Pesquisar no blog

segunda-feira, 5 de março de 2012

Deus e o dr.Hawkins


By Olavo de Carvalho
Revised by Artur Eduardo

NOTA: Se você tiver alguma dificuldade na leitura do texto, copie-o e cole-o no Google Translator (tradução do Inglês para o Português). A traduação é bem razoável.

In a recent statement, the physicist Stephen Hawking, contradicting his previous pronouncements, said that the universe could have appeared from the mere spontaneous interplay of the laws of physics, without any intervention of a Creator God. The time when the declarations of physicists were heard as divine decrees is gone. Today their statements arrogate to themselves a super-divine authority, judging and suppressing God himself. And they do not content themselves in doing this in the sphere of pure theoretical considerations: they extend their jurisdiction to the whole domain of social existence, demanding that education, culture, and law be molded according to their scientific world view, under the penalty of their being convicted for acts of fanaticism and crimes against the democratic state.

Yet, at the same time, the signatories of these decrees brag about their exemplar epistemological modesty, swearing to practice the constant review of their own beliefs and never to impose on anyone any definitive scientific truth, which, they admit, does not even exist.

The coexistence, in the same brain, of such overwhelming presumptions and such a candid feeling of critical restraint should be enough to show that something is not working well in that brain.

First of all, we rarely see one of these pontiffs of knowledge displaying any consciousness of the distinction between the real world and the object studied by their specialized science.

The “universe” Prof. Hawking refers to is not that of general human experience but an abstract one, the universe as it is known by the science of physics. Neither Prof. Hawking nor any other scientist of his area can offer us the least proof that the universe of physics is “real.”

In point of fact, there is no thornier problem for all of them than that of the ontological statute of the particles studied by the most developed and most precise branch of science, quantum physics. They know a lot, almost everything, about these particles, but they do not know what they are or in what sense the word “reality” could be applied to them.

The very fact that the presence of the observer modifies their behavior has led many of those scientists to the most extreme speculations on the subjective—or “spiritual”—character of the entire physical universe. When we do not know whether a thing exists within the mind, outside of it, or in both these places at the same time, and when we do not know—assuming this latter hypothesis to be true—the location of the connection that binds together both aspects of this thing, we must recognize that all we know about it is its appearanceQuoteOlavo4.

The universe of physics is a system of appearances, of “phenomena,” which coincides with the real world in some respects but differs from it in others. To ask whether a system of appearances could have appeared by itself, or whether it would need a God to create it, is not only an idle speculation but obviously has no bearing on the question of the origin of the real world.

When Prof. Hawking says that “the world” could have appeared by itself, what he means to say is that “his” world—a certain system of phenomenal appearances, considered only in its abstract internal constitution (and supposing this constitution is entirely known, which is still far from being true)—“could” be conceived, with no logical contradiction, as the spontaneous result of the working of its own laws, without the intervention of an external element.

To say this is practically to say nothing—not even about the pure system of appearances as such. This is only the statement of a logically possible proposition about a group of hypotheses. To transform this into a conclusive statement that “God did not create the world” is a sort of rhetorical hyperbole that borders on insanity or pure and simple charlatanism.

No serious scientist has the right to ignore the almost insuperable difficulties interposing between the laws of quantum physics and any statement, as modest as it may be, on the nature of reality in general. The first of these difficulties is that quantum physics is not even sure as to the statute of reality of the objects that it studies.

To make things worse, Dr. Hawking is not even talking about quantum physics. He is talking about the Big Bang, a theory that draws on contributions from quantum physics but does not have a thousandth part of the credibility that, within its limits, quantum physics undeniably has.

In strict terms, what Dr. Hawking said is that in theory the Big Bang could have been caused by the spontaneous action of the four forces that make it up, with no external help. Even supposing that this statement is strictly true (I have no condition to confirm or deny this now), the following problems would remain:

(1) If there are forces that preceded or determined the “Big Bang,” then the Big Bang itself is not “the origin of the world” but only of a certain stage of its existence.

(2) Where did the four forces come from: out of nothing or were they created?

(3) That something may happen in theory does not prove that it has necessarily happened.

(4) We do not even know whether the Big Bang happened or only may have happened.

Translated into the language of logic, professor Hawking’s declaration means: “There is a possibility that other possibility may be causa sui and not the result of a third possibility.” Very nice! But it does not tell us anything about what really happened. And it does not answer at all the most decisive question in the history of philosophy, thus expressed by Leibniz: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

No matter how competent he may be in his field of studies, Dr. Hawking frequently behaves as a show-biz star, impressing the audience with spectacular statements which become even more spectacular when, one year later, he denies them with that same air of certitude with which he first uttered them.

Fonte: Instituto Inter-Americano de Filosofia, Governo e Política

Um comentário:

Pereira disse...

Gostam de texto em inglês? Vejam este:



"The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts." --- Introduction to Christianity By Joseph Ratzinger. page 82-83. THE 1968 EDITION.


"A forma básica da nossa profissão de fé trinitariana (Mateus 28:19) tomou forma durante o curso dos séculos segundo e terceiro em conexão com a cerimônia de batismo. Medida em que o seu lugar de origem está em causa, o texto (Mateus 28:19) veio da cidade de Roma."
O batismo da Trindade e texto de Mateus 28:19, portanto, não se originou a partir da Igreja original, que começou em Jerusalém por volta do ano 33. Era um pouco como a evidência demonstra uma invenção posterior do catolicismo romano completamente inventada. Muito poucos sabem sobre estes fatos históricos." --- Introdução ao Cristianismo por Joseph Ratzinger. página 82-83. Edição de 1968.


“Vi que Deus havia de maneira especial guardado a Bíblia, ainda quando dela existiam poucos exemplares; e homens doutos nalguns casos mudaram as palavras, achando que a estavam tornando mais compreensível quando, na realidade, estavam mistificando aquilo que era claro, fazendo-a apoiar suas estabelecidas opiniões, que eram determinadas pela tradição. Vi, porém, que a Palavra de Deus, como um todo, é uma cadeia perfeita, prendendo-se uma parte à outra, e explicando-se mutuamente.”
Primeiros Escritos, pág. 220-221 – História da Redenção, pág. 391

“Recomendo-vos, caro leitor, a Palavra de Deus como regra de fé e prática. Por essa Palavra seremos julgados. Nela Deus prometeu dar visiões nos últimos dias; não para uma nova regra de fé, mas para conforto do Seu povo e para corrigir os que se desviam da verdade bíblica”. Mensagens Escolhidas. Vol. III, pág. 29.

“A mentira tem pernas curtas”, como diz o ditado!
Uma vez que o único texto da Bíblia (Mateus 28:19) que ensina sobre a trindade é uma falsificação que veio de Roma, conforme a confissão do Papa Bento XVI no livro acima citado, quase que tardiamente, mas ainda em tempo, os sinceros podem fazer uma correção de fé. É o único texto bíblico que faz referência à trindade, porém, não foi obedecido e na Bíblia não existe nenhum cumprimento desta ordem registrado , sabem porque? Porque não é um texto legítimo e não existia no tempo dos apóstolos! Por isso não tem registros!
É importante corrigir a fé dos trinitarianos que são sinceros na crença? Claro! A trindade, que não existe, quebra o 1º Mandamento da Lei de Deus que diz: “Não terás outros deuses diante de MIM”. Note que não é “Não terás outros deuses diante de NÓS”, segundo a trindade .
O Primeiro Mandamento é tão importante quanto os outros Mandamentos do Decálogo. Para quem pertence à Igreja Adventista do Sétimo Dia, podemos dizer: “Não é importante restaurar o Sábado Bíblico do Quarto Mandamento isoladamente , mas também o Primeiro Mandamento!
ROMA andou mutilando a “Lei de Deus” porém, convém que sejamos reparadores de brechas. Ou vamos incorrer no erro abaixo:
- “E tu, ó homem, que julgas os que fazem tais coisas, cuidas que, fazendo-as tu, escaparás ao juízo de Deus?” – ROMANOS 2:3

Ofertas Exclusivas!!!!