Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

[vincent]

And still no proof. His theory sounds like it doesn't provide a conclusive proof either, but rather more theory. I imagine a proof of the creation of the universe is still far off.

Proofs are for alcohol and mathematics

[Hot]

Stephen Hawking doesn't exist. I've never met him.

[argonite]

I do admit that thinking the universe 'just exists' is, at this point in our scientific knowledge, a belief.

But it's also the simplest belief, thus the most likely.

Extraneous entities such as god are unnecessary, and they just move the goal posts.

What's the difference between a universe that 'just exists', and a god that 'just exists' creating the universe? Or how about a god that creates a god that creates the universe?

The first is clear cut, the second and third involve needless assumptions about God that add nothing to the outcome and can be cut (Occam's razor).

[LiquidSolstice]

Stephen Hawking doesn't exist. I've never met him.

Failure reasoning. Push comes to shove, you can attend one of his lectures or seminars. You can't really call and arrange a meeting with go, can you? :rolleyes:

[vincent]

Stephen Hawking doesn't exist. I've never met him.

His existence is self-evident, god's isn't.

[Subject Delta]

That's the kind of attitude that promotes extremism when you think about it. I could tell you that being an atheist is barbaric, see what I did there?

over debating only hurts it never helps, so why not be tolerant and respectful of what others believe in.

Ideas that deserve respect will get it. Religion has had 2,000 + years to make its case, and failed quite miserably.

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.

Gravity is the result of physical force, it is natural. It never started or stopped existing.

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?

Why not? Religious people claim that their position is the only true position, all the time, and never provide evidence.

Look, it's not because of logic that I believe in God. It's belief. My point was, you atheists also blindly believe without any logic that the universe just exists.

That is your assumption, not a fact. Most Atheists have plenty of reason to believe God doesn't exist.

[guru]

does it matter, if God created Universe or not? what happens if other (parallel universe for example) is proven to exist? did God create that one?

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

does it matter, if God created Universe or not? what happens if other (parallel universe for example) is proven to exist? did God create that one?

How can a non-existent superior being create parallel universes? Does not compute.

[guru]

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?

i think his said, God is unnecessary for the universe to be created and exist. but yeah, you have a point!.. anyone?

[Ayepecks]

I find it funny that people are arguing about whether or not God exists when that really has nothing to do with his statements. But, really, does anyone really need someone else to tell them what they believe, too?

You do believe in God? Cool.

You don't believe in God? Cool.

Cooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. Believe whatever you want. I don't give a damn. Doesn't affect me.

[guru]

How can a non-existent superior being create parallel universes? Does not compute.

If people believe God created this universe, then surely they'd belive God would have created other parallel universes too. now if there are infinite parallel universes... :laugh:

[Kyang]

I find it funny that people are arguing about whether or not God exists when that really has nothing to do with his statements. But, really, does anyone really need someone else to tell them what they believe, too?

You do believe in God? Cool.

You don't believe in God? Cool.

Cooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. Believe whatever you want. I don't give a damn. Doesn't affect me.

That position would be tenable only if there were no such thing as leaders, or people out to kill you because of their own religious beliefs. Ignorance is NOT bliss, lol.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I'll be picking this up from the local book store next Tuesday. It'll be an interesting read. (Y)

[kead]

This is something I've always wondered myself. But I find it extremely arrogant to say something doesn't exist for sure when you don't even know the material of the chair your sitting on. To say something doesn't exist without solid proof of proving such a claim is silly I think. It was no different as someone else stated about the subatomic particle. If someone stated that they believe God didn't exist I can certainly understand that since everyone has their own perceptive on life. Science itself seems to teach us a dual mentality in the sense that we are to believe all things a possible if we observe and think logically of our surroundings, yet at the same time we are to dismiss all things until proven. It is somewhat contradictory in that sense. I myself am an Electrical Engineer, but I still believe in God.

I've often questioned the possibility of God based on the many circumstances I find myself and loved ones in but each time I have, I have come to the conclusion that He exists. It's not a cop out as many of you might think, I've denounced the idea of God several times in my life but with greater thinking about the situations that caused me to think that God didn't exist I realized my thought pattern was previously flawed, I can only speak for my own experiences here, so bare with me. As for the many religions we have I simply have come to understand them to be the many different perspectives and or "faces" of God we can interpret. It's similar to the idea of many people sitting around an object and being asked to draw the object. Every drawing would be different yet similar at the same time. In my mind the differences in the many religions are just the differences in the minds of those who tried to understand God from their perspective. Since we are all different in some way we naturally perceive things differently as well.

As for the Universe just existing, this bother's me somewhat. The reason for this is science tells us of the theory of a Prime Mover, the basic idea is cause and effect. Things don't just happen, but rather something causes an effect to occur. Once a cycle is set in place however, it is very difficult or near impossible to determine just what the prime mover is or was. The Universe itself based on what I've read is a cycle; a cycle in a sense similar to the internal combustion engine. We have expansion as a driving force and lots of entropy being created etc. The problem I have is that the Universe could only just exist if it was outside of time, in that sense it would have no beginning and no end, much like a circle/cycle. That would make sense, to me. The problem that I have is the prime mover for the Universe. Based on what I said above about time, the Universe is now an endless cycle, but what of the Prime Mover? Even though it is outside of time, based on our understanding being bound by time the Universe is still subject to an initial cause for the cycle. And as such this ends up being quite similar to "the chicken and the egg argument".

For me, I've just come to the belief that God is the Prime Mover or driving force behind the Universe. Had the Universe been outside of time and had some level of consciousness to create an effect from a cause in such a complicated cycle, then by definition and my understanding that would be God. Whether he be a mass of endless energy (dark energy?) I don't know.

For everyone there comes a point where we have to say "I don't know", be it believe or nonbeliever. I just wish that some people would have a courage to actually say so instead of going on the offensive, it's childish really.

Also please lighten up people, there's no need to get upset and offend each other when questioning the possibility of God. I often wonder why people become so defensive, both who believe and disbelieve (I mean I know it's often at the core of who we are, interesting I must say). It's not about winning an argument since we are all literally handicapped in trying to understand the Universe and how it came to be. It's like being inside a house all your life but you are asked to explain how the exterior of the home looks and the environment. Personally I would just like to hear everyones different perspective on the subject, without people being upset.

[Irish Naldo]

I find it funny that people are arguing about whether or not God exists when that really has nothing to do with his statements. But, really, does anyone really need someone else to tell them what they believe, too?

You do believe in God? Cool.

You don't believe in God? Cool.

Cooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. Believe whatever you want. I don't give a damn. Doesn't affect me.

He refered to God in a previous book. It has everything to do with the statements he has made or will make. Either you do or you don't.

[Growled Member]

Hawkings has a right to his opinion the same as everyone else, but just because he says something does not make it true.

[Udedenkz]

.... this conclusion is suprising to who exactly?

[Ayepecks]

He refered to God in a previous book. It has everything to do with the statements he has made or will make. Either you do or you don't.

That's my point, though. He's specifically said God exists in a previous book, but in this book he only says God didn't create the universe, not that there is no God, although that would seem to be the implication. So clearly he doesn't know anymore than anyone else on the planet.

But, tell me: why are people using Hawking's word as fact? So you mean to tell me that those who support Hawking believed in God until he made this statement that God didn't create the universe? And people who don't agree with Hawking were atheists until he said God didn't create the universe? Sorry, but if you need someone to tell you what you believe, you need to start using your brain more.

[P.M.K]

Physics, not creator, made Big Bang, new book claims

I thought everyone knew this already??

[Motoko.]

Hawkings has a right to his opinion the same as everyone else, but just because he says something does not make it true.

This is sound advice.

[Irish Naldo]

That's my point, though. He's specifically said God exists in a previous book, but in this book he only says God didn't create the universe, not that there is no God, although that would seem to be the implication. So clearly he doesn't know anymore than anyone else on the planet.

But, tell me: why are people using Hawking's word as fact? So you mean to tell me that those who support Hawking believed in God until he made this statement that God didn't create the universe? And people who don't agree with Hawking were atheists until he said God didn't create the universe? Sorry, but if you need someone to tell you what you believe, you need to start using your brain more.

You actually take him at his word? Nobody knows. End game.

[Kirkburn]

That's my point, though. He's specifically said God exists in a previous book, but in this book he only says God didn't create the universe, not that there is no God, although that would seem to be the implication. So clearly he doesn't know anymore than anyone else on the planet.

Or that he expanded his knowledge, or checked his reasoning, and came to a different conclusion? This is how people change their minds, after all.

But, tell me: why are people using Hawking's word as fact? So you mean to tell me that those who support Hawking believed in God until he made this statement that God didn't create the universe? And people who don't agree with Hawking were atheists until he said God didn't create the universe?

I don't think anyone in this thread has said that. Just that they agree (or disagree) with his new position.

Sorry, but if you need someone to tell you what you believe, you need to start using your brain more.

Being told what to believe is kind of the basis of religion.

[Ayepecks]

Or that he expanded his knowledge, or checked his reasoning, and came to a different conclusion? This is how people change their minds, after all.

I don't think anyone in this thread has said that. Just that they agree (or disagree) with his new position.

Being told what to believe is kind of the basis of religion.

So you have to have expanded knowledge to change your opinion? What if he just changed his mind based on the facts he already knew that are now presented differently? I love how whenever he finds God to not be the creator, it's that he has "expanded his knowledge" in your view.

Listen, people only accept what they want to accept. I'm assuming you're atheist. Stephen Hawking was smart when he made the claim that God existed, but obviously you didn't agree with him then, now did you? But, now, when he agrees with you, you're attempting to make the argument that he is smarter. That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever read.

Also: being told what to believe is most definitely not the basis of religion. Either you believe it or you don't. Just like you either believe Hawking's theory or you don't. In both instances, you're not told what to believe. I think you need to re-read my quote, because I never made any claim that Hawking was correct or incorrect. How about you read it this way: "If you need [Hawking/some religious person you know] to tell you what you believe, you need to start using your brain more." The information is put to you. You choose to believe it or don't believe it. You don't believe it, however, because a person tells you to. You believe it because it makes sense to you.

I'm not sure how you didn't understand the context of that statement, to be completely honest. I think the reason is just that you wanted to cause a problem.

[Kirkburn]

So you have to have expanded knowledge to change your opinion? What if he just changed his mind based on the facts he already knew that are now presented differently? I love how whenever he finds God to not be the creator, it's that he has "expanded his knowledge" in your view.

I guess you skipped this bit: "or checked his reasoning"

Listen, people only accept what they want to accept. I'm assuming you're atheist. Stephen Hawking was smart when he made the claim that God existed, but obviously you didn't agree with him then, now did you? But, now, when he agrees with you, you're attempting to make the argument that he is smarter. That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever read.

You're complaining that we thought he was smart even though he had a different opinion about god to us - and we still think him smart, perhaps slightly smarter because he now agrees with us?

At what point is this surprising? Generally you don't view people who start agreeing with you more to somehow have become dumber. It would be self-deprecation in an extreme. (Or someone who revels in ignorance, which doesn't apply to anyone here).

Also: being told what to believe is most definitely not the basis of religion. Either you believe it or you don't. Just like you either believe Hawking's theory or you don't. In both instances, you're not told what to believe. I think you need to re-read my quote, because I never made any claim that Hawking was correct or incorrect. How about you read it this way: "If you need [Hawking/some religious person you know] to tell you what you believe, you need to start using your brain more." The information is put to you. You choose to believe it or don't believe it. You don't believe it, however, because a person tells you to. You believe it because it makes sense to you.

Sorry, but that is just hilarious. For 99.9% of cases, assuming one is in at least in one of the main religions ... how was it you became that religion? Discover it and rationally accept the entire system that comes with it by chance, or brought up in it as if it's fact by your parents and community? Hint: it's the latter.

Of course, we are taught science - however, science is supported by experimentation and logic, thus not blind belief. For reference, when non-theists refer to 'belief', they are generally referring to it as a pejorative, in the terms of faith without evidence.

I'd say it's worrying that people believe a talking snake 'makes sense'.

[Ghost5525]

Basically M theory is the theory that the universe is a layer of membranes that when they bump together you get somewhat of a 'big bang effect' and a new universe is made... basically its the concept of multiple universes.