Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God


Recommended Posts

an automobile can't evolve from a box of scraps, unlike living creatures. Your argument is invalid.

I was attempting to equate the obvious intelligent design behind an automobile to things that exist in the universe, like how stars work or pehaps more related, the human body. Yes, I know that living cells can mutate and change function unlike a non-living mechanical device but its my personal belief that humans came about from some form of deliberate direction (like a car). Obviously, my take on this is unpopular so I'll just shut up about it.

My apologies to wellofsouls for the personal attack. Was having a bad day....

Obviously, my take on this is unpopular so I'll just shut up about it.

Meh, it's not that unpopular. I think the majority of Americans fail to believe in evolution, and it's an interesting topic for debate whichever side your opinion may lay :)

I think half of the reason evolution is so unpopular in America however, is that it's rarely understood. I'm not sure how well it's taught in American schools, but from what I've seen it cannot be in much depth.

I know that living cells can mutate and change function

This, for example, is to my knowledge wrong.

Mutations mainly arise in offspring when compared to the parent/parents, because DNA is replicated incorrectly, not in living cells. This is also the only time it would have any real effect on survival value/evolution in the long term, as mutation of the cells in a living organism would not be passed on to offspring.

Wow, I was under the impression that this was just another new article that anyone was free to read and discuss. My deepest apologies for overstepping my bounds :whistle: Who exactly bestowed upon you the authority to tell others here where they have business being? If this was supposed to be a hardcore discussion on physics, I would've stayed out. You misunderstood some of what I was trying to convey which I normally would've been happy to elaborate, but since you've taken the opportunity to come off insulting with your smartass-like responses, I see little reason to indulge you further. Since you're so fond of the word "ignorant", I would like to comment on how "ignorant" your parents were for not considering the benefits of birth control prior to your conception.

well, I'm not saying you are not free to comment here, I'm just suggesting that when discussing things related to maths and physics, like the chance of spontaneously formed cars and spontaneously formed lifeforms, I think we should not just say "based on common sense", since it's a known fact that common sense matters little in maths and physics researching into the origin of life and the universe. Maybe I have worded it badly in my own rather casual comments. And I didn't mean to insult you for saying "ignorant on the age of the unverse", I myself is ignorant on many things too, I can't understand many maths and physics papers myself :p And I'd like to listen to what you are trying to convey and elaborate on ;)

Hey sorry, but his responses come off "holier than thou" which is a bit irritating. Like I said, I was under the impression that this was a simple read/comment kinda story, nothing more. And at no point did I ever make an attempt to guess the age of the universe! :angry:

like I said, I was commenting on the "Your're basically saying that everything we've invented over the course of our existence would've been made anyway due to the forces of the universe." part, which I may be reading into it too literally, that comes like a statement of what can happen with the age of our universe to me. My first language is not Engllish, so sorry if I interpreted it too literally. And I never meant to sound "holier than thou", I just reiterate some things I read from those "science popularization" books, like I said, I'm grateful to those scientists who explain things that I normally wouldn't be able to understand ;) And at times certain things from your posts like "No way a car is going to form radomly no matter how many gazillion years and particles you have in the mix" sounds a bit "holier than thou" to me too, but then I guess it's just easy to misinterpret the intention of others posts in an online forum :p

My apologies to wellofsouls for the personal attack. Was having a bad day....

no hard feelings, we both worded things badly at times, and I guess it happens a lot in online forums ;)

I was attempting to equate the obvious intelligent design behind an automobile to things that exist in the universe, like how stars work or pehaps more related, the human body. Yes, I know that living cells can mutate and change function unlike a non-living mechanical device but its my personal belief that humans came about from some form of deliberate direction (like a car). Obviously, my take on this is unpopular so I'll just shut up about it.

My apologies to wellofsouls for the personal attack. Was having a bad day....

The car analogy is a huge failure, because for one you can go to an automobile plant and actually see the cars being built, so your evidence on whom created said car is right there in front of you, no one has yet been able to provide evidence that the universe's creation was God's work.

Allah (GOD) is creator of this universe. This verse simply explain. So just reflect.

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding

Also This

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water (rain) which Allaah sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering of winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth, are indeed Ayaat (proofs, evidences, signs, etc.) for people of understanding.

Allah (GOD) is creator of this universe. This verse simply explain. So just reflect.

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding

Also This

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water (rain) which Allaah sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering of winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth, are indeed Ayaat (proofs, evidences, signs, etc.) for people of understanding.

Those are just words, they don't suffice as credible evidence. Again, show me a photo of god and/or him in the act of creating said universe and i'll convert...

