Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,633
Oh boy, watch the assorted God Squads get their sticky little fingers on their keyboards over this one! petunia

The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.
The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.
In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “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 added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
Read the full article here.
 


farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,933
Beliefs in Creation, souls and sacred texts have all been undermined by scientific thought. The only remaining justification for religion is in esoteric belief - that temporal beings like ourselves can directly perceive, understand and be part of the underlying divinity of all things, and have done so. Sounds like some 'Celtic wisdom' bollix but I believe this could take hold - humanity has religious needs even if there is in the end no metaphysical basis for it.
 

johnfás

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,715
Just in case you misread the article, Aindriu, what he said is that he has theorised, rather than proved, a means by which the universe could theoretically have come into existence without a creator. He has not proved (nor is it actually suggested in that article) to any degree that this is what in fact happened rather how theoretically it is possible that another course of events happened. Also it has not actually been spelt out what his theory is as to how the universe might have come into existence spontaneously. It is thus impossible to test his theory at this point. But don't let that stop you getting yourself in a twist.
 

Telemachus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,480
Website
en.wikipedia.org
Think he previously was somewhat agnostic towards this subject. He may still be.

Physics can not explain why creation exists in any satisfactory manner either. Each 'Why' question explained in physics always poses another question. The latest big thing is finding the magical 'Higgs Boson'. Once that is found, they will be off looking for some other magic particle. All we can hope to gain from physics is to learn how to manipulate our surroundings more efficiently.

'inevitable laws of physics' ? how are they inevitable, hes just pushing back the question, reducing it from big-bangs to laws of nature. Pure physics denies I have a conciousness rather than a deterministic computer in my head and cannot explain why form exists. It is inadequate on its own.
 
Last edited:

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
a: There is no room for God in any scientific theory. How could there be? So well done to Hawkings for pointing out the bleed'in obvious.

b: "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing" - I'll take that one, on faith. ;)

I like Hawkings, have read all of his leyman books. But what is said in them is not in itself proof, it is only what I am told is reality (and in large part is still theory). That 'proof' in the scienfitic sense involves math I do not understand, few people do. But does anyone not see the inherent paradox in accepting 'Scientific truth' without being able to validate (or understand) the proof of it? As an athiest I just thought I would throw that in to the mix before the usual 'comfort food' comments flood in. :cool:
 

DeputyEdo

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,449
All we can hope to gain from physics is to learn how to manipulate our surroundings more efficiently.
Physics is also used to explain how stars formed etc..it's not just there to help us 2manipulate our surroundings".
 

Abacus

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
758
Beliefs in Creation, souls and sacred texts have all been undermined by scientific thought. The only remaining justification for religion is in esoteric belief - that temporal beings like ourselves can directly perceive, understand and be part of the underlying divinity of all things, and have done so. Sounds like some 'Celtic wisdom' bollix but I believe this could take hold - humanity has religious needs even if there is in the end no metaphysical basis for it.
Been saying that for a long time. Religion is a social construct arising from innate fears and uncertainty and tending towards commercialism for sustainability.
 

rubensni

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
737
I find it interesting that the capital-G god is used in this article.
 

typical

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
575
“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.”

This statement seems flawed at a really basic level. The first law of thermodynamics says "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms." The law of gravity describes how objects with mass interact with each other. No universe, no mass, no law of gravity?

"The god squad" have a fair amount of reason to squawk on this one, what he's suggesting seems to go against the fundamental laws of physics. You really need a lot of faith to just take his word for it.
 

Telemachus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,480
Website
en.wikipedia.org
Physics is also used to explain how stars formed etc..it's not just there to help us 2manipulate our surroundings".
That physics has practical applications; for one example helping us build a prototype Fusion reactor. Even rubbish physics like String Theory may help us come up with some new maths for problem solving.
 

rubensni

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
737
That's his name...you capitalize peoples/fictitious characters names :)
No, capital G god means the Abrahamic concept of god, as in that guy called God from the new testament. Lower case god means god generally, as in a creator who may exist but we will never understand - i.e. the god that atheists can't discount.

The fact that Hawking is discussing this issue in relation to the composition of the universe would indicate that he's talking about lower case god.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
Oh boy, watch the assorted God Squads get their sticky little fingers on their keyboards over this one!

Read the full article here.
In usual fashion whiner Hawkings fails to answer the question as to why either existence itself or matter exists.:rolleyes:

Neither idiot :S.Hawkings :confused: nor bitter clown R.Dawkins:confused: explain how mathematical order emerged from chaos to pervade the universe:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

typical

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
575
The fact that Hawking is discussing this issue in relation to the composition of the universe would indicate that he's talking about lower case god.
The linked article makes it clear that he's talking about God, as in an actual being, rather than just the general concept of a god.
 

darkknight

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
3,853
I can't comment on Hawking's argument before reading his book.

But, as relayed in the article, it appears to beg the principal question.

The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.
This simply pushes the question back a step, from 'What caused the Big Bang?' to 'What caused the Laws of Physics?'.

Whatever the answer ('God', 'Barney the Dinosaur', or whatever), there is no escaping the need to identify some kind of Primary Cause that was itself uncaused. Or, alternatively, to accept the inevitability of some type of infinite causal regression.

To assert that the Laws of Physics constitute an uncaused primary cause, without explaining why or how, is just as arbitrary as asserting that 'God' or 'Barney' provides the key to grasping why there is something rather than nothing.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
I often wondered did we discover mathematics or did we invent it?
The roots of mathematics are found in the observation/measurement of matter.

It can only have occured through the senses and therefor it must have been initially discovered.

Mathematical concepts were subsequently invented by the mind of man to explain phenomena in the world of matter.

It makes little difference either way since mathematical order pervades the universe.


To claim that this order emerged from chaos all by itself is the stuff of fools.
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,633
Just in case you misread the article, Aindriu, what he said is that he has theorised, rather than proved, a means by which the universe could theoretically have come into existence without a creator. He has not proved (nor is it actually suggested in that article) to any degree that this is what in fact happened rather how theoretically it is possible that another course of events happened. Also it has not actually been spelt out what his theory is as to how the universe might have come into existence spontaneously. It is thus impossible to test his theory at this point. But don't let that stop you getting yourself in a twist.
I fully read the article so you can stop with the patronising attitude a chara.

Getting in a twist? No. Just laughing at the reacation that will doubtless come from the followers of the various God cults over Hawkins' theory.
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,633
Religion is a social construct arising from innate fears and uncertainty and tending towards commercialism for sustainability.
Spot on!
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
I can't comment on Hawking's argument before reading his book.

But, as relayed in the article, it appears to beg the principal question.



This simply pushes the question back a step, from 'What caused the Big Bang?' to 'What caused the Laws of Physics?'.

Whatever the answer ('God', 'Barney the Dinosaur', or whatever), there is no escaping the need to identify some kind of Primary Cause that was itself uncaused. Or, alternatively, to accept the inevitability of some type of infinite causal regression.

To assert that the Laws of Physics constitute an uncaused primary cause, without explaining why or how, is just as arbitrary as asserting that 'God' or 'Barney' provides the key to grasping why there is something rather than nothing.
Exactly.
We are all receivers of existence.
All matter and beings in the universe are historical receivers of existence.

If it started with a big bang then any material involved in that received its existence from something or somewhere.

The only solution to this question is that something gave existence which itself was not a receiver of existence.


Such an entity did not have existence conferred upon it.

Now to my mind an entity such as that would have to be pretty powerful,big and awesome.

There you go.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top