God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Harshaw]

True, but for the most part advancement in technology, and knowledge has always been a good thing. And should be pursued.

Let's just say I'm a bit wary of humans having the power of God without the wisdom of God, and history gives me cause to be so.

 

[danarhea]

It's also worth noting that Hawking didn't say "god didn't create the universe," he said "god was not a necessary condition for the creation of the universe." Pretty big distinction there.

Well, SOMETHING caused it. Causation is a fundamental law of physics. If you don't believe in God, then you have to believe in M-theory, or something similar to it.

1) From a point of view, inside our universe, we see that, in the beginning, there was a singularity. At that point, everything is stable, and without some cause, there can be no effect of a universe coming out of it (the effect of said cause), and the singularity would remain the same forever.

OR

2) Was there really a singularity? In M-theory, you have 11 dimensions, and there are at least one or two dimensions above the 4 we see (the rest of them are curled up so tightly that we can't see them, but one of them would account for the quantum like motion of electrons). Within the fifth dimension are M-branes. When two M-branes intersect, a universe is created. No, it hasn't been proven, but the math is elegant.

OR

3) God did it.

OR

4) There is some other explanation.

Fact is, we do not know whether or not there is a God, except that it is one possibility, even in science. In belief, there of course is a God, but belief is mutually exclusive from science. But, again, supposing scientific possibility number 3 actually exists!! It is a possibility, and a good scientist would not discount that possibility, although he would, with today's knowlege and technology, argue for number 2, or maybe number 4. A good theory in possibility number 4 is the Holographic universe. For that to be true, the universe would have to be pixellated, and guess what? Graininess, much like pixellation, has already been found, which leads me to my own theory.....

DanaRhea's theory of life, the Universe, and everything - We are part of some twisted 10 year old kid's video game. :mrgreen:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

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.

Poor Hawking.
Please don't tell me he's *that* bored- that he needs to tackle the God issues.

 

[Hatuey]

The Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples, in other words, people who actually met him. Can you say history fail?

Luke and Mark were not written by people who met Jesus.

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

 

[scourge99]

The Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples, in other words, people who actually met him. Can you say history fail?

You haven't the slightest theological education if you think that the Gospels were all written by their respective titles.

 

[scourge99]

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.

Zero-point energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Virtual particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RightinNYC]

Zero-point energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Virtual particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the problem I have with Hawking's whole argument. Let's say he's right and that the big bang could have naturally occurred. Where did the circumstances allowing for the big bang come from? If we have an answer to that, then where did the circumstances allowing for that come from?

It's turtles all the way down.

 

[scourge99]

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.

Many seemed to have missed this.

Its also possible that the universe was caused by a unicorn fart. We have just as much evidence for that as we do for the Christian God creating the universe: none.

 

[ric27]

Reason why, God is infinite, omniscient and omnipresent. He has no endzone.

 

[scourge99]

This is the problem I have with Hawking's whole argument. Let's say he's right and that the big bang could have naturally occurred. Where did the circumstances allowing for the big bang come from? If we have an answer to that, then where did the circumstances allowing for that come from?

It's turtles all the way down.

"His answer is "M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space."

But lets say we somehow figure out that Hawkins is 100% wrong. That still doesn't lend ANY support for creationism. The best thing we can say at that point is: I don't know.... lets try to find out.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim. This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary", that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

 

[danarhea]

Many seemed to have missed this.

Its also possible that the universe was caused by a unicorn fart. We have just as much evidence for that as we do for the Christian God creating the universe: none.

Wow. Just think about it. If I had been a unicorn in a past life, it is possible that I could be God. Bow before me. :mrgreen:

 

[scourge99]

Reason why, God is infinite, omniscient and omnipresent. He has no endzone.

Have any evidence for that or is the only evidence your imagination?

I.E., I can imagine there exists an omniscient, infinite, and omnipresent being therefore this being exists.

