Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

[Azies]

Thank you Captain Obvious, Of course the universe wasn't created by God. That's sort of beyond his scope of creation, in fact God didn't create anything. Doesn't mean there isn't an extra-dimensional being that's watching our backs, it just didn't create the universe, at all. :p

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

this in interesting ... M-theory .. have never hared of it but does anyone know the gist of it?

It is responsible for the mutation of a rodent, Mighty Mouse

But just like string theory, they made it up to solve a problem of a previous theory. Aka " A doesn't work unless B is true, I want to be right and not have years of wasted time, so B is true, then to prove B as true I'll need to create C to prove B which proves A, all of which can't be proven at all

[+Warwagon MVC]

In other news, we have just learned that Norton is that the creator of Nod32.

[neufuse Veteran]

I dont care who or what created it, I want to know how the concept of nothing exists and how something was made from nothing and what was before the nothing, I mean its like a torus you always have something before something in a never ending loop so there is never a start and never and end

I like the extra dimension theories.... right now the universe is there x number of times for ever y combination somewhere I am a king, somewhere I am dieing of something..... space doesnt exist we just live in bubbles of time

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Asking for evidence to back up a faith... that's ridiculous. Believing in a deity is a faith, it doesn't need solid scientific proof to exist. Denying a lot of human beings their faith (of the existence of a deity) based on nothing is stupid. Much like people believing in love, if they sought evidence of that, they would pretty much stop loving and believing they're loved.

My point is: Human beings who believe in the existence of a deity are as right (or wrong, depending on where you come from) as the human being who claim there is no deity.

Sorry, but that is a monumentally retarded argument.

1. Of course I ask for evidence to back up a faith. Otherwise it's nothing more than a fairy tale told to make people feel better.
   
2. Believing in something doesn't make it real. How many children believe in Santa? Is Santa real? no.
   
3. Denying human beings their faith is stupid? Erm, no, try the other way around. Believing in something with no evidence is stupid.
   
4. Either there is a deity or there isn't. Just because there are two options doesn't mean they are equally likely.
   

[takewhat]

"I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest?and scientists have to be?we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards?in heaven if not on earth?all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins."

...to quote Dirac.

[sudo]

Falsifiability is required for something to be scientifically disproved. God as an abstract vaguely defined entity cannot be disproved as it is not falsifiable. To make it falsifiable, one would need to provide a detailed definition of what that entity is and specific examples on how to observe it (wherein such observation would also provide enough data for to make conclusions).

Then we agree on the fact that there's no way to scientifically disprove the existence of a deity, since there's no way to "observe" it, nor is there even a clear definition of it. Much like... mmm.. let's see... much like "love".

And I don't want anyone to jump into the "you can't observe it, nor define it, then it doesn't exist" argument. It's an obsolete argument, a ridiculous one if you thought of all the things we can not observe nor define, but have enough evidence they exist.

Until then, requiring evidence for the non-existence of such an entity can be considered a joke at best. The side that wants to prove the existence of such entity has it easier as they can themselves define what God is, but they refuse to.

Anyone trying to prove there's a deity from a scientific point of view is a fool, geneticist Francis Collins is an example. As I said, as a theist, I don't need evidence whatsoever to believe. But anyone saying that only science matters should explain everything there's to this universe, should answer all the questions, and thus disprove the existence of a deity.

[Azies]

Asking for evidence to back up a faith... that's ridiculous. Believing in a deity is a faith, it doesn't need solid scientific proof to exist. Denying a lot of human beings their faith (of the existence of a deity) based on nothing is stupid. Much like people believing in love, if they sought evidence of that, they would pretty much stop loving and believing they're loved.

My point is: Human beings who believe in the existence of a deity are as right (or wrong, depending on where you come from) as the human being who claim there is no deity.

I did not mention "religion".

As a theist myself, I don't need evidence, I just believe and I will continue to believe until there's proof I was wrong. People like yourself who only believe in science, and rebut the existence of a deity NEED to provide evidence, because that is what science is about, hard evidence.

Believing in a deity is our primitive minds trying to feel less alone, in the coldness of it all, eventually humans will evolve enough to finally come to the realization that there is no direct deity. Again doesn't mean there isn't a being that somehow filled the role and occasionally fed spectacularisms.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

"I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest?and scientists have to be?we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards?in heaven if not on earth?all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins."

...to quote Dirac.

Excellent first post. Welcome to Neowin, btw.

[SkyDX]

The whole debate reminds me of Schr?dingers Cat. Aslong has we can't proof, god is existent and also not.

[McCordRm]

The concept of "nothing" is immediately proven wrong with the existence

of a Deity. If said Deity exists, then there is obviously something- the Deity itself,

the "plane" upon which it lives, etc.

As for "Faith", we each experience it when we fall asleep. We allow ourselves to

be given over to a state from which we have absolutely no control over ourselves

or our surroundings with the expectation that we will again wake up and continue

with our lives. There's no guarantee that we will, but we believe we will because

we're given no reason not to make that assumption. That we require sleep is

irrelevant; without Faith we would spend each night forcibly trying to deny

sleep from overtaking us for fear of not being able to wake up. And while we

take this action for granted to such an extent that many wouldn't consider it

an act of Faith at all, the truth is that we are more comfortable with it by choosing

not to think about what might happen while we're helpless and thus dismissing

the Faith aspect completely.