The car analogy is a huge failure, because for one you can go to an automobile plant and actually see the cars being built, so your evidence on whom created said car is right there in front of you, no one has yet been able to provide evidence that the universe's creation was God's work.

So who has given them material to build car. Actually you just take a point. Just reach threshold of any thing and you will reach GOD. My teacher once said a thing which is created by some one does not know its creator. Do computers know their creators. (We are our fake creators but infact there creator is also GOD.)

Those are just words, they don't suffice as credible evidence. Again, show me a photo of god and/or him in the act of creating said universe and i'll convert...

Assume we are creator of computer, so computer really ever know their "Creator" . Plus if GOD is someone which can be seen directly than that is simply contradiction of nature. :shifty:

So who has given them material to build car. Actually you just take a point. Just reach threshold of any thing and you will reach GOD. My teacher once said a thing which is created by some one does not know its creator. Do computers know their creators. (We are our fake creators but infact there creator is also GOD.)

You never attended school did you?

Assume we are creator of computer, so computer really ever know their "Creator" . Plus if GOD is someone which can be seen directly than that is simply contradiction of nature. :shifty:

Uh... yea, sure pal

What do you mean by "You ever attented school?'

He never said "ever" The words he used: "You never attended school did you?"

It's what you call a rhetorical question! A form of sarcasm!

So who has given them material to build car. Actually you just take a point. Just reach threshold of any thing and you will reach GOD. My teacher once said a thing which is created by some one does not know its creator. Do computers know their creators. (We are our fake creators but infact there creator is also GOD.)

Assume we are creator of computer, so computer really ever know their "Creator" . Plus if GOD is someone which can be seen directly than that is simply contradiction of nature. :shifty:

But there is evidence that computers were created by man, as you would expect. There is, however, no evidence we were created by a god, as you would also expect to see in nature if it were true.

A universe created by an omnipotent being should be quite different to one in which things arose through the inevitable application of natural laws. For example, it shouldn't be as wasteful. There is a vast amount of space in the universe which has gone unused, and we occupy only the smallest fraction of it. Not very efficient if it was made for us.

We, as a species, should also lack vestigial organs if we had merely been created. Instead we seem to have quite a few, and our bodies are also shockingly inefficient for something designed by an omniscient/omnipotent creator. Quite simply, we look like we were created via the process of evolution, and since transitional fossils support this, it renders your hypothesis of a creator really quite unnecessary.

And that's all before we even get onto the complexity of a proposed god, and start applying Occam's razor to show it as a far less favourable concept.

Why he would ever want to do that. I hate sarcasm. :blush:

Probably because you assumed we would take the words of a holy book "on faith". ;) Atheists tend to be ill equipped to follow circular logic so easily.

Atlast you have to believe that there is no GOD but Allah. If you really want to know than just PM me.

Sorry but that completely skipped my points.

All the flaws for the hypothesis of a creator apply to Allah as well as any other. He is just as unlikely to exist, based on all available evidence, as Thor, Zeus or any other deity.

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water (rain) which Paulz0r sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering of winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth, are indeed Ayaat (proofs, evidences, signs, etc.) for people of understanding.

^^

I have paraphrased the above and replaced 'Allah' with 'Paulz0r'. That verse simply explains everything.

I created the universe, bitches.

Allah (GOD) is creator of this universe. This verse simply explain. So just reflect.

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding

Also This

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water (rain) which Allaah sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering of winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth, are indeed Ayaat (proofs, evidences, signs, etc.) for people of understanding.

The funny thing is christianity and islam are based on pagan religions. Specifically, Horus and Isis. So much for originality lol.

No one created physics, it is just a term we use.

Um, no. The "Big Bang" is what created physics as we know it. According to scientists anyway. I don't believe in any of these theories. I think it's asinine to believe that any one theory (or any of them for that matter) can be an accepted rule. They are all guesses. Period. Anyway, if there was a big bang, according to them, it is what made the universe's rules work as they do.

Assume we are creator of computer, so computer really ever know their "Creator" . Plus if GOD is someone which can be seen directly than that is simply contradiction of nature. :shifty:

Computers are not sentient beings, so no computers wouldnt know us at their creator. Also show me the rule book that says "seeing god directly would be a contradiction of nature". There is nothing to even suggest that god (if real) cant be seen.

  • 4 weeks later...

Um, no. The "Big Bang" is what created physics as we know it. According to scientists anyway. I don't believe in any of these theories. I think it's asinine to believe that any one theory (or any of them for that matter) can be an accepted rule. They are all guesses. Period. Anyway, if there was a big bang, according to them, it is what made the universe's rules work as they do.

A theory is not a guess. It is supported by evidence and observation.

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!