 

[ric27]

So far, some scientists may have disagreed with the Bible, but they haven't disproven it. Many times, especially when it comes to archeology, they have thought the bible wrong but further discovery proved it right. Some things are still "uproven" and not "disproven."

 

[danarhea]

So far, some scientists may have disagreed with the Bible, but they haven't disproven it. Many times, especially when it comes to archeology, they have thought the bible wrong but further discovery proved it right. Some things are still "uproven" and not "disproven."

That is not how science works. You are not to disprove, but to prove. The onus rests on whoever makes a claim. Once more I post the following cartoon:

 

[RightinNYC]

"His answer is "M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space."

And where would those things have come from?

But lets say we somehow figure out that Hawkins is 100% wrong. That still doesn't lend ANY support for creationism.

I didn't say it did.

 

[ric27]

ALL that "stuff" that blew apart in the Big Bang. Where'd it come from? Where did the Creator come from?

 

[scourge99]

So far, some scientists may have disagreed with the Bible, but they haven't disproven it.

Has science (or any methodology for that matter) disproven:
1) yeti's
2) lochness monsters
3) little green space aliens
4) unicorns
5) fairyies
6) trasdimensional pixies

Do you believe in any of those things because they have not been DISPROVEN?

Many times, especially when it comes to archeology, they have thought the bible wrong but further discovery proved it right.

such as?

Some things are still "uproven" and not "disproven."

Yes, they are. See the list above for details on other beings and events that have not been disproven, and remain unproven.

Here's a list of thousands of "unproven" gods proposed by man. Do you deny their existence?
Major Gods and Goddesses of the World


Perhaps the best avenue is to DISBELIEVE until reason or evidence justify belief. Do you disagree?

 

[scourge99]

And where would those things have come from?

I don't know.... lets try to find out.

 

[ric27]

Has science (or any methodology for that matter) disproven:
1) yeti's
2) lochness monsters
3) little green space aliens
4) unicorns
5) fairyies
6) trasdimensional pixies

Do you believe in any of those things because they have not been DISPROVEN?

such as?

Yes, they are. See the list above for details on other beings and events that have not been disproven, and remain unproven.

Here's a list of thousands of "unproven" gods proposed by man. Do you deny their existence?
Major Gods and Goddesses of the World

Here is something I've never heard a scientist disprove or attempt to disprove. Daniel prophesied hundreds of years before the birth of Christ when the Messiah would enter Jerusalem. He used prophetic language, but the code if you will, was well known and the prophecy was known to the religious scholars of the time.

The existence of a Jewish prophet named Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus has been documented by non-biblical sources. The dates of his ministry, entry into Jerusalem and execution have also been documented and verified. As an example, Pontius Pilate was considered fictional by those seeking to disprove the account until more recent archeological digs found stones inscribed with his name that dated to the correct time. So how did Yeshua manage to fulfill dozens of prophecies made hundreds of years before his birth? What is the natural, scientific explanation for a prophecy?

 

[TheNextEra]

Here is something I've never heard a scientist disprove or attempt to disprove. Daniel prophesied hundreds of years before the birth of Christ when the Messiah would enter Jerusalem. He used prophetic language, but the code if you will, was well known and the prophecy was known to the religious scholars of the time.

The existence of a Jewish prophet named Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus has been documented by non-biblical sources. The dates of his ministry, entry into Jerusalem and execution have also been documented and verified. As an example, Pontius Pilate was considered fictional by those seeking to disprove the account until more recent archeological digs found stones inscribed with his name that dated to the correct time. So how did Yeshua manage to fulfill dozens of prophecies made hundreds of years before his birth? What is the natural, scientific explanation for a prophecy?

Ever read your horoscope at the END of the day? You can attribute many things throughout your day to the horoscope. That doesn't mean some divine influence foretasted your day.

Taking a look at bible code, you can pretty much apply it at will to many things throughout history if you look hard enough.

