HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016029.jpg
1.12 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
0
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Essay / article excerpt
File Size:
1.12 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from an essay or book discussing the philosophical concept of free will in relation to God and science. It references works by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, specifically analyzing Hawking's assertion that the laws of physics explain the Big Bang without the need for a divine creator. The page bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates number, suggesting it was part of a larger document production, likely related to government oversight investigations.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Richard Dawkins | Author / Scientist |
Mentioned for his book 'The God Delusion' and his attack on religious belief.
|
| Stephen Hawking | Physicist / Author |
Mentioned for his book 'The Universe in a Nutshell' and his statements regarding the Big Bang and the lack of need fo...
|
| God | Theological Figure |
Subject of the essay regarding free will and creation.
|
| Adam | Biblical Figure |
Mentioned in a theological metaphor regarding the Garden of Eden.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2000
Stephen Hawking made front pages with the statement regarding the lack of need for a creator.
Global (Media)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Used in a metaphor about theological arguments.
|
Key Quotes (2)
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,564 characters)
Does God have
Free Will?
Free Will?
Any discussion of free will is incomplete without some mention of God. Scientists generally avoid the topic, but since we’re talking about such a fundamental concept, we must consider whether the Universe would be any different if it had a creator.
Recently there have been two widely publicized attacks on religious belief from the scientific community: the head-on attack from Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion or, the hard hitting sideswipe by Stephen Hawking in The Universe in a Nutshell.
Hawking made the front pages in 2000 with the statement: “There is then no need for a creator.” He was considering whether God needed to ignite the Big Bang or if it occurred as a natural result of the laws of physics. Hawking had run the mathematics and realized a god was not needed to light the blue touch paper for the Big Bang - the laws of physics spontaneously caused it. His argument does not actually preclude the existence of a god, but it does move the point where we need a creator one step further up the chain.
This is not a fundamental change to the progress of theological argument over the last thousand years. Once we abandon our vision of God as a master builder, literally breathing life into Adam while putting the finishing touches to the Garden of Eden, we can move him up the causal chain as far as we like, eventually reaching a point where intervention is necessary to get things started. Hawking is only pointing out an intervention is not needed at the point of the Big Bang. It still begs
Recently there have been two widely publicized attacks on religious belief from the scientific community: the head-on attack from Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion or, the hard hitting sideswipe by Stephen Hawking in The Universe in a Nutshell.
Hawking made the front pages in 2000 with the statement: “There is then no need for a creator.” He was considering whether God needed to ignite the Big Bang or if it occurred as a natural result of the laws of physics. Hawking had run the mathematics and realized a god was not needed to light the blue touch paper for the Big Bang - the laws of physics spontaneously caused it. His argument does not actually preclude the existence of a god, but it does move the point where we need a creator one step further up the chain.
This is not a fundamental change to the progress of theological argument over the last thousand years. Once we abandon our vision of God as a master builder, literally breathing life into Adam while putting the finishing touches to the Garden of Eden, we can move him up the causal chain as far as we like, eventually reaching a point where intervention is necessary to get things started. Hawking is only pointing out an intervention is not needed at the point of the Big Bang. It still begs
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016029
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document