertained religion, also found science and discovery. Religion should be thought of as an ancient artifact from our past, obsolete and decadent.



    As for String Theory and its various hybrids, I think the jury is still out.
    My main problem with it is that it has gotten pretty much a free ride for far too long. A unifying theory will need to explain if there was in fact a Big Bang, whether that Big Bang was a creation event, or just an event within a grander scheme... and of course, what came before the Big Bang.
     
  18. expatrie

    expatrie 4/25/11 published!!!!

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    But, are we still on topic here?


    Um.

    No.

    I could write a lot here, but it feels like a waste of time. Science hasn't solved 'religion' to my satisfaction. But usually it's religion that seems to feel attacked by Science, not the other way around.

    I think you're constructing your definition of religion so you can refute it with a hand-wave as "false." It's called a straw man argument. That's your definition of religion. Religion, more commonly, (and to me) is about faith in something bigger than you and has nothing to do with the laws of physics or science. More like, ethics. Religion never had anything to say about gravity that I remember. And I think you'll find that most people would follow that idea. Like, you treat people like something more than chunks of oddly configured carbon and chemical reactions, you treat people how you want to be treated. Carrot on a stick of heaven or the afterlife notwithstanding.

    But in a societal sense, what you think doesn't matter. It's what society as a whole wants. Some people seem to like and want religion in their lives, waning in it's influence on society or not. And like I said, I don't see how science can disprove god. Even though I don't believe in one. That's like saying mathematics disproves art. It's just the wrong tool for the job. Religion is philosophy. Science is something else.

    And it is dismissive to decide something's a lie in absence of any evidence. If you're so scientific, where's the proof? Isn't science about proof? Where has a laboratory experiment proved that (a) god does not exist?

    Um, I don't think the Big Bang is really up for grabs as being proved anymore. It's pretty accepted as theory, what with all the red-shift, Cosmic Background Radiation and all.

    Of course the jury is still out on M-theory. But it hasn't gotten a free ride. I disagree that it must "prove everything" to be valid, just valid enough to base new theories or devices upon them. The inability to test it has already been explained. No test instruments strong enough to produce the effects, and that's what the LHC and other large-scale projects are supposed to (hope to) solve--test the theory.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Problems_and_controversy

    Or not.

    Well, at least they're supposed to reach Quark-Gluon plasma levels, right?

    Why should string theory address anything before the Big Bang? That doesn't seem relevant, because the laws of physics as we know them need not apply, the big bang is a result of those conditions, but need not be confined say, to the current fundamental ratios. (I mean electron to proton mass, Gravity versus electrical field force, etc.) And since (space)time is relevant only in the context of thermodynamics, well, the fabric of (space)time didn't necessarily exist back "then.where," so I doubt anything 'before' the big bang is even possible to derive definitively, although there are a few books on the subject. That sounds like pure conjecture. And I figure there are more solutions to that problem than just one.

    But I get the feeling I'm being trolled.

    Anyway, what's to prevent, say, an omnipotent being from setting up the big bang and all the rest of it is just boundary conditions? The ultimate Billiard shot? Philosophically, 'it' wouldn't even need to "start" at time zero. Since... ah, maybe you get what I'm saying already. We wouldn't be able to test when time started.
     
  19. Sparrow

    Sparrow Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's because Religion is under attack from Science.
    Do you not find yourself in the same corner with the likes of Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Watson & Crick?


    What you're talking about is mostly spirituality/superstition/meditation and culture based morals, which may or may not have a God figure as an icon. That is not my argument.
    If the faith is in a God, God as creator front and center, than there is no substance to the religion. You say religion "is about faith in something bigger than you...", and that sounds like a new age cop out.
    I'm not discounting the placebo effect at all. The placebo effect of Judeo/Christian based religions is extremely powerful, and has considerable substance. Our Western Culture is based on that placebo effect.



    From a philosophical standpoint you can't prove something doesn't exist, only that something has a degree of improbablity.


    Which God, the Judeo/Christian God as he appears in the King James Bible?


    Then, you would be wrong.
    String Theory and Dark Matter, are unobserved phenomena that have come out of inconsistencies with the Big Bang theory. They've essentially been created to save the Big Bang framework of the universe. Why is it the physics that govern a black hole don't hold up for the Big Bang. As for Red Shift and Background Radiation... Red Shift measurements are, and correct me if I'm wrong, based on the Hubble Constant?.. which over the decades has been anything but constant. And I'll say nothing of the snag in the thread that quasars bring to Big Bangers.
    As for Cosmic Background Radiation, while it's the doom of the Steady State model of the universe it can be, and has been, attributed to something other than the Big Bang. Did you know someone had already predicted what the background radiation of the cosmos would be, and that prediction turned out to be much closer to reality than the original prediction made by Big Bang theorists?

    But M-theory is yet another invention to explain away problems with the Big Bang.

    One of the most elegant remarks you're likely to ever come across, "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be". (Carl Sagan)
    That is why we need to know what was the Universe like before the Big Bang. An expanding universe doesn’t require that the universe began with a bang, but the Big Bang theory certainly requires an expanding universe.


    I've made well over 500 posts here and it seems to me a moderator would have long since banned me if I were a troll.;)


    That would certainly be convenient.
    In the end you always have to ask yourself what came first, the chicken or the egg. Genesis says it was the chicken, Science says it must be the egg.:)

    What came first, the Big Bang or the Universe?
     
  20. Fung Koo

    Fung Koo >:|Angry Beaver|:

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, propose something -- anything -- or else all you're relying on is defamation and slander. "Not even wrong" indeed.

    There's a truly bizarre set of statements. The Scientific Method is a philosophical approach. Methodology in any discipline is philosophy writ large.

    So, science as faith.

    ...but that you're making that statement an absolute truth, despite lack of objective evidence for or against your assertion. While it's fair to say that you are sufficiently convinced that science has disproved the existence of God, the fact remains that that is your personal conviction and not an absolute, objectively verifiable truth.

    It is a lie in your opinion. While I'm not so lame as to think all opinions are equal, two equally informed and differing opinions can (and do) arise from the same sets of evidence. Your criticism of Hawking is basically that he's dabbling in theory and inferential science, and not applied, deductive science -- so too is the "scientific" assertion that science disproves God. It's inferential, not empirical. Theory.

    If you hold that personal conviction functions as truth ('I see from the evidence that it is not true, therefore it is not true'), then you end up back at loggerheads with those who arrive at the opposite conclusion from the same evidence ('I see from the evidence that it is true, there it is true').

    Take, for example, the shape of new radio antennas in cell phones. Instead of a linear arrangement, changing the shape to a fractal design in 4 dimensions improves cell phone reception dramatically -- to the point that instead of requiring a 6 inch long pole, a die smaller in area than your pinkie fingernail produces multiple-times improved reception.

    There you have empirical evidence of a dimension beyond our own which influences and is part of our own. So the question, then, is how you split the difference between a "supernatural" realm and an "extranatural" realm. Unload the term "supernatural" of its cultural connotations (as you suggest expatrie's argument relies on them) and take it at face value to mean "above natural" -- categorically, is there a difference? Is there, or is there not, empirical evidence in support of a realm above/beyond our own?

    The only question from there is whether or not life is possible in dimensions outside of our own, given that it is possible within our own. If so, then you have super/extranatural beings.

    I find it contradictory to allow multidimensional theory in one breath and disallow near-identical religio-mythological concepts in the next.

    If I'm reading you correctly, the jury is in. There's nothing supernatural, ergo there's no possible truth to String Theory.

    Which is precisely what Hawking's book, the subject of this thread, is attempting to do -- to provide an internally consistent description of a non-creation event within a grander scheme (hence the title, The Grand Design) including what came before the Big Ban.

    Shoot the messenger all you want, but don't forget to read the message!
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2010