 

[scourge99]

Here is something I've never heard a scientist disprove or attempt to disprove. Daniel prophesied hundreds of years before the birth of Christ when the Messiah would enter Jerusalem. He used prophetic language, but the code if you will, was well known and the prophecy was known to the religious scholars of the time.

The existence of a Jewish prophet named Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus has been documented by non-biblical sources. The dates of his ministry, entry into Jerusalem and execution have also been documented and verified. As an example, Pontius Pilate was considered fictional by those seeking to disprove the account until more recent archeological digs found stones inscribed with his name that dated to the correct time. So how did Yeshua manage to fulfill dozens of prophecies made hundreds of years before his birth? What is the natural, scientific explanation for a prophecy?

Please start a thread in the religious forum about "prophecies" and I'll be sure to respond.

Until then, perhaps you should talk to a Jewish rabbi to gain some insight into how Jews view these old testament "prophecies".

 

[ric27]

scourge99/TheNextEra -

I don't have any problem with Science and Faith. I've read the Bible more than once and I haven't found anything that has been scientifically disproven. Nor do I have a problem with evolution, though defining terms is important. I think it is clear that species can and do change and adapt to their environment. Change can also be forced upon a species as in selective breeding for characteristics or the insertion of genetic coding. Of course, the latter requires "intelligent design", though since we're only human, "semi-intelligent design". I don't believe in what I will call "radical evolution" as in the spontaneous conversion of functional limbs and tail into wings and flight control surfaces. I don't believe that has been proven, but if it IS proven, I still don't see that the Bible says it can't happen. The Bible says God created and nothing changes.

What I find immensely humorous however, is the non-believer who calls a religious believer close minded. A religious believer accepts that there is both natural and super-natural. The atheist does not allow for even the possibility of the super-natural.

Here is an example. The 10 plagues brought on Egypt to force the release of the Hebrew slaves was for a very long time, thought by the non-believe community to be myth. Archeological discoveries however now seem to point to the Santorini eruption as having occurred at the same time as the exodus and suddenly there are scientific explanations for all of the plagues and their sequence. Fine with me, my faith doesn't require God to produce a rock in mid-air if rolling one down from the mountain will have the same result. But the same scientific community who can now accept the Biblical account of the exodus as fact because they have a scientific explanation for the miracles, will call healing the blind or raising the dead myth. Why, because they don't have a scientific explanation for why or how it happened. Who knows, maybe it will be explainable by science some day. But maybe it won't. And so science takes the position that because science can't explain it, then it can't exist. I call that close minded.


Here is a really novel idea. If you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, Angels or Demons, fine. You've stated your belief that it they are all myths. Since you can't prove their non-existence, why don't you just leave it at that those who happen to believe in something you can't disprove?

 

[Hicup]

Scourage, Dan, Ikari, please describe another dimension for me please?

The problem I see in conventional physics today, is this moving in the direction of things unbelievably complex, and improvable. Such as M-Theory, Multiverse, String theory, etc...

Someone said the math behind M-theory was "elegant". No it's not, it's incredibly complex, and only a handful of people on the planet even understand it, so don't give me that line. Essentially, and the point I was making earlier, is that, the science of theoretical physics is moving in directions that paint it into the same corner that they paint the "believer" into.

Someone said one of those other dimensions is tangled so tight that we can't see it, or experience it. Well, exactly how do they know? How does a fish describe everything outside of the ocean or the lake? To the fish, the discovery of the world outside the lake would seem mind boggling, and the fish might even say it was the discovery of another dimension, but was it really?


Ponder that one..


Tim-

 

[Moot]

I understand what it is. The question is, what do we do with this knowledge?

Time travel.

 

[Moot]

I've always wondered, if God created the universe, then what created God and what existed before God?

Likewise, if the big bang created the universe, then what created the big bang and what existed or came before it? The flaw in Einstein's general theory of relativity is that while it can explain almost everything in the universe right up to a singularity in the moments before the big bang, it doesn't explain what the big bang was, what caused it or what existed before it or where gravity comes from.