[lamminium]

"I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest?and scientists have to be?we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards?in heaven if not on earth?all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins."

...to quote Dirac.

Beautiful quote. Sums up what my current view is.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

"I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest?and scientists have to be?we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards?in heaven if not on earth?all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins."

...to quote Dirac.

:yes:

Welcome to Neowin, great first post.

[AJC.]

DA da daaaa Daa da daada da! Here comes all the ignorance! Sorry I just had to sing this theme song before reading all the comments. Anyways, <3 Stephen Hawking.

A better theme is here but unfortunately it's NSFW-

[Paul Paliath]

What I don't get -- and I'm just throwing it out here -- is how people cannot answer who made God. God just is.

Yet, these same people cannot fathom the idea of how certain things just are.

[brentaal]

Then we agree on the fact that there's no way to scientifically disprove the existence of a deity, since there's no way to "observe" it, nor is there even a clear definition of it.

No, I do not agree with that as my claim is valid only for as long as a theist keeps the status quo in a discussion.

Much like... mmm.. let's see... much like "love".

Again, I disagree. Chemistry has a lot to say about love, there are ways of observing it and we know the causes.

And I don't want anyone to jump into the "you can't observe it, nor define it, then it doesn't exist" argument. It's an obsolete argument, a ridiculous one if you thought of all the things we can not observe nor define, but have enough evidence they exist.

I think you misunderstood what I said. Observation is the exact basis for evidence of the things which you said we can't "observe but have enough evidence that they exist". You probably meant to say that we can't see things but still can prove their existence. That has nothing to do with being able to observe. Anything in existence should be observable in one way or the other.

Anyone trying to prove there's a deity from a scientific point of view is a fool, geneticist Francis Collins is an example. As I said, as a theist, I don't need evidence whatsoever to believe. But anyone saying that only science matters should explain everything there's to this universe, should answer all the questions, and thus disprove the existence of a deity.

I wouldn't call him a fool. He's a theist who happens to work in a field wherein religion can't offer any substantiated knowledge in. He therefor interprets some of the things differently than his peers, due to his religion, but that's about it.

[Dark Atheist]

@sudo:

Why should the burden of proof lie with the atheists? Why don't you or any other theist show evidence of the existence, or even the necessity of a deity?

It doesn't, the burden of proof lies with religion as they are making the claim that God created the universe, and that the bible explains everything

What I don't get -- and I'm just throwing it out here -- is how people cannot answer who made God. God just is.

Yet, these same people cannot fathom the idea of how certain things just are.

and who made God, and if someone made god who made that person who made the god that made the first god........

regressions

[wellofsouls]

Personally I think this

Proves a problem, as with all the different religions, and those that don't believe, a vast portion of the world would be dead already, but their not

Unless each religions God is having a Holy Royal Rumble up there and the victor kills everybody else

then polytheism like Buddhism and Taoism will win, since they don't have grudge about having more than one Gods, so the Gods of polytheism will get together and gang bang the monotheism Gods, while the monotheism Gods are busy trying to kill each other cause each of Them insists "there's only one God" :laugh:

[kaffra]

There is no god. The concept of deities was what humans came up with to explain the unexplainable. That's all there is to it.

It's time to drop a concept which dates back to the stone age and move on.

then we have a long way to go as there are many things unexplainable.

[PixilEyes]

There is no god. The concept of deities was what humans came up with to explain the unexplainable. That's all there is to it.

It's time to drop a concept which dates back to the stone age and move on.

Spot on.

A god is to comfort the masses for the unknown.

[wellofsouls]

What I don't get -- and I'm just throwing it out here -- is how people cannot answer who made God. God just is.

Yet, these same people cannot fathom the idea of how certain things just are.

Yup, personally I can accept that "the universe just is" much easier and better than that "some God who created the universe just is".

it's just wasted effort trying to pull out another thing "just is" out of nowhere for the sole purpose to explain that something is not "just is".

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

What I don't get -- and I'm just throwing it out here -- is how people cannot answer who made God. God just is.

Yet, these same people cannot fathom the idea of how certain things just are.

In the same vain people need to accept that human beings are merely the result of coincidences rather than 'intelligent design.'

[zeroday]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes.

If nothing existed, how could gravity have existed when there was nothing. It was either one or the other. The idea that there was nothing (which itself is difficult to fathom) and then suddenly something makes absolutely no sense. I'm surprised Hawkings would write something like that.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

If nothing existed, how could gravity have existed when there was nothing. It was either one or the other. The idea that there was nothing (which itself is difficult to fathom) and then suddenly something makes absolutely no sense. I'm surprised Hawkings would write something like that.

Who says there was nothing before the big bang?

[argonite]

If nothing existed, how could gravity have existed when there was nothing. It was either one or the other. The idea that there was nothing (which itself is difficult to fathom) and then suddenly something makes absolutely no sense. I'm surprised Hawkings would write something like that.

There possibly wasn't absolutely nothing.

At the very least, there was a concept of time and the fundamental laws of gravity, electromagnetism, etc... But we don't consider concepts to be things that exist, just ideas that describe potential interactions.

I've heard that matter can pop out of thin air though, but they require the concepts to be there, I'm not sure if they require some sort of energy to be present as well.

A lot of things in M-theory are based on mathematics. If the math works out then all elements are said to exist, at least theoretically. The word existence doesn't mean anything more than a bunch of equations balancing out.