Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the universe

[Paul the Human]

Gravity alone is simply fundamental interaction, particles in the universe that interact with one another.

I prefer the theory (can't recall the source) that gravity is not a force at all, nor does it consist of 'particles' or 'waves'. Gravity is a fundamental aspect of space-time caused by the way mass (matter) bends space-time foam. We see the result and misperceive it as a force in action, but it is actually just the 'shape of the universe'.

Totally off topic, but your statement reminded me of it.

[Entropist]

I prefer the theory (can't recall the source) that gravity is not a force at all, nor does it consist of 'particles' or 'waves'. Gravity is a fundamental aspect of space-time caused by the way mass (matter) bends space-time foam. We see the result and misperceive it as a force in action, but it is actually just the 'shape of the universe'.

Gravity is like the Dude's rug. It really ties the universe together.

[theVOID]

Gravity alone is simply fundamental interaction, particles in the universe that interact with one another.

I prefer the theory (can't recall the source) that gravity is not a force at all, nor does it consist of 'particles' or 'waves'. Gravity is a fundamental aspect of space-time caused by the way mass (matter) bends space-time foam. We see the result and misperceive it as a force in action, but it is actually just the 'shape of the universe'.

It's called general relativity lol

[Tiberius]

I received a text message the day this was all over the papers. Apparently the NSS (National Secular Society) wanted someone to go on a Christian radio show and talk about it...and people at the AHS (an atheistic student organisation I was once the Secretary for) suggested me. I would have done it, but I received the text just after I'd landed in Atlanta, Georgia

[SleepingDemon]

He uses the phrase spontaneous creation, I really dislike that phrase, it sounds genie/magical/deity-ish.

[Liu Bei mixed with Leondias]

I am 14 so please don't mock me but how is Spontaneous Creation possible if Spontaneous generation was proven false along time ago? I am not questioning his intellgence just want to know.

[Minimalist]

First of all, one has nothing to do with the other.

You might want to start here.


http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cre...usions.htm

[solja247]

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?

You make a lot of assumptions in your sentence;

1. God was created by man
2. John Lennox cant think for himself
3. That he is full of shit

Care to back any of them up?

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.

I find this sentence remarkable. You attempt to use the expression, 'invisble sky daddy.' Clearly you dont know much about theology or Christianity for that matter.

How is a divine force irrelevant?

Is there much of a difference between atheists and creationists? Creationists conclude the world was created in 6 days because of x. Atheists conclude there is no God because of x.

Yet x may be proven wrong. We may find something new about physics or cosmology (Imagine that) so perhaps at this present time, the universe CAN be explained without God...so what? The universe is going to get more complicated. Just as Dawkins says, 'Cosomology is waiting for its Darwin.' We know squat about the universe, for any person (theists or atheist) to conclude God or no God started the universe, is silly. We dont know anything about our universe yet...

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.

Well, if you are being serious, N.T Wright is one of the leading experts in the Historicity of Jesus...

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.

Perhaps we shouldnt trust out mind then?

More spin and lies from Lennox.

Another Creationist arguement...Bravo.

[DiRNiS]

You make a lot of assumptions in your sentence;

1. God was created by man
2. John Lennox cant think for himself
3. That he is full of shit

Care to back any of them up?

Sure...

1. Which one of the hundreds of gods are you referring to? Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, Allah, YHWH, Athena, Mithra, etc. You are quick to dismiss most of these beings as they were imagined by the cultures of the time and because we have zero evidence for their existence. What makes your god different?

2. I say he can't think for himself because he relies on some ancient book written by ignorant goat herders to tell him how to live and think.

3. See the above reply. He is trying to counteract scientific arguments by quoting ancient fairy tales. That to me is being full of shit.

I find this sentence remarkable. You attempt to use the expression, 'invisble sky daddy.' Clearly you dont know much about theology or Christianity for that matter.

I know enough to know theists like to imagine some invisible divine entity looking after their every move and knowing their thoughts and rewarding or punishing them accordingly. "Invisible sky daddy" is a humorous term to describe these characteristics.

How is a divine force irrelevant?

Because it is not needed. Scientific branches such as biology, astronomy and physics have provided us with invaluable knowledge about how the universe and living organisms came to be. No scientific hypothesis requires the existence of some divine force creating and controlling everything.

Is there much of a difference between atheists and creationists? Creationists conclude the world was created in 6 days because of x. Atheists conclude there is no God because of x.

Yet x may be proven wrong. We may find something new about physics or cosmology (Imagine that) so perhaps at this present time, the universe CAN be explained without God...so what? The universe is going to get more complicated. Just as Dawkins says, 'Cosomology is waiting for its Darwin.' We know squat about the universe, for any person (theists or atheist) to conclude God or no God started the universe, is silly. We dont know anything about our universe yet...

Yes, Creationists believe the world was created in 6 days because some ancient book written by ignorant people says so. Not all atheists conclude there is no god. Most atheists just do not accept the claim for one due to lack of evidence. We tend to avoid blindly believing in stuff that has zero evidence supporting it.

Well, if you are being serious, N.T Wright is one of the leading experts in the Historicity of Jesus...

Even if this person known as Jesus existed, which again there is little to no historical evidence to support his existence (the bible does not count). The thought of him willingly sacrificing himself being nailed to a cross (he knew he was going to come back to life after a couple of days and become vice ruler of the universe so it wasn't much of a sacrifice) just to "save" us for being born sounds preposterous.

Perhaps we shouldnt trust out mind then?

No you shouldn't. Just because you may be able to imagine some divine being looking after you doesn't make it real.

[solja247]

1. Which one of the hundreds of gods are you referring to? Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, Allah, YHWH, Athena, Mithra, etc. You are quick to dismiss most of these beings as they were imagined by the cultures of the time and because we have zero evidence for their existence. What makes your god different?

How about the creator of the universe?

2. I say he can't think for himself because he relies on some ancient book written by ignorant goat herders to tell him how to live and think.

And hes the ignorant one...

3. See the above reply. He is trying to counteract scientific arguments by quoting ancient fairy tales. That to me is being full of shit.

I dont know why he quotes from Genesis, it is rather weird.

I know enough to know theists like to imagine some invisible divine entity looking after their every move and knowing their thoughts and rewarding or punishing them accordingly. "Invisible sky daddy" is a humorous term to describe these characteristics.

I know some theists who only read KJV (dont ask me why) does that mean all theists do it? Some of us arent ignorant and do have doubts

Because it is not needed. Scientific branches such as biology, astronomy and physics have provided us with invaluable knowledge about how the universe and living organisms came to be. No scientific hypothesis requires the existence of some divine force creating and controlling everything.

um no. when you talk about how the universe started, you are in the field of philosophy (which Stephen Hawkings says is dead?)