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

    • 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.
    • Just to understand: your solution to getting rid of an online password manager is...another online password manager?
    • Cjam 2.5.0.0 by Razvan Serea Cjam is a lightweight and fast MP3 editor for Windows that lets you cut, join, and edit MP3 files without re-encoding. This means your audio quality remains untouched, and edits happen instantly. Cjam is ideal for quick, lossless edits—whether you're trimming music, combining tracks, or preparing audio for learning tools or podcasts. It features batch processing, scripting support, cue and playlist file handling, and a simple interface. Cjam is perfect for anyone who needs efficient MP3 editing without the complexity of full audio suites. Cjam requires a PC running Windows 10 or later and Microsoft .NET 6.0 or later. Key features for Cjam: No Re-encoding: Edit MP3 files without losing quality. Cut and Join MP3: Easily cut, trim, and combine MP3 tracks. Batch Processing: Edit multiple files at once for faster workflows. Scriptable Interface: Automate tasks with a custom command language. Cue and Playlist Support: Handle CUE and playlist files for seamless audio management. Fast and Lightweight: Quick processing with minimal system resources. Lossless Audio Editing: Ensure your edits don't affect audio quality. Simple User Interface: Clean, intuitive design for easy navigation. File Format Support: Works with MP3, Cjam-specific file formats (CJAMC, CJAMJ, CJAM). Cjam 2.5.0.0 changelog: Added clipboard-based import/export support for mp3DirectCut Added clipboard-based export support for REAPER Added support for naming IMP3 elements Changed the Reset behavior to preserve Undo/Redo history; use Shift key + Reset button to clear it Added a new command parameter (qcp) Added 8 new entries to lang.txt (main_c124-126, main_d150-151, main_m082, vme_c014, vme_d005) Fixed a bug where the il parameter was incorrectly applied when pasting VMP3s into the main list Fixed several other minor bugs Download: Cjam 2.5.0.0 | 1.4 MB (Freeware) Links: Cjam Home Page | Cjam Manual | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • 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
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      91
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!