Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the universe

[Entropist]

"The only book yew need ta be readin' is thuh Bahble!"

An actual verbatim quote from a woman in Lousyana after asking me about a bunch of books of philosophy, poetry and literature I had with me at the time. And then she stormed off.

[Minimalist]

At least she stormed off.

Who would want a silly twat like that to hang around?

[theVOID]

And then she stormed off.

Praise the lord!

[DiRNiS]

"The only book yew need ta be readin' is thuh Bahble!"

An actual verbatim quote from a woman in Lousyana after asking me about a bunch of books of philosophy, poetry and literature I had with me at the time. And then she stormed off.

With logic like that I am not surprised the only book that woman needs to read is the Bahble. Imagine if she started reading other books, her IQ would probably even hit double digits. She could actually even accomplish something, like the ability to switch to a TV channel other than FOX News.

[remza]

A response to Stephen Hawking by John Lennox in the Daily Mail this morning:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/articl...e-God.html

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh no....... not John Lennox.

*reads*

---

"But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions." (from the article)

Utter bullshit. Since when does "creation" in the sense of things coming from physical laws, require agency? It has already been found in science that these laws have effects, results. To 1. Require specifically God as an explanation for the universe, and to 2. Require an explanation for the universe but not an explanation for God himself.... both these things are special pleading.

[DiRNiS]

Thanks for sharing remza.

Let's read...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God.

John Lennox follows a preconceived religious dogma. He claims to be certain as a scientist that Hawking is wrong. He's full of shit. How about he explains why a god is needed without saying "it's in the Bible" and by the way Mr. Lennox, which one of the hundreds of gods created by man is needed?

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

While it may be simplistic, it certainly makes more sense than "YHWH made everything in 6 days".

His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

Except that we have documented evidence that Frank Whittle invented the jet engine. Where is the evidence for a divine being known as god creating the universe? No, ancient scriptures do not count.

The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent. Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

I fail to comprehend why he is comparing the universe with a jet engine. They are completely different things. It is true that something like the jet engine cannot be produced solely with the laws of physics, but we have seen stars and galaxies form without the need for some divine creator. This silly argument comes from the concept theists have that everything that exists needs to have a designer, but this also brings the question: "Who designed the designer?"

For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

This is the problem. Since Lennox has already convinced himself there must be an invisible sky daddy manipulating everything, he will attribute every scientific discovery to this divine being even when it can be asserted that a divine force is completely irrelevant and in many cases contradictory to scientific findings.

The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.

Does this guy have any idea? Does he not realise that one of the major reasons his religion is slowly dying is because scientifc findings discard the need for a god that created the universe and stil has an influence to this day?

One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational , intelligent design. Far from being at odds with science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.

No comment on the above statement. Just read my signature for my reply to this one.

Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.

Hawking and most critics of religion are not forcing anyone to believe anything. How about people like Lennox stop forcing us to believe we have to worship some asshole, genocidal, douchebag god or else we will burn for eternity? Who is making more sense?

It is fascinating that Hawking, in attacking religion, feels compelled to put so much emphasis on the Big Bang theory. Because, even if the non-believers don't like it, the Big Bang fits in exactly with the Christian narrative of creation.

Funny how he tries to somehow make the Big Bang theory and his bullshit creation story "fit". Makes me think he has not even picked up a bible. Both theories are completely incompatible.

Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.

Oh really? I would love to see some of these archaeological findings and how they provide us with "powerful" evidence. It would be interesting to see what he can come up with to try and link some old ruins with his bullshit story.

Moreover, the religious experiences of millions of believers cannot lightly be dismissed. I myself and my own family can testify to the uplifting influence faith has had on our lives, something which defies the idea we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules.

The argument for personal experience again. The human mind is known to be capable of producing powerful hallucinations. It provides no evidence for the existence of sky daddies.

Just as strong is the obvious reality that we are moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics.

And this somehow proves a god exists? I fail to see the connection. If you need a book to tell you killing is wrong, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Indeed, the message of atheism has always been a curiously depressing one, portraying us as selfish creatures bent on nothing more than survival and self-gratification.

Atheism does not portray any messages. It is simply a lack of belief in gods, nothing more. Atheism does not define moral values. Moral values of some atheists may be different from other atheists. Something religious people like this man fail to comprehend.

But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

There is no proof that a god is out there, and Lennox certainly does not present any.

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.

It always amuses me that religious morons like this man are given any media coverage. Nobody is arguing that extra-terrestrial life exists. However, it is not a logical position either to assert that it does not. Our solar system is only a little microscopic speck of dust in our known universe. The odds for the existence of alien life is quite high. There is little to no probability of an invisble personal god watching and manipulating the existence of over 6 billion human beings.

Hawking's new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.

What exactly does he call "evidence"?

[Edwardo Piet]

"A faith that is based on evidence".

How oxymoronic. Emphasis on the moron.

[Captain Scarlet]

A response to Stephen Hawking by John Lennox in the Daily Mail this morning:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/articl...e-God.html

More spin and lies from Lennox. It sad how he abandons reason to justify his belief.

[Welsh cake]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...verse.html

In his latest book, The Grand Design, 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.”

So according to Hawking, because of the law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing and the Big Bang was the inevitable result of the laws of physics.

I would like to get hold of his new book and find out how he reaches these conclusions.

I'm fairly sure the quote is being taken way out of context. I'm not one to doubt the man, but something doesn't sound right with this premise

Gravity alone is simply fundamental interaction, particles in the universe that interact with one another. It does not take into account Strong interaction, Electroweak interaction or Weak interaction which are also fundamental in reality. It mentions nothing about the origin of the universe, or explores the possibility that dark energy might have accelerated the expanse of the cosmos, since prior to that everything was at a transfinite super-dense concentration of energy and it would have to be immense to escape the gravitational constant.

I'm getting vibes that Hawking is actually elaborating on Quantum gravity within theoretical physics instead.