BreakingNews: God/s did not create the universe

[BurtWorm]

:patriot:

According to Stephen Hawking:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/509536-hawking-god-did-not-create-universe

Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.

Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology, Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

In his forthcoming book, an extract from which is published exclusively in Eureka, published today with The Times, Professor Hawking sets out to answer the question: “Did the Universe need a creator?” The answer he gives is a resounding “no”.

Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” he writes.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,” he finds.

[malaise]

1. Duh!

:rofl:

[humblebum]

35. I actually used to respect the man's opinions because he claimed to be a logical positivist

and therefore realized that there is a limit to which science can reveal, but he obviously has changed his viewpoint. He is still a very brilliant man but I think he has overstepped reason.

[cleanhippie]

45. Considering that Hawking probably has more reason is his pinky than you will ever know

leads to the conclusion that your opinion on the matter is highly uninformed and therefore ignorant in origin.

[humblebum]

49. By your posts I can see that the only form of reasoning you

understand or use is an extremely narrowly focused one. In this case, your conclusion lacks a major element - PROOF!

[cleanhippie]

50. One needs to only review the majority of your posts to see the "proof"

and can evaluate for themselves if my assertion is correct or not.

[cleanhippie]

2. Tha application of a dose of reason and critical thinking should bring one to the same conclusion.

Too bad so many chuck reason out the window when it comes to their religion.

[RainDog]

3. but reality makes the baby jesus cry

how dare you say such things!

why, you might as well insist that trickle-down economics is also bullshit.

[IndianaJoe]

4. If you start with nothing, where gravity?

Gravity is ordinarily a factor of mass, isn't it? I'd like to hear more about the theories he's referring to.

[no limit]

5. This is a good lecture by Lawrence Krauss that explains this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[IndianaJoe]

6. Thanks!

[ismnotwasm]

7. Good

While I have no problem with liberal religious folks, (and conservative ones that aren't insane pukes) I do have a problem with the 'rare earth' theory and other such tripe. I think that's what he's talking about.


Faith is faith and science is science.

[Enrique]

8. how does Hawking explain this tortilla?

[BurtWorm]

11. Looks like one of the Doobie Brothers!

:hippie:

[sinkingfeeling]

15. Take one metal sculpture of the white Jesus and heat on stove til red hot. Then press on tortilla.

[wtmusic]

16. You mean the $500 tortilla I bought on Ebay is bogus?

No wonder my prayers weren't answered. :silly:

[WingDinger]

9. Idiocy, it only ends a meddling petty God. Not a deist one.

[WingDinger]

10. Idiocy, it only ends a meddling petty God. Not a deist one.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. any universe that creates Sarah, Michelle, and Paris

has no god.

Now there may be superior creatures, observing us, and using us as a form of entertainment, but that's a whole different issue.

Hawking has pushed science along so nicely, it is always a pleasure to learn more from him.

[wtmusic]

14. Hawking has been discredited by the physics community for a while now

His wormholes, time travel, and event horizons all bit the dust. He seems a bit too drawn to controversy to be taken seriously.

Using science to prove God doesn't exist always seemed silly anyway...like using quantum mechanics to discredit the Easter Bunny.

[no limit]

26. Hawking has been discredited by the physics community? You are so full of shit its not even funny

Some of his theories certainly proved to be wrong, but I wouldn't call that being discredited. Science, unlike religion, evolves. Hawking's work on black holes laid the ground work for what we know about gravity today.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say he was discredited when it comes to wormholes and time travel. And the event horizon is certainly a very real thing.

[wtmusic]

34. Actually quite a few of his theories turned out to be wrong

"During a four-part series for Discovery Channel titled "Into the Universe With Stephen Hawking", the scientist claims that aliens are real, but that they are most likely not very friendly. He feels that if aliens come to our planet it will be because they used up all their natural resources, and are looking for a new world to make their own. Those ET's will be looking to conquer, not share.

Sounds like Hawking's watched "Independence Day" one too many times.

<>

Hawking's uses math to argue that life must exist because the numbers say so. However, his belief that these aliens are evil doesn't stem from mathematics so much as from our own history, and our own way of doing things. During the Discovery Channel series, Hawking states, "If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans." Yes, that makes sense. When Columbus came looking for a new world, they didn't want to share either."

http://www.helium.com/items/1814826-stephen-hawking-warns-about-aliens

Hawking has been quoted as saying, "Science will win (over religion) because it works." Science has been around a long, long, time, as has religion. Is science winning?

