Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

[qdave]

This surely will get some people unhappy.

[Ayepecks]

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

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).

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

OK, now you're just completely reversing what you said.

You said that the "basis" of religion is being told what to believe. Now you're saying that parents are the reason why people believe religion. That is most definitely not the same thing. Parents are not a religious entity or a representative in any way of religion, unless of course they are some sort of leader of a religious organization or sect (or however you want to phrase it). That is not what you meant with your first post, so please don't even imply that it is. Now you're saying that it's a person's surroundings that makes them religious, not an individual person. That is not "being told what to believe." Your argument is also flawed as someone has just as much chance to not believe religion when being presented it (or later reverse their stance). You choose what to believe, which is what I said from the beginning, so very nice to see that you casually skipped over that.

The fact that you even use the parents argument is rather amusing, as you never say that parents tell their children what to believe. You say that children are "brought up in it." That goes against your initial statement and reinforces my own statement to a T. You're presented with an option -- just like someone reading Hawking's theory is -- and you either believe or disbelieve it.

In your first and second quotations you directly contradict yourself. First you present the option that he changed his reasoning (which you don't honestly believe, judging from your second quotation response), then you say 'well of course I think he's smarter now that he agrees with me!' Thank you for proving my point. You're accepting what you want to accept, just like I'm sure people who believe in religion accepted that Hawking was right when he previously agreed with them.

[Kirkburn]

OK, now you're just completely reversing what you said.

You said that the "basis" of religion is being told what to believe. Now you're saying that parents are the reason why people believe religion. That is most definitely not the same thing. Parents are not a religious entity or a representative in any way of religion, unless of course they are some sort of leader of a religious organization or sect (or however you want to phrase it). That is not what you meant with your first post, so please don't even imply that it is. Now you're saying that it's a person's surroundings that makes them religious, not an individual person. That is not "being told what to believe." Your argument is also flawed as someone has just as much chance to not believe religion when being presented it (or later reverse their stance). You choose what to believe, which is what I said from the beginning, so very nice to see that you casually skipped over that.

The fact that you even use the parents argument is rather amusing, as you never say that parents tell their children what to believe. You say that children are "brought up in it." That goes against your initial statement and reinforces my own statement to a T. You're presented with an option -- just like someone reading Hawking's theory is -- and you either believe or disbelieve it.

In your first and second quotations you directly contradict yourself. First you present the option that he changed his reasoning (which you don't honestly believe, judging from your second quotation response), then you say 'well of course I think he's smarter now that he agrees with me!' Thank you for proving my point. You're accepting what you want to accept, just like I'm sure people who believe in religion accepted that Hawking was right when he previously agreed with them.

You're utterly misinterpreting what I write.

"Being brought up in" something, is being told what to believe. I'm sorry if you semantically disagree, but this is what what I am putting across by that phrase. My parents did not say: so here's christianity, here's hinduism, here's islam, here's etc. .... now choose one! No, they essentially said "you are christian". (Fortunately, very weakly in my case, which meant I could much more freely later reconsider my position). Love the idea that "someone has just as much chance to not believe religion when being presented it" ... yeah, right. At five years of age, I don't think so. You also truly believe in Santa at that age. You would also see a lot more people switching religion opinion during their life (something exceedingly rare).

My quotes do not disagree. Someone can be smart, yet be wrong about some things. Because I accept what Hawking has to say on certain things does not mean I accept everything he says, or that not accepting everything he says is logically inconsistent.

[Luis Mazza]

This article and Stephen Hawking's opinion can be seen in mathematics like this:

0 + 0 = 0

Useless.

[thefonz]

You can't ignore Hawking's opinion.

Sure he's getting older but he is still the world's foremost physicist on such things.

I've read quite a bit into M-Theory and it's certainly an interesting theory; but I also recognise that at the end of the day there is no 'true' explanation for the creation of the

universe; be it through Divine Intervention or a bunch of particles banging and shaking together to cause a reaction.

I always took his 'mind of god' comment to be on par with Einsteins 'god does not play dice' musing - its metaphorical.

[PixilEyes]

Stephen Hawking is my god.

[Solid Knight]

The answer is simple: from nothing spawns something.

