Here is the bottom line for Mav and Stu.
This is Hawking paper in full.
And here is a quote.
If Mav wants to call him a christian fine.
Stu this shows that you are quoting hawking out of context.
His statement about gravity is in context of a multiverse.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of
the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency 3 See [6, 7, 8, 9] for recent work on the existence and the construction of observables in cosmological
spacetimes. 1- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would s
This is Hawking paper in full.
And here is a quote.
If Mav wants to call him a christian fine.
Stu this shows that you are quoting hawking out of context.
His statement about gravity is in context of a multiverse.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of
the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency 3 See [6, 7, 8, 9] for recent work on the existence and the construction of observables in cosmological
spacetimes. 1- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would s
Quote from stu:
It's a dead beat cheap and unintelligent tactic trying to keep blaming me for the things you are doing.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
There is nothing conditional about those statements. I'm not the one turning them into anything but what they say.
The Hawking-Hertog paper you jumped onto, along with a bunch of ill-formed conclusions all from some religious website no doubt; with which you keep making false claims, have mislead you into misrepresenting the whole picture. Infantile religious inferences for some imaginary tuner/designer/creator have no affinity to science.
You're the one using Hawking for authority, so you might do better understanding what he says..
Hawking does not state 'Gravity and not God' because of a multiverse or string theory. The top-down approach paper you keep pulling up is suggesting it can help string theory possibly become falsifiable. Top down is not relying on string theory and mutiverse itself.
Basically Stephen Hawking's proposal is the universe (not multiverse) in a "no boundary state" has all possible histories, resulting in the universe existing as it is - due to the laws of physics.
You should learn once and for all, religion into science won't go.