He's also been quoted as saying we it's impossible know what happened at the moment of creation. But now he knows God wasn't necessary.

He's said a theory of everything is just on the horizon. Now he says there is no theory of everything.

His contributions of the last decade have been more to the popular imagination than to physics.

[no limit]

36. Your arguemnts are bullshit, and I'm trying to be as nice as possible.

Hawking never claimed for sure that aliens would be hostile, he said it would be a very real possibiliy.

And Hawking isn't the only one that says life exists elsewhere because of the numbers, most people at this point believe that. With how many billions of galaxies there are the odds of life being elsewhere are almost a sure thing.

His suggestion that God wasn't necessary for creation is backed up by science. Do your self a favor and spend an hour of your time watching this lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Where has he said there is no theory of everything? He just said we won't find it.

And you are right about his contributions in the last decade. Are you not aware of his health problems?

I totally agree with the argument that Hawking has been over rated in many ways, but what you are doing is down right dishonest.

[wtmusic]

41. His alien and God pronouncements are the kinds of things that

grab attention, get him specials on the Discovery Channel, and have helped pay for his kids' educations and expensive medical care. There is nothing new, unique or even particularly interesting about them, yet the media (and apparently you) latch on to them as if they were straight out of a prophet's mouth.

There is no doubt that he has contributed immensely to physics. But physicists like Lee Smolin, Leonard Susskind, Kip Thorne and A. Garrett Lisi are doing truly groundbreaking work right now and feeling no urge whatsoever to comment on God, aliens, global warming, Elvis, or anything else outside their realm of expertise.

More: The Hawking of Stephen Hawking and this blog.

btw if we don't "find" a theory of everything, there "is" no theory of everything. :silly:

[no limit]

43. Yes, Hawking is doing alot of things to gain him publicity

you might not like that. But the bottom line is that he did contribute greatly to physics and will be remembered in history as a result. Yet you seem content on lying about him and tearing the guy down.

You seem upset because he dared to point out that you don't need a God for creation of the universe, as so many others have pointed out. Because this is an absolute fact, you don't need a God. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist (as extremely unlikely as that is).

And yes, what an asshole Hawking is for not coming up with any new ideas. I mean sure, he can't speak, can't write, and every complicated mathematics problem must be done in his head or with the help of an aide (an aide that needs weeks or even months to understand what Hawking is saying). But who gives a shit, he should just pull himself up by his bootstrap so he can please people like you. Because apparently shaping our modern understanding of gravity and black holes while battling ALS all the way through was not enough.

And if we don't find it that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means we don't have the capability to figure it out. :silly: And this is something many disagree with Hawking on.

[humblebum]

51. Speaking of BS.

Concerning your statement:"His suggestion that God wasn't necessary for creation is backed up by science", empirical science has never backed up such a statement. That is an unproven hypothesis derived from ontological and teleological enquiry - an educated guess. To say that something came from nothing is a real stretch. And to say that there is no beginning or end to existence is certainly unprovable.

[cleanhippie]

46. Can you provide evidence of your assertion?

Links please. Thank you.

[stuntcat]

13. kickety!

Science and the universe are way more beautiful than any God the bald monkeys ever made up :)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

17. we don't know anything of substance about 'how'

why the hell should we think we know 'why' ???

sP

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Not quite breaking, as there are already threads on this, but...

the problem with the using the laws of physics to explain why there is no God still doesn't explain where those laws of physics came from.

For years physicists have driven themselves crazy trying to avoid any mention of intelligence in the universe for fear of having the term "intelligent design" haunt them, but they still haven't managed to come up with a good mechanism for randomness causing all this.

In a universe where the possibilities are infinite, but we can only see so far in three dimensions, how can we possibly say for sure that there is no intelligence behind it all?

[BurtWorm]

19. Where did those laws come from?

A Parliament of angels maybe?

:freak:

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Which means you don't know. I don't know, either, but I prefer not to make assumptions.