[perochan]

besides earth and our galaxy that we known of, no one knows how universe is created because we dont have the technology to find out or it is too complex.

just because we dont know how some unknown stuff are created, it doesnt mean it is always created by God....

science > god

[Ayepecks]

You're utterly misinterpreting what I write.

"Being brought up in" something, is being told what to believe. I'm sorry if you semantically disagree, but this is what what I am putting across by that phrase. My parents did not say: so here's christianity, here's hinduism, here's islam, here's etc. .... now choose one! No, they essentially said "you are christian". (Fortunately, very weakly in my case, which meant I could much more freely later reconsider my position). Love the idea that "someone has just as much chance to not believe religion when being presented it" ... yeah, right. At five years of age, I don't think so. You also truly believe in Santa at that age. You would also see a lot more people switching religion opinion during their life (something exceedingly rare).

My quotes do not disagree. Someone can be smart, yet be wrong about some things. Because I accept what Hawking has to say on certain things does not mean I accept everything he says, or that not accepting everything he says is logically inconsistent.

I'm sorry, but I don't know any family that has ever said, "you're a Christian." Just like when families of a mixed religion -- Muslim, Jewish, Christian -- generally let the children decide what to believe, while simultaneously presenting multiple beliefs. I find it hard to believe that your parents said "you're a Christian" to you when you were young. Furthermore, you act as if it's a blessing your parents didn't force it upon you. As someone who lives in the South, the self-described "Bible Belt," I don't know of any family that has ever forcefully told their child what they are or are not. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some parents that do that, but you're making sweeping statements here.

And, again, I still do not believe that's what you meant. You said religion is being told what to believe, you never said childhood. This isn't about semantics, this is about what you intended to mean. How on earth did you think anyone would be able to intuitively leap from 'religion is about being told what to believe' to mean 'children are told to believe religion by their parents'? I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. There's no way you could honestly expect me -- or anyone for that matter -- to see that's what you meant.

And I never said you accept everything Hawking said, as I agree that is not logical. But the argument 'he's smart, therefore what he says is true [or holds relevance]' doesn't hold water when he was smart before and believed in God, yet the same sentiment wasn't extended to him. I find this argument all the time -- Einstein said it, so it's right. Hawking said it, so it's right. I find it amusing that people are so invested in leading minds disproving or proving God, when it's something that can't be proven, I think even people who believe in God will admit that. When evidence that Einstein believed in God existed and was presented on Neowin, it was thoroughly shrugged off. Yet, when the inverse was true, the argument was 'the most intelligent man to ever lived didn't believe in God, so why does anyone?' The same sentiment is essentially being echoed in this topic.

Again, I just find it funny. It makes no sense to blindly follow something (religion) or someone (a leading scientist) like a sheep if you don't honestly believe it. If they agree with you, great. If they don't, though, does their opinion suddenly hold less value? No.

[thefonz]

Anyway, didnt Steve Jobs create the universe with the iBigBang and an 'innovative' app?

[ThePitt]

cant stop laughing. He cant be that cheap and sold out to entile his new book like this. The thing here is, that he should talk about physics and not about crap that common people want to hear. Whats next? Present his book on the Jeremy Kyle show?!. Give me a break.

[wellofsouls]

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.

physical laws are not "things", gravitational force itself may not exists, but the physical laws that say "there will inevitably be gravitational force" are there. physical laws are concepts, just like "the idea of nothingness", and "the idea of something suddenly comes out of nothing", and "the idea of something always exists forever", those are ideas, concepts, not physical existences, not "things".

And science explains everything now?

Nope, not yet, of course, that's why theists and religions still exist. If science has explained everything already, there'd be no theists in this world already. or, if any theists still left despite the fact that science has already explained everything, sent to mental health care already.

But as science explains more and more things previously considered unexplainable and "divine", there will be less and less theists left, for example theism has far less influence and power now than in the Medieval Age, and the trend continues.

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.

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.

