Science does explain that there are multiple variations on the 'Big Bang' so in a way it tells you that there exists variations of the universe or variations of every past and future--or that from nothing or everything the 'Big Bang' occured. Although this sounds like a classic philosophy, it isn't because it is based on the known science of what is around us. You can call it philosophy but it doesn't fit what the classic form is because it comes from what is observed around us and not what is 'thought' about what is around us.

Variations of every past and future event, or that from nothing or everything the big bang occurred is highly speculative. Future events, M Theory multiple universes, 11 dimensions are not observable. It is not based on "the known science that is around us." These are metaphysical assertions.

Hawking indicates that you can get something from nothing with the law of gravity. A law of gravity or gravity itself is NOT nothing. To call it "nothing" is a gross misuse of the word nothing.
What is "nothing" in Hawking's universe? How should a layman like me define "nothing."

You are using the term unobservable and observable incorrectly as far as science is conserned. For example: You can not observe the interior of the sun but you can measure what is going in and out of the sun and the bulk of the 'things' that make up the sun. Using what is known about chemistry, physics and those 'things' you can accurately say what is happening within the sun. OR You can not observe the creation of the continents as they exist today from what and where they were millions of years in the past because we only live at most 100 years but we can measure movements and the make up of the continents and model where they were and how they looked in the past.

Here is how we get the 11 plus dimensions. Consider a shadow on the ground. You don't have to look at the object making the shadow to calculate its size and shape because you know how light is projected and the angles that the light has traveled. So from a two dimensional object you can calculate what the three dimensional object looks like that projected the 2D shadow (you can take this up to 3D shadow and 4D object if you measure over time). Doing the same type of measurements on our 4 D universe you can calculate that 11 Ds or more project themselves onto our 4 D universe by the way those shadows caused by the 11D make themselves felt on our 4D.

Classic metaphysics 'assumes' something and asserts those assumptions on our reality. Science takes what we see in our reality and projects it out in 'all' directions to find out where our reality came from. Science just sounds like metaphysics when talked about in common vernacular but if you go through the advanced math and physics that it is laid out from what is around us now it becomes just as solid a science as the calculations on how a thrown ball travels. That is the trouble when using common language to explain things. People assume that it has as little basis in reality as every other form of classical philosophy. Hawking is using common language and not the advanced math and physics so the average person can at least feel where science has gone today. Just because he hasn't listed the equations and formulas doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Wonk wrote:Here is how we get the 11 plus dimensions.

The eleven dimension idea is part of string theory, which is generally regarded by mainstream science as not even wrong, due to its complete failure to generate testable claims.

See http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/ ... -test-for/

At least classic metaphysics talks about real things, such as human values.

Hawking and those who support the multiverse theory actually helps to logically prove the existence of God. It does't do away with God at all.

Here's Paul Davies comments on multiverses (not claiming he believes in a traditional god):

Consider the most general multiverse theories…where even laws are abandoned and anything at all can happen. At least some of these universes will feature miraculous events – water turning into wine, etc. They will also contain thoroughly convincing religious experiences, such as direct revelation of a transcendent God. It follows that a general multiverse set must contain a subset that conforms to traditional religious notions of God and design.

Similarly, Alvin Plantinga says that if every possible universe exists, then there must be a universe in which God exists since his existence is logically possible. It follows logically then that since God is omnipotent and omnipresent he must exist in every universe hence there is only one universe (this one) of which he is the creator and upholder of!

I don't think the multiverse theory is a good theory for atheists to seek refuge from god

Davies point in that article http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/chap ... galore.pdf on multiverse explanations is that "followed to its logical extreme, it leads to conclusions that are at best bizarre, at worst absurd."

We have enough difficulty understanding our own universe without speculating about imaginary ones.

Further, Hawking and his compatriot state in the book that the laws of nature tell us how the universe works but does not answer the "why" questions (questions that a child can ask but that science can not answer).

Asking "why" about everything is invalid. In some cases, it's appropriate instead to ask "how". My kid is currently 3 years old, and asks "why" about everything(and I love it).

Nested within the question is the assumption that the answer will be teleological. It is an appropriate question to ask when wondering about a person's intention. It's an inappropriate question to ask when wondering about many large questions in science. You have to justify the teleological assumption first, and show us there is "intention" towards which the question of "why" can be asked.

Science is answering the questions it's able to bite onto. Most of the "why" questions are misuse of language, rather than a failure of science.

11D actually was first postulated nearly 60 years ago using the Standard Model. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model ) It sat there as a possibility until it was pushed into prominance with String over 20 years ago when String ideas started to prove themselves as the only possible way of expanding the Standard Model to encompass everything. Since the 11 D Standard matched 11 D String this has become the key for advanced theories during the last 20 years. So we are referring to an idea that is half a century old and has survived decades of scientific debate and has only gotten stronger support. The Wired article has been based on incomplete data. This is common with popular journalism. Even journalists in technical magazines don't have the required background to have followed fully the debate.

The idea that main stream science doesn't consider String strong enough is invalid. Everyone of the top theoretical physicists in the world use String. Hawking is not alone in his use of the theory.

Just asking, but where did you get the idea from that there is no Evidence For God?

Thanks....

By the process of elimination. Most 'reasons' and 'evidence' people have break the rules of logic, or are non-sequitur. If there is evidence somewhere out there that has some bearing on the question, I'd be surprised. Biblical texts? Anecdotes? Miracles?