[BurtWorm]

23. I think Hawkins's point is precisely against assuming God did it.

Your question implies that the answer could be theological. Hawkins's point is that's not good enough for physics, that whatever the answer to the question is, we'll only discover it through physics, not through theology.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. Maybe physics, maybe psychology. Who knows?

[cleanhippie]

47. You are correct. ANd the very FIRST assumption NOT to make, is that god did it.

The is the least likely scenario and therefore the first one to be dismissed.

[sinkingfeeling]

21. By definition, 'randomness' has no cause.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:

Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard

[TreasonousBastard]

22. So? I know what randomness is-- the question is whether it could have ...

given us the universe we know.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. Then why are you searching for a ' good mechanism for randomness causing all this.'?

The universe may have been created by random events. That's as equally compelling as 'The universe may have been created by some god."

[TreasonousBastard]

29. I never said I was.

[no limit]

27. Just because you can't explain where it came from doesn't mean intelligent design is likely

is it a possibility? Sure. But a very unlikely one. The "where did it come from argument" can be used against God as well.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. Why is it more unlikely than any other scenario? Note that I'm not talking about...

some anthropomorphic God promoted by a religion, just a universal intelligence.

[no limit]

32. Because there is actual evidance for other scenarios.

[TreasonousBastard]

33. No there isn't! There are some mathematical models but no "evidence."

[no limit]

38. Mathematical models are a form of evidance. What models do you have for "God did it".

The fact is absolutely nothing exists to back up the God theory aside from your own imagination.

[TreasonousBastard]

40. Mathematics is merely theory until observation backs it up. And observation is...

impossible in this case.

You seem to think I am advocating a "God theory," which is completely misreading my words to fit your own prejudices. I am simply offering the possibility that there is an intelligence of some sort behind things, rather than random processes.

[no limit]

42. But it turns out that once we observe we find many times the mathematics is extremely accurate

Einstein didn't observe the theory of relativity then write it down. He had to do some extremely complicated mathematics to come up with his theory. And it turned out the mathematics behind his theory turned out to be absolutely correct.

The possibility you are offering could be right. All I'm saying is it's not very likely.

[cleanhippie]

48. Because there is nothing to support that idea.

Without some kind of empirical evidence to support that idea, it is nothing more than imagination and should be treated as such.

[Jim__]

25. Is there a theory-independent reality?

According to Stephen Hawking, in the same book, "No." (source):

This multiplicity of distinct theories prompts the authors to declare that the only way to understand reality is to employ a philosophy called "model-dependent realism". Having declared that "philosophy is dead", the authors unwittingly develop a theory familiar to philosophers since the 1980s, namely "perspectivalism". This radical theory holds that there doesn't exist, even in principle, a single comprehensive theory of the universe. Instead, science offers many incomplete windows onto a common reality, one no more "true" than another. In the authors' hands this position bleeds into an alarming anti-realism: not only does science fail to provide a single description of reality, they say, there is no theory-independent reality at all. If either stance is correct, one shouldn't expect to find a final unifying theory like M-theory - only a bunch of separate and sometimes overlapping windows.

How many here accept Hawking's conclusion that there is no theory independent reality? How many accept his conclusion that the existence of the universe can be explained without a creator? If your 2 answers differ, can you explain why they differ?

[AlecBGreen]

28. *doh*

Can people not read these days?

TITLE = "God did not create Universe"

EXCERPT = “Did the Universe need a creator?” The answer he gives is a resounding “no”.

All he is saying is that he hypothesizes that the universe could have spontaneously created itself. He DOES NOT say there is no God. Why is it the author of the article and the OP of this thread cant tell the simple difference between these two statements?

Here is what he actually says: 'It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,' he finds."

[humblebum]

39. You make a very good point. Very discerning and much more in line

with Hawking's earlier positions.

[wookie72]

44. Because atheism v. religion has become a sporting event for them nt.

[maxsolomon]

37. Pantheism solves this conundrum

is EVERYTHING that is is "God", the divine, the infinite, the mystery, then:

there is no 'beginning' or "end", the universe always has been & always will be.

what is "blue touch paper"?

[Silent3]

52. All pantheism does...

...is either give you a synonym for "natural universe", or it imposes on the natural universe a lot of baggage from various concepts of deities, traits like an overall intelligence, a universal willful intent, having a Plan or Purpose, etc., none of which is any more proved than other god concepts.