Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God


Recommended Posts

Didn't a theorist once say that the human mind will never be able to understand the complexity of how we were created? I'm sure I read that somewhere at neowin.

I firmly believe this.

How can a human comprehend the idea of something being infinite, when everything we know has a beginning and end? Every living organism is born and dies. Even naturally occurring materials from our planet eventually fade after hundreds/thousands of years.

How can something be born from nothing, and if that something wasn't "born," then how can it have always just existed? If somebody created it, then who created the creator, and who created the creator of the creator? And so forth.

I don't think we'll ever truly know how the universe began.

I firmly believe this.

How can a human comprehend the idea of something being infinite, when everything we know has a beginning and end? Every living organism is born and dies. Even naturally occurring materials from our planet eventually fade after hundreds/thousands of years.

How can something be born from nothing, and if that something wasn't "born," then how can it have always just existed? If somebody created it, then who created the creator, and who created the creator of the creator? And so forth.

I don't think we'll ever truly know how the universe began.

Humans are fine with infinity within mathematics and calculus. Which is all that string theory boils down to: math.

I don't see the problem.

If you want to talk about philosophical infinity (discussing "how is this possible" or "how does this make sense"), then we can have an interesting discussion.

I do know that, even if string theory could show how to create the particles of the universe out of thin air (or no air), and we could be pointed to what equation says that it can, we as humans still wouldn't intuitively "get it." But that the same time, we don't need to "get it", we just need to "know that it could've happened this way, somehow."

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.

You are taking that way too literally. Gravity isn't a physical object, and by "nothing", he's referring to physical things. His theory is that intangible forces are what created the universe as we know it today. I would say that's a pretty damn good theory.

I wish you guys would realise how futile the Atheist vs. Theist debate is. Nobody is going to sway the other party, so just give it up and accept that people believe in different things.

If people feel better for believing in a Deity then that is their right and there's nothing wrong with that, whether there's evidence or not. Personally I live my life by science and don't believe in any deity because there is no evidence, but I don't preach my views on others; just let people get on with it.

Likewise, religious preachers who try to force their beliefs on people on the street should be ashamed of themselves.

Humans are fine with infinity within mathematics and calculus. Which is all that string theory boils down to: math.

I don't see the problem.

If you want to talk about philosophical infinity (discussing "how is this possible" or "how does this make sense"), then we can have an interesting discussion.

I do know that, even if string theory could show how to create the particles of the universe out of thin air (or no air), and we could be pointed to what equation says that it can, we as humans still wouldn't intuitively "get it." But that the same time, we don't need to "get it", we just need to "know that it could've happened this way, somehow."

I'm talking about the idea that something has been there forever. Something that wasn't born, it just always existed, and will always exist. That's the way I'm using the word infinite :)

I'm talking about the idea that something has been there forever. Something that wasn't born, it just always existed, and will always exist. That's the way I'm using the word infinite :)

To some extent, humans are capable of dealing with this.

I mean, you weren't born at the beginning of the universe, you are born into a world where things already existed as they are. You never asked "where did time come from" because you've understood that time has "always existed" at least as long as the words "always" and "exist" have meaning.

Hm, I'd like to see Hawking prove that some 'God' did not create the universe. Surely he can't make that claim unless he provides proof?

Please don't start that discussion again.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/934746-stephen-hawking-says-universe-not-created-by-god/page__view__findpost__p__593103300

This is not the place for it.

Cool Story Bro.

That was totally intelligent.

Anyway, this shouldn't come as a surprise who knows or is familar with Hawking's stuff.

Hm, I'd like to see Hawking prove that some 'God' did not create the universe. Surely he can't make that claim unless he provides proof?

And it's ok for religious people to make the claim that god does exist and "is all around us"? That's totally not a double-standard.

Hm, I'd like to see Hawking prove that some 'God' did not create the universe. Surely he can't make that claim unless he provides proof?

