God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[danarhea]

I don't see why people get so offended when the man expresses his opinion. If a christian physicist comes out and expresses his idea of god, hes a good fellow. If an atheist physicist comes out and expresses his opinions concerning atheism, he's going to hell and he's a bad bad man.

A true Christian physicist will tell you that it is his belief, and nothing based on science. However, most religous people only know one way to argue that there is a God:

 

[LimeLight]

I am fairly certain a "God" didn't create the universe, keep in my mind when we speak of God we are talking about an Omnipotent, supernatural being. I think this is extremely unlikely. Now maybe something beyond us created the universe, or at least started the initial spark to it but that doesn't mean it was a God who loves and cares about us. I think this universe being a scientific experiment in some lab in a different dimension is more likely then someone sitting above the universe watching everything that goes on.

Religion is just obviously a load bull **** and it really bothers me how so many people just fall for it, more than likely because it seems the the largest religions promise an eternity of pain in suffering if you don't "believe". I mean how laughable is that, you must believe in me in order to get to Heaven! Why would a God need belief??

Your going to hell sir. Say hello to Saddam for me.

 

[BCR]

Also I noticed some thought that the idea of spontaneous creation was crazy, which I agree sounds nuts but I'll respect Hawkins opinion because the guy is a genius.

Why on Earth would a religious person believe spontaneous creation is unfathomable though. I always wonder why Christians and Muslims and so on never ask them selves just where the Hell did my God come from?

 

[danarhea]

Your going to hell sir. Say hello to Saddam for me.

Nah, people don't go to hell for that, although they just might go to hell for this:

 

[LimeLight]

Nah, people don't go to hell for that, although they just might go to hell for this:

I bet you Jesus would love himself a snickers. They're so good!

 

[BCR]

Your going to hell sir. Say hello to Saddam for me.

I don't plan on hanging out with Saddam while I'm there..Hopefully I'll be able to find some people like Carl Sagan, Einstein, and Dave Matthews down there.

 

[jallman]

While I have no doubt that those who believe in God will try to paint atheism as a religion I can't help but hope they do so. Comparing atheism to a religion shows that all you need to 'validate' your religion is claiming a belief. Regardless of what that belief is. In other words, if I say the spider I am currently looking at on my window is God, then so it is. I don't need anything else. Proving that religion is nothing more than a man made fairy tale. Check, mate.

That just shows an extreme lack of understanding of what religion actually is. It's also a lazy, shallow, and moronic analysis of a very complex subject.

In a word, "Whatever".

 

[LimeLight]

That just shows an extreme lack of understanding of what religion actually is. It's also a lazy, shallow, and moronic analysis of a very complex subject.

In a word, "Whatever".

It is a moronic anaylsis, but religion is in no way a complex subject. People make it complex.

 

[jallman]

It's odd to watch people debate all day that science can't disprove the existence of a god. Then when a scientist proposes a theory making the idea of gods irrelevant, their response is 'Well that's just his opinion'. More proof that at the end of the day the religious aren't really interested in debating anything. How else are you supposed to describe such openly dishonest tactics? I would be the first person to welcome any religious person willing to debate the ideas put forth by Hawkings'. Until then I guess I'll have to read the endless posts by people saying it's just an opinion by a guy who's entire career revolves around finding proof to back up his statements.

That's a bald faced lie. If you were so welcoming of debate, you wouldn't have stated the irrelevance of religion as an absolutel truth in your opening post.

And I also know your posting history on the topic of religion. You just want a platform from which to spew more bile. We both know I'm correct so drop the facade and get to your usual atheist crusade against religion. :shrug:

 

[jallman]

It is a moronic anaylsis, but religion is in no way a complex subject. People make it complex.

And here's another who doesn't understand the complexity of the subject he's trying to discuss.

 

[LimeLight]

That's a bald faced lie. If you were so welcoming of debate, you wouldn't have stated the irrelevance of religion as an absolutel truth in your opening post.

And I also know your posting history on the topic of religion. You just want a platform from which to spew more bile. We both know I'm correct so drop the facade and get to your usual atheist crusade against religion. :shrug:

He stated religion is irrelevant, and then you so ignorantly stated that you are correct as an absolute and that he is just 'spewing bile'.
Your using the same tactics he is using.

 

[danarhea]

I bet you Jesus would love himself a snickers. They're so good!

If Snickers were the body of Christ, I bet 90% of the world's people would all be Catholic. :mrgreen:

 

[BCR]

And here's another who doesn't understand the complexity of the subject he's trying to discuss.

Regardless of whether it is "complex" or not it doesn't change the fact that it is still a load of unbelievable BS.

 

[LimeLight]

And here's another who doesn't understand the complexity of the subject he's trying to discuss.

You can have a simple religion, and you can have a complex religion. So no a religion doesn't have to be complex.