That's why agnostics are the only right people :laugh:

But then, if you are a theist, why do you even bother to ask people proof of the non-existence of God? As far as I understand, since to the Christians, the Christian God is all-powerful, which means He can also make up all those concrete evidences against His own existence and Man won't be able to tell at all. Yup, that means He can make up all those carbon-14 test results, all those archeology discoveries, and all those things scientists take as concrete proof of the non-existence of God. Last time I remember, when a die-hard creationist who firmly believes that the world is only six thousand years old is challenged with concrete evidences like fossils and rock layer formations, he just says things like "that's what God created to test mankind's faith", and "you can never see through trials of faith setup by God with science, you can just hold your belief".

So if you are truly a theist, not only you don't need any evidence or proof of God's existence, you shouldn't even try to ask atheists of evidence and proof of God's non-existence, since they are completely meaningless as those very evidences and proof can just as well be God's own design as trials of faith.

On the other hand, for logical thinking, generally speaking, if we can't find the proof and evidences of something's existence, then we usually don't accept that something's existence as a fact, even with the lack of evidence of its non-existence. Else we may as well believe in Russell's teapot. That means, without evidence or proof, believers of God's existence is just as (logically) right (or wrong) as believers of Russell's teapot, believers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and creationist believers of that the world was created in literally seven days and the universe is six thousand years old. The atheists, on the other hand, is somewhat more logically sound.

For the case of love and emotions, well, they are NOT logical, so of course they don't follow logical thinking. If you say faith is not logical thinking, then I can fully agree with you. But if you insist on logical thinking and says that theists are as logically sound as atheist, then you are clearly (logically) wrong.

[Hum]

Stephen Hawking gave God quite a laugh. :laugh:

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

What I don't understand is where the first atom came from?

The interaction of electrons, protons and neutrons make up an atom. The protons and the neutrons are made of quarks. And the neutrons are made of leptons.

"Both quarks and leptons are elementary particles, and are currently seen as being the fundamental constituents of matter.

(In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure; that is, it is not known to be made up of smaller particles.)

These quarks and leptons interact through four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, weak interactions, and strong interactions."

(In physics, fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces) are the ways that the simplest particles in the universe interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions.)

How can something just exist? I don't understand this.

Think of a universe as a process. They come and go. There's nothing material which is static or constant. Everything changes its form all the time.

A universe is like a star which lightens up, grows, and then explodes...

I highly recommend that you watch the "made easy" series on youtube. I'd link it if the site wasn't banned at work :)

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

My point was, you atheists also blindly believe without any logic that the universe just exists.

Reasoning based on the knowledge is not blind believe.

[PreKe]

Damn you Hawking! Dontcha know that Goddunit!!111oneone

[Gaffney]

cant stop laughing. He cant be that cheap and sold out to entile his new book like this. The thing here is, that he should talk about physics and not about crap that common people want to hear. Whats next? Present his book on the Jeremy Kyle show?!. Give me a break.

Have you ever looked at his books ? do you know much about it ? Selling out what planet are you on this is a guy who had dedicated his life to science despite his condition and only recently quit being a lecturer at university after being there for around 30 YEAR.

What have you done ?

Go read the book a few times then come back and tell me he has sold out, your basing a book on a article published in the media.

[wellofsouls]

cant stop laughing. He cant be that cheap and sold out to entile his new book like this. The thing here is, that he should talk about physics and not about crap that common people want to hear. Whats next? Present his book on the Jeremy Kyle show?!. Give me a break.

his books like A Brief History of Time and this are meant to be read by the common people. I bet he wrote (or authored, since he can't write) scientific papers too, which are full of equations and functions that you possibly can't understand in your entire lifetime.

this is called science popularization, and we should be grateful that the scientists are trying to explain what they are doing and what results they have got to us in languages we understand, instead of keeping to their elite circles and ignore us lowly mortals. :p

Stephen Hawking gave God quite a laugh. :laugh:

no, not God, but the Turtles, the infinite number of Turtles that sit on each other and support our universe. and it proves that Turtles can laugh. :laugh:

[guru]

This article and Stephen Hawking's opinion can be seen in mathematics like this:

0 + 0 = 0

Useless.

not really. and the concept of 0 is not useless :pinch:

The answer is simple: from nothing spawns something.

define nothing

[Kirkburn]

Ayepecks, I think we've mostly degenerated into arguing semantics, so it's getting confusing. :)

I do want to pick out this

I'm sorry, but I don't know any family that has ever said, "you're a Christian." Just like when families of a mixed religion -- Muslim, Jewish, Christian -- generally let the children decide what to believe, while simultaneously presenting multiple beliefs. I find it hard to believe that your parents said "you're a Christian" to you when you were young. Furthermore, you act as if it's a blessing your parents didn't force it upon you. As someone who lives in the South, the self-described "Bible Belt," I don't know of any family that has ever forcefully told their child what they are or are not. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some parents that do that, but you're making sweeping statements here.