And it's ok for religious people to make the claim that god does exist and "is all around us"? That's totally not a double-standard.

i have yet to see any proof one way or the other.

just because the religious can't prove god exists(which according to their relgion they should never even try to do anyway), doesn't mean the atheists can prove the opposite.

science has proved the existence of things we never knew existed or thought were impossible, yet dreamed of and imagined, so we shouldn't be too surprised if someday science actually proves there really is a god, or creator being who threw will alone ro some other mechanic influences every single force and piece of matter in the unirevse in ways we can't begin to imagine currently.

it's even possible such a being might care about humans, certain groups of humans over other groups of humans for some reason we can't begin to understand, or hand down laws on pieces of stone and speak through burning bushes or w/e.

then again someday we might be able to prove the opposite, that every thing attributed to some god being is pure imagination and makea road map of the beginning of the unieverse including what, if anything existed in it's place before that and what caused the big bang.

hell we still assume multiple universes to be the stuff of sci fi for the most part, but science has yet to prove either way.

even time travel may become possible.

and then there's the subject of aliens and if they could possibly have a role in teh whole god thing throughout human history. i mean what if we meet up with some vulcan from planet x in 500 years and they tell all about the times they talked to some human through a burning bush or instpired a pyramid and we have a good laugh about it over space coffee.

hawking is losing his edge imho. although i agree with his stance about talking to aliens. they could be hostile and try to kill us all or enslave us or steal our water.

Something to think about. ?

Scenario #1

You claim to be holding an apple. You say that its in your hand. However, I can't see it. No one else can see it. We can't touch it, we can't feel it, we obviously can't hear it, and by extension of those, we cannot taste it. How will you prove to me (by the same standards of science where evidence dictates what is real and what is not) that you are holding an Apple? Saying that I must have "faith" that you really are holding an apple is avoiding the question. Telling me that x number of people believe that you are holding an apple makes no difference to me, because that just proves to me that other people believe the apple exists, it does not prove to me that the apple actually exists. You cannot show me a book that says teh apple exists, because that just tells me that a book exists which claims that you are holding the apple. You cannot use the excuse/question of "how else can I be holding an apple if the apple does nto exists" because that is still avoiding the question: how can you prove to me that I am holding an apple?

Scenario #2

I claim to be holding an Apple. I say that its in my hand. if I open my hand, you can see it. You can touch it. You can feel it. if I allowed you to, you can taste it. You do not need faith to assume that I am holding the apple, you understand that the apple exists and is currently residing in my hand because all five of your senses have confirmed it. The same five sense that you've been using all your life to confirm or debunk situations where the existence of something is questioned. You do not need the secondary source of a book to tell you that the apple is in my hand. You also don't need to care about how many other people think or believe I am holding the apple, because your observations can be reproduced. All hygiene aside, you too can see, touch, an taste the apple as well.

Why not keep this in mind before jumping down the throats of atheists demanding the same proof which you cannot give?

I meant how and why did this or these laws come into existence? Why should the Universe follow these laws?

We....don't?make the laws of physics. All the physical laws of the world are in existence. Whether or not we've found, defined, and documented them, that's a matter of time. Your argument is useless, and your idea of "the Universe" is poorly and vaguely defined (read: not at all)

We....don't make the laws of physics. All the physical laws of the world are in existence. Whether or not we've found, defined, and documented them, that's a matter of time. Your argument is useless, and your idea of "the Universe" is poorly and vaguely defined (read: not at all)

You seem to have missed my point completely? I said nothing about human beings finding out these laws. My question was if God didn't create the laws of the universe, why and how were these laws (or the law) come into existence? Why should the Universe follow it?

You seem to have missed my point completely? I said nothing about human beings finding out these laws. My question was if God didn't create the laws of the universe, why and how were these laws (or the law) come into existence? Why should the Universe follow it?

They just exist. Why do those laws have to be created by a superior being? Is the concept of the universe as well as the laws of physics just existing that alien to you?

You seem to have missed my point completely? I said nothing about human beings finding out these laws. My question was if God didn't create the laws of the universe, why and how were these laws (or the law) come into existence? Why should the Universe follow it?

? What "laws" are you talking about? An why is it that what we don't understand or have an answer for we instantly assume is the work of god? Didn't we once think to ourselves that god was the reason why the tides rose and the sun rose and set?

They just exist. Why do those laws have to be created by a superior being? Is the concept of the universe as well as the laws of physics just existing that alien to you?

I find it much more logical to believe that a superior being, i.e, God, makes the universe exist, rather than believing (yes, you are also blindly believing) that everything just exists without any reason.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!