God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[PeteEU]

Well there you go. Might as well shut down all the churches around here, because Stephen Hawking said there is no god.

:roll:

This is why we don't mix science and religion.

He did not say there is no god... stop making **** up.

 

[spud_meister]

How the universe began is entirely a matter of faith, it is impossible to know what came before time and space, and we can only theorise.

 

[Apocalypse]

Why does this draw so much attention?
The man has his own opinion, and he has the right to hold his own opinion.

We're not in the middle ages anymore, people can say they don't believe God has created the universe.

 

[spud_meister]

Why does this draw so much attention?
The man has his own opinion, and he has the right to hold his own opinion.

We're not in the middle ages anymore, people can say they don't believe God has created the universe.

Heathen, burn him at the steak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Apocalypse]

Heathen, burn him at the steak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mmmmmm... steak.

 

[spud_meister]

Mmmmmm... steak.

Yeah, I was considering a stake. but realised I'm hungry, so a steak'll have to do.

 

[American]

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.

Has Hawkings proven that God didn't make the Universe? He has gone mad. He probably read some of PeteEU's posts. "The Grand Design" <<<< He used the word "design". :lamo

 

[Apocalypse]

Yeah, I was considering a stake. but realised I'm hungry, so a steak'll have to do.

I forgot to shave my bread today.

 

[Zyphlin]

Spontaneous Creation, and god knows I'm no scientist, seems to violate the very basic laws of physics. Suggesting that for it to happen the "laws" such as cause and effect either can be broken or things can act outside of those laws. If something is acting outside the realm of the natural what is it other than supernatural?

To me this seems like something that helps those that follow this belief become more confident in their view, but will do little to convince others of anything substantial.

 

[Apocalypse]

The only thing more fun then militant christians actively trying to "convert" people and prostelitize to the "unwashed masses" about their "sins" and how they need to be "saved" and how that they're so much been then people are militant athiests actively trying to "convert" people and prostelitizing to the "ignorant masses" about their "fairy tales" and how they need to be "educated" and how they're so much smarter than everyone else.

So you think Hawking is trying to 'convert' people so they would follow atheism..?

 

[Winston Smith]

God did not create the universe, says Hawking - Yahoo! News



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.

I'm not sure the headline is an accurate reflection of what the book says. Hawking says that, given the laws of physics, it's not necessary to invoke God to light the touch paper and set the universe going. He doesn't say anything about who or what established those laws or where matter and energy came from. He's going to make us buy the book to find out what, if any, explanation he has for that.

 

[Hicup]

Yeah, this won't change anyone's belief. Also this is just a theory, not absolute truth. I have a very hard time believing that something happened spontaneously. For every reaction there is an equal, and opposite reaction. For the big bang to happen, something had to cause it.

Also side note, I don't think most people have the intellectual capability to debate theoretical physics at a high level(including myself):lol: it's a quite difficult subject, even though it's extremely fascinating. It will be interesting to see how this thread turns out.

While I haven't read the book, and although I find Hawking to be a brilliant man, I disagree first, that this is a theory, and secondly on his premise. There's nothing, zero, zilch, nadda, to suggest his "hypothesis" is accurate. When things start popping up out of nowhere, without any intrinsic charcteristics as to cause, then I'll be more inclined to pay more attention to Hawking. Until then, his claim is no more provable, or disprovable than the claim it set out to dismiss.

Next..


Tim-

 

[Hicup]

I'm not sure the headline is an accurate reflection of what the book says. Hawking says that, given the laws of physics, it's not necessary to invoke God to light the touch paper and set the universe going. He doesn't say anything about who or what established those laws or where matter and energy came from. He's going to make us buy the book to find out what, if any, explanation he has for that.

It's also nothing new. He said almost the exact same thing in his "A Brief History oif Time:, book.


Tim-

 

[digsbe]

Another brilliant mind has come to the wrong conclusion. Hawking is not infallible.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Another brilliant mind has come to the wrong conclusion. Hawking is not infallible.