 

[LimeLight]

If Snickers were the body of Christ, I bet 90% of the world's people would all be Catholic. :mrgreen:

No sir, I'm sure there would be those who believe that his body consisted of Charleston Chews.

 

[danarhea]

No sir, I'm sure there would be those who believe that his body consisted of Charleston Chews.

Oh damn, here come the Protestants again. :mrgreen:

 

[mike2810]

Maybe God used the "Big Bang" to do the creation. wonder if Hawkings ever considered "God" was spontaniously created?

 

[LimeLight]

Oh damn, here come the Protestants again. :mrgreen:

I'm sorry, I'll take a charleston chew over a snickers anyday. Unless it's one of those ice cream snickers candy bars. mmmmmmm

 

[LimeLight]

Maybe God used the "Big Bang" to do the creation.

Yes I'm sure he has. Infact Pope Pius XII accepted the Big Bang for that very reason.

wonder if Hawkings ever considered "God" was spontaniously created?

It's as reasonable as the universe without a god being spontaneously created.

 

[Orion]

Hawking is doing himself and his profession a disservice by continually making theological assertions about the origins of the universe. He is pandering to a debate that only lowers him and makes him look like he is stuck in the midst of the usual ego battles of science vs. faith.

I obviously do not have a huge grasp on his scientific models and understanding of things, but I don't see how anyone can claim to know for sure where the universe came from, regardless if you are claiming it was god or some other force. It is hubris to the highest degree. On planet earth I am akin to an ant looking out at a vast, vast ocean of unknown.

 

[Ikari]

I strongly disagree. Hawking ignores a fundamental law of physics, known as cause and effect. I don't know if God created the Universe or not, but there is no such thing as spontaneous creation. There was an effect from some cause. Believing that it could have been a God would be more believable than it being spontaneous.

And don't forget that Hawking is not infallible, as demonstrated by his huge error on the black hole information paradox.

While Hawking is not infallible, things like cause and effect are there for our benefit. Simply put, there are many times when we consider systems underwhich causality can be violated. We choose answers in which it is not, or take it barring other alternatives. Things like spontaneous creation can in fact be realized and is predicted as such through quantum mechanics. Essentially, spontaneous creation of energy is allowed for short enough time intervals. Much like (delta)x(delta)p is an uncertainty relationship, so is (delta)E(delta)t. In fact, this has a measurable effect and is known as vacuum perturbation in which the spontaneous creation and subsequent annihilation of matter/anti-matter particles is realized out of the vacuum of space. This has a real world measurable found in the Lamb shift; which has been well measured by this point. Spontaneous creation, therefore, is not completely unheard of or unknown.

 

[Naburus]

A true Christian physicist will tell you that it is his belief, and nothing based on science. However, most religous people only know one way to argue that there is a God:

I'm an atheist as completely as they come. I've debated with everyone from your average run of the mill bible thumper, to well educated pastors on the topic. All it ever comes down to is faith, the picture above sums up the results of almost every debate I've ever had. I can present with as many logical arguments as I like, and you could give a damn less. You are still going to believe what you started off believing. I however hold a strong position that as soon as there is verifiable evidence for a god, I will believe it without hesitation.

The only reason you do not have to prove your god exists is because it is a social norm to be religious due to our history as a people. It is more unreasonable to people that you do not believe in something, that, if presented for the first time during adulthood sounds completely ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense that every other facet of life relies solely on proof, but, when it comes to religion theres a disclaimer "no proof necessary". If I go up to a religious person and explain to them that they owe me 100$ dollars a week for the rest of my life, why am I required to prove to them that they owe me this debt, if they are not required to prove to me that a God exists?

To act as if Atheists are just too hard headed to understand the divine knowledge that has been bestowed upon these devout followers, is repugnant. Why not take a page from the book of life, where you rely on empirical evidence for every decision you make, that isn't related to religion. Then apply to the last remaining facet of your life which does not utilize it. Or, just keep your religion to your selves. Keep it out of politics, out of social policy, out of lobbying, out of schools, and off my door-step. I'm tired of being looked down upon by religious people who act as if they know something I don't, because the only thing they know is how to be ignorant to the facts about the world around them. Why bother wasting your time worrying about what someone/something you'll never see while on this planet, thinks about how you are running your insignificant life.

(there is more ranting to be had, but I'll leave it at that)

 

[jallman]

He stated religion is irrelevant, and then you so ignorantly stated that you are correct as an absolute and that he is just 'spewing bile'.
Your using the same tactics he is using.

This is bull****. I never stated I was correct on the topic of religion. I stated I was correct on calling out his usual tactics. You might want to learn how to read.

 

[jallman]

Regardless of whether it is "complex" or not it doesn't change the fact that it is still a load of unbelievable BS.

And that's your daft opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...

 

[jallman]

You can have a simple religion, and you can have a complex religion. So no a religion doesn't have to be complex.

I didn't say the religion itself was complex (however most religions actually are very complex). The topic of religion is complex.