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

    • You literally have to do it on a desktop, which is incredibly annoying in our mobile-first world. What???
    • What part of "you can’t really depend on service providers to maintain features forever" is not clear enough?
    • Nope. That lack of surround sound capability (analog) won't fly with me. Sure, I use headphones most of the time, but still.
    • Creative Sound Blaster AE-X PCIe review: your headphones will love it by Steven Parker If you have been reading Neowin for any length of time, you may remember that I reviewed the Sound Blaster Audigy FX Pro back in April. I found it to be an excellent budget sound card, even though it lacked support for formats such as DTS over the included SPDIF port. Anyway, Creative reached out to me again asking if I was interested in reviewing the Sound Blaster AE-X. It is a card mainly targeted at headphone wearers, which I'll get into a bit later. Before we get underway, here is a disclaimer: Creative Labs provided a free sample without any review pre-approval. Here are the full specs of it: Creative Sound Blaster AE-X Dimensions: 179 x 126 x 18 mm Weight: 263g / 9.28 oz Platform: PCI-e DAC: ESS ES9039Q2M Connectivity Options Side: Rear: 1 x HD Audio Front Panel Connector, 1 x ⅛“ Headphone port, 1 x RCA Line-out (Left) port, 1 x RCA Line-out (Right) port, 1 x Coaxial SPDIF-out port, 1 x ⅛“ Mic in/Line-in port, 1 x TOSLINK SPDIF-in port Surround: No DNR / SNR: THD+N: 0.0001% Dynamic Range 130 dB Recording Resolution: PCM up to 32-bit / 192kHz (Stereo) Direct Mode: Line Out (Stereo): PCM up to 32-bit  384 kHz Coaxial SPDIF Out: PCM up to 24-bit 192.0 kHz Headphone Amp: PCM up to 32-bit / 384kHz (Stereo) Native DSD: DSD64, DSD128, DSD256 Output Impedance: 1Ω, Supported Headphone Impedance: 8–600Ω, IEM: 0.5Vrms, Low: 1.5Vrms, Mid: 3Vrms, High: 6Vrms, Maximum output power: 350mW @ 32Ω (High), Maximum output voltage: 6Vrms (High) Front Panel Headphone Amp: PCM up to 32-bit / 192kHz (Stereo) Native DSD: DSD64, DSD128 Output Impedance: 10Ω, Supported Headphone Impedance: 32–300Ω, Maximum output power: 40mW @ 32Ω, Maximum output voltage: 1.9Vrms ASIO: ASIO 2.3 Total Harmonic Distortion: THD+N: 0.0006% Dynamic Range: 114 dB Scout Mode: Yes EMI shielding: No (but it passed all the FCC emission tests) Operating temperature: 0–45°C Input Power: 12V⎓0.5A Warranty: 1 Year (MSRP) Price: $179.99 / £169.99 The Sound Blaster AE-X was announced at the end of May, and it becomes clear that it is mainly for headphone wearers. I should also note that the card does not support DDL/DTS encoding technology, but it is said to support decoding through the coaxial SPDIF port. I was able to test this working with the classic Windows Sound properties, but I could not get a DTS (decode) signal through my Logitech Z906, it defaulted to 3D sound whenever I played DTS content through Plex or Emby. In addition, this card only supports two channels (stereo) over the speakers. The surround support is limited to the Headphone Amp, so before I get underway, what we have here is a card mostly intended for headphone use, especially with its SPDIF In (Toslink) port where you could connect another device like a console. So what about the highlights of this card? The AE-X is powered by the ESS SABRE DAC (ES9039Q2M), which is capable of a 130 dB dynamic range. In addition, it supports 32-bit/384 kHz playback for deeper detail and clarity. The headphone amplifier delivers up to 350 mW @ 32Ω, which admittedly far surpasses standard onboard audio, offering support for studio-grade headphones. DSD256 and ASIO 2.3 are also supported. What doesn't it have? No support for What-U-Hear, Super X-Fi, or the SmartComms Kit No EMI shielding, but it passed all the FCC emission tests (from the FAQ) I also want to make it clear that I am no audiophile. For me, it's purely subjective and it should just "work" out of the box. First impressions As I said in the introduction, I was a bit sad to see that the AE-X only supports stereo output, meaning it would not be on par with my ALC1220 over my speakers, as I mentioned it seems like this card is marketed toward headphone users. Since I am not an avid gamer that would rule me out as a potential customer, but I can still test its capabilities! The card arrived in a nice-looking box, as shown above. It's quite a bit larger than the Audify FX Pro that I reviewed back in April, and at first I thought the covering meant that it was EMI shielded, but it isn't as mentioned above in the highlights section. What's in the box: 1 x Sound Blaster AE-X PCIe card 1 x 3.5 mm CTIA TRRS to Dual TRS Headset Splitter Cable 1 x Quick Start Guide Aside from the Quick Start Guide, which someone at my age (I guess) needs a magnifying glass to read thanks to the tiny fonts, Creative Labs also has the manual online, which first requires you to prove that you're human in order to access it (so I can't direct link it). Anyway, the box is mostly made up of cardboard, and the only plastic in it is the anti-static bag for the card itself. Design Top Bottom The card itself looks pretty cool and actually wouldn't look out of place in an all-white build. There's only one connector, and for some reason it is awkwardly placed on the side (front-facing) that is for the front panel audio connector, which will let you use the headphones through the front PC audio jack. Since the front panel Headphone Amp has fewer capabilities than the rear headphone port, I decided not to use it. Rear of card PCI-e interface The rear of the card is completely open and is normally where you would find the front panel connector. The PCIe interface side is completely covered, which initially made me think it was EMI shielded. I/O panel Side (front-facing) with Front panel connector On the outer rear bracket side we have the TOSLINK SPDIF in, Coaxial SPDIF out, RCA line out (Right), RCA line out (Left), Headphone out, and Mic/Line in ports. On the front facing portion of the card itself is the F-panel connector. Usage Test System Our test system consists of the following: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D Gigabyte X870E AORUS MASTER (BIOS F12) Corsair RM1000x (2024) Thermal Grizzly Kyronaut (33x33x0,2mm) 2x 32GB Kingston Fury Beast RGB DDR5 6000MT/s CL36-38-38-80 T-Force Z540 2TB (PCIe Gen5) NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Founders Edition (NVIDIA) Creative Sound Blaster AE-X Windows 11 25H2 Pro I installed the card into the Gigabyte X870E AORUS MASTER which includes the RealTek ALC1220 onboard audio. For our subjective listening tests, I used the Coaxial SPDIF port to my Logitech Z906 speakers. For headphone