Well I wouldn't say that.

I'd just say there's no scientific and irrevertable proof that either side is right. So his point and the other sides point are technically wrong.

 

[Hicup]

Ikari -

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.

Unless you have another definition for spontaneous, your description above does not meet the burden required for something to appear out of nothing. Although i respect your attempt to influence the thread in the manner it should have headed in the frist place.


Tim-

 

[roughdraft274]

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.

I've neve been able to understand that comment. They call atheism a religion because they accuse atheists of believing stuff without any evidence or critical thinking involved and act like it's an insult then go to church where they preach about the merits of faith. It's like they're arguing "well you're just as silly as I am so hah!"

Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair color.

**Back on topic**

I like Hawking and think he's dead on with this one. With what we know about the universe I see no reason not to believe that the creation of the universe is some completely natural and explainable phenomona that we just don't understand yet. We've discvered so many causes and effects and relationhips here on earth with the help of science and human understanding and every result has been within the completely natural realm and backs god out of that small corner. Lightning, rain, natural disasters, physics, evolution etc.... I see no reason to believe that after finding all these completely natural ways to explain everything else in this universe that all of a sudden it all breaks down when we go back to the creation of it and the only explanation is an all knowing all powerful guy upstairs who cares about what I eat, how I talk, what I do in my bedroom etc...

 

[digsbe]

Well I wouldn't say that.

I'd just say there's no scientific and irrevertable proof that either side is right. So his point and the other sides point are technically wrong.

Well, I do believe there is scientific proof and things we know about science that demand that there be a creator. But then again there is no physical proof that we can hold in our hand of the creation of pretty much anything for any theory.

 

[Coronado]

He did not say there is no god... stop making **** up.

Sorry, I know you hate competition.

 

[Erod]

Such is the achilles of people such as Hawking, who become so obsessed with their own persona that they are unable to cope with the concept of a worldly presence greater than themselves.

Bobby Fisher did the same thing over a board game.

There has to be a medium and an environment for something so abstract as the laws of physics to begin transforming into a moment in time where I type this post on this day and this time for this discussion.

That can not happen accidentally. Something beyond the laws of physics had to create that medium, and those laws, in order for this process to begin. To me, that is so funadmentally and necessarily true that it can not be argued.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Why does this draw so much attention?
The man has his own opinion, and he has the right to hold his own opinion.

We're not in the middle ages anymore, people can say they don't believe God has created the universe.

The problem isn't with Mr. Hawking's comments but rather a more serious concept. There are atheists that are every bit as obnoxious as the evangelical christians, wahabists, etc. when it comes to dogmatism and they would love to use things like this as an attack on those of faith.The problem comes when they use yet another theory to say "see, the magic bullet now go throw your bibles away cause we win".

 

[roughdraft274]

That can not happen accidentally. Something beyond the laws of physics had to create that medium, and those laws, in order for this process to begin. To me, that is so funadmentally and necessarily true that it can not be argued.

To me you're argument essentially boils down to you saying that the universe is so complex that it needs something to create it or guide it, so you evoke something even more complex and at that point the whole "well it's just too complex" gets ignored on the even more complex creator.

 

[Apocalypse]

The problem isn't with Mr. Hawking's comments but rather a more serious concept. There are atheists that are every bit as obnoxious as the evangelical christians, wahabists, etc. when it comes to dogmatism and they would love to use things like this as an attack on those of faith.The problem comes when they use yet another theory to say "see, the magic bullet now go throw your bibles away cause we win".

I don't think Hawking belongs to that kind of concept.

 

[Erod]

To me you're argument essentially boils down to you saying that the universe is so complex that it needs something to create it or guide it, so you evoke something even more complex and at that point the whole "well it's just too complex" gets ignored on the even more complex creator.

"Complex" doesn't do it justice. "Incomprehensible" would be more accurate.

Whatever created this universe can't be of this universe.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I don't think Hawking belongs to that kind of concept.

I don't either really, but like I said the big stink is that he said it and the other side of his ideology is using it as another attack.