Mixed religion families are not common. Religions for the most part actually frown upon such things. Most kids grow up in single religion households, and no, seriously, they are brought up as the religion of that household. They aren't given a choice, especially not as a small child. Kids don't get to stay home from church.

I don't live in a religious area - Bristol, UK - yet the two people closest to me have very religious families, and both were (and are) forcefully told of 'the truth'. Fortunately, however, they are now able to make their own decision (even if their parents try and make them feel like terrible people). (Note, this not anecdotal evidence, just an example)

Anyway, we're straying off point - this is all I was trying to say: Religion tells people what to believe. Science shows people.

Which is off point of the original point: that Hawking previously thought god might have been required. We still thought him smart. Now he doesn't, and some of us think he may be a little bit smarter. He's not an all knowing divine scientific figure, he opinions don't define our lives. Some of us just think "hey, that's cool, he's come to a similar decision to us, from a different perspective, nice". Our belief (or non-belief) in god didn't rest upon his shoulders, or this specific topic.

[Rodrigo]

The answer is simple: from nothing spawns something.

I don't think you understand how the big bang is believed to have happened.

cant stop laughing. He cant be that cheap and sold out to entile his new book like this. The thing here is, that he should talk about physics and not about crap that common people want to hear. Whats next? Present his book on the Jeremy Kyle show?!. Give me a break.

Man... you are definitely clueless..

[wellofsouls]

I'm sorry, but I don't know any family that has ever said, "you're a Christian." Just like when families of a mixed religion -- Muslim, Jewish, Christian -- generally let the children decide what to believe, while simultaneously presenting multiple beliefs. I find it hard to believe that your parents said "you're a Christian" to you when you were young. Furthermore, you act as if it's a blessing your parents didn't force it upon you. As someone who lives in the South, the self-described "Bible Belt," I don't know of any family that has ever forcefully told their child what they are or are not. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some parents that do that, but you're making sweeping statements here.

hmm... It's not that I don't believe you, but I highly doubt it, since those monotheism teachings usually say things like "believe Him or doomed to eternal suffering in hell", and if the parents are truly monotheist believers, don't they care if their kids are doomed to hell?

As far as I understand, unlike polytheism like Buddhism and Taoism where even if you are a non-believer, you just miss a chance to reach immortal and eternal happiness this time, but you still will reincarnate after you die and have more chances later, in monotheism like Christianity, there's no reincarnation and no second chance. Unless you are completely apathetic to your children, if I truly believe that my kid is facing a choice between eternal happiness in Heaven and eternal damnation in Hell, I'd try my best to help/lead/encourage my kid to choose the former.

It's kinda hard to imagine that, if you truly believes in Christianity and that not believing in Him leads to Hell, you'd still be all okay if your kid comes and tells you "hey mom/dad, I just decided that I don't want to believe in your Christian God, instead I want to be a Taoist and try to become an immortal god myself, even if that means I'm going to Hell in your belief".

[Solid Knight]

define nothing

In this context it would be the absence of something.

I don't think you understand how the big bang is believed to have happened.

I don't believe the big bang was proven to be anything other than a stab in the dark.

[bobbba]

Don't you people read???

Stephen Hawking actually says universe not necessarily created by God

[Rodrigo]

I don't believe the big bang was proven to be anything other than a stab in the dark.

What? When I say you don't understand how the big bang was believed to have happened is because those are not assumptions based on pure thought. Those are assumptions based on scientific knowledge that is given by the study of the universe over the years. Believing it's a "stab in the dark" is the mentality of a person that believes there's a superior being just because they "feel it". That's where the difference between science and crayness resides. Scientific assumptions are based on proven stuff while religious assumptions are based on histories which nobody can prove happened.