Professor Stephen Hawking says no God created Universe

Post Reply New Topic

No God topic

As far as I know, it was Professor Richard Dawkins to whom this god negation could be attributed.

Professor Stephen Hawking does not play dice with the universe.

I might be rather thick, but dont the laws of physics need matter to work on? So where did this matter come from.. no matter how you go about it there has to be an uncreated event of some kind..

well here is a simple chip's idea.

i think that time and space and energy are separate, and there is one other separate aspect which is "laws" which bind them together.
the laws of physics are the most essential aspect of the manifest universe, and they exist independently of space or time or matter.

time does not give rise to laws. matter (bound energy) does not give rise to them and neither does space.
i believe time and space are infinite, and energy and laws are finite.

before one starts to employ mathematics to prove a concept, the concept must be arrived at with mere fundamental speculation.

space must be infinite because there can be no place where space does not exist. all places are in space, and if there is somewhere where there is no space, then that somewhere could not exist because all "somewheres" are in space.

if it can not be said that space does not exist in any "place". that is a fundamental truth.
Q: where does space not exist?
A: nowhere.
and nowhere does not exist.

likewise there can be no "time" when time does not exist.
Q: "when" does time not exist
A: never
and never never happened or will happen.

it is insensible to say "before" time began because "before" is a time previous to that.
it is insensible to say "after" time ends, because "after" is a time beyond that.

what i have said about time and space is the only possible reason anyone can doubt god exists.
if time was "created", then it must not have existed "before" it was created, and that is insensible to say.

as for energy, i think that there is a finite amount because if there was infinite energy, then the whole universe would be crammed with so much energy that it would be blindingly white and infinitely dense everywhere.

as for laws, i think there is a finite amount of laws because if there were infinite laws, then infinite chaos would be in every single point in the universe.

there is no rarefaction in energy or laws if they were infinite. they are the only manifestations in the universe. space and time are not manifestations but eternal realities.

i should not have embarked upon this post because it would take hundreds of pages to build into what i think the reason for our local universal acceleration of expansion is, and it is already 1:10 am and i must get up tomorrow.
i have not discounted god. i know we are supposed to be talking about what hawking said, and i read some reports about what he said and it seems to be non conclusive. i must find my way to read his actual words and digest them before i go any further.
i just said the fundamental anchor points on which my speculation is based upon.

well i stepped into the tigers cage and i fully expect to wake up mauled (virtually thank "god").

Since it is common experience in working with particle physics to convert matter to energy and vice versa they are obviously different versions of the same thing. Since there is no doubt the universe is expanding it has been calculated that sometime between 10 and 20 billion years ago ago it was an infinitesimal size. That includes both time and space. Hawking's latest remarks indicate that somehow gravity is involved in that initiation with no necessity for any other initiator. No one knows what existed before that first moment but there are a few theories. This is not my conception, it is accepted by people far cleverer than myself who have spent their whole lives studying it. There are many books about it available almost anywhere if you are interested in the details.

"Space" is that matrix defined by the presence of mass/energy. Until there is mass/energy to define it, space does not exist. As mass/energy "expands" (for lack of a better term), it defines more and more space.

One of the great unanswered questions in modern astrophysics is whether the universe is "open" or "closed" in four dimensions - that is, is there enough mass that gravity will eventually slow the expansion of the universe, and pull it all back together in a Big Crunch, or whether the universe will continue to expand, defining more and more space as it goes, eternally. (A subset is the question of whether the Big Crunch scenario leads to a cyclical universe, in which, after compacting everything back into the universal monobloc, another Big Bang would occur...)

"Time" is a way of measuring the process of entropy. Its passage can be altered by sufficient gravity (or sufficient acceleration - they are essentially the same thing, at least in an Einsteinian universe, which ours appears so far to be). However, it progresses in only one "direction" - entropy can't be reversed. (Time travel stories, while interesting and occasionally well-written, are thus revealed as fantasy. Larry Niven ran with this in his Svetz stories, in which time travel was invented in the mid-21st century - so whenever far-future temporal agent Hanville Svetz pushed his "extension cage" further into the past than that, he wound up in fantasy worlds, retrieving such examples of extinct animals as a horse with a horn or a giant fire-breathing "Gila monster".)

He never says "no god created the universe".

He simply said "god isn't necessary for the universe to exist".
....essentially, what scientists have been saying for centuries,
in contrast to the Gaps fallacy of theists.

Leave it to the general public to swallow some pop-cult bastardization of the work of a great physicist.