RE: Dear Resident Theists
August 20, 2015 at 11:47 am
(This post was last modified: August 20, 2015 at 11:47 am by Whateverist.)
(August 20, 2015 at 10:14 am)lkingpinl Wrote: Grrrr...quoting system.....
Whateverist, I understand naturalism and would never espouse something I know to be false. I'm not like some of the theists on here. All I was stating was that in Hawking's view, in the singularity the laws of nature would necessarily be broken down. By that definition the beginning would be supernatural. I'm not implying the laws of nature to be eternal. In fact Hawking there himself states that the laws of nature were broken down, broken or non-existent in the singularity. The definition of supernatural is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. So in Hawking's view of the singularity, the beginning is indeed supernatural.
But it is absurd to say the laws of nature come from the supernatural. When the universe as we know it has cooled off completely, it won't be that the laws of nature have been suspended again. Rather, the 'laws' of nature which describe the universe as we know it today will no longer adequately predict what the universe will do then. Just as the 'laws of now' did not fit past conditions, they will likewise fall short in a sufficiently distant future. But there is absolutely nothing unnatural about this. A natural account of the universe as we know it now supports an account of the universe as it was long ago and will be much, much later. A robust natural account includes not only the very useful minutia of the universe as it is today but also a 'natural' account of how it got to be this way as well as how and when it will change. There is no need or application for a supernatural category.