Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God


Recommended Posts

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

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).

sig_occam.gif

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I think there will be a 27H1 for actual users of 26H1 The 25h2 supports ARM too : Snapdragon X, Snapdragon X Plus and Snapdragon X Elite
    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication 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.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!