Professor Stephen Hawking says no God created Universe

Post Reply New Topic

All Hawking did was update his stance.

He didn't say that god doesn't exist (although why that would be such a problem if he had is beyond me) AND he didn't say that god was irrelevant.

Years ago he wrote something along the lines of god having initiated the big bang because at the time scientists couldn't say how it happened, but times have changed, research has been done and being a scientist he is just doing what all scientists do and acknowledging new research where it applies and is proven.

The world would be a much poorer place for it knowledge-wise if he was as stubborn as Einstein had turned out to be and didn't accept new information and theories as they come to light.

Oh and to all those saying "I don't just believe something because Hawking says it's so", try taking the above into account and giving this some context. He's changing his own ideas due to mountains of evidence, not just blurting out whatever comes into his head. There are many, many perfectly reasonable explanations for the way the universe works and they don't require a god to have put put them in motion.

This does not have to mean that there is no god or that he's irrelevant.

And why does his not having initiated the big bang make him irrelevant?

Although I should probably point out that I'm an atheist.

But once upon a time I was a pastor in training so I'm arguing from a theological perspective.

Not irrelevant generally. Merely in relation to the big bang.

My personal experience has made God irrelevant to my life. God is also irrelevant to any physical action that follows scientific laws. Since I know no actions that do not follow physical laws I find God irrelevant there. Other people seemingly find God relevant to their lives. I don't.

God disappeared somewhere in the Gaps.

ruveyn

God disappeared somewhere in the Gaps.

ruveyn

He's probably just trying to find a nice pair of slacks at the Gap...

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").

And why does his not having initiated the big bang make him irrelevant?

Although I should probably point out that I'm an atheist.

But once upon a time I was a pastor in training so I'm arguing from a theological perspective.

Not irrelevant generally. Merely in relation to the big bang.

My personal experience has made God irrelevant to my life. God is also irrelevant to any physical action that follows scientific laws. Since I know no actions that do not follow physical laws I find God irrelevant there. Other people seemingly find God relevant to their lives. I don't.

I watched him on Larry King live with Depak Chopra. Depak called him the most influential man alive and I had to think why doesn't he use his influence for something that actually does something instead of science. True science leaves a legacy of understanding for future generations, but really the scope of anything outside of newtonian doesn't really have any impact at all on our lives. He should examine the power structures of finance that really control our world.

They always follow the popularizers anyhow. They're merely parakeets spouting only what they've heard from their heroes.

Anytime you use a cell phone, a computer, ride in an airplane or automobile, eat a meal, take any medicine, see a film in a theater or on TV, plus many other experiences, science has had a heavy impact on your life. You sound abysmally ignorant.