On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:30:22 -0500 (EST) Michael Pollak
<mpollak at panix.com> writes:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Charles Brown wrote:
>
> > So I don't think the idea that this question is scientifically
> > meaningless can be defended. Scientists seem to be treating it
> with the
> > same seriousness they treat, say, inflation theory.
> >
> > ^^^^ CB: Interesting. Their answer doesn't seem to be "God".
>
> Actually, FWIW, both Vilenkin and Hawking have said they have no
> problem
> calling God that answer to that question. As Holt puts it in an
> article
> he wrote on the subject for Harpers 15 years ago, theistic
> handwaving is
> actually fashionable among physicists these days:
>
> http://dbanach.com/holt.htm
Actually, Holt is wrong about Hawking. In his book, *A Brief History of Time*, Hawking wrote that if "the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have no beginning nor end, would simply be. What place then for a creator?" (p. 157).
Also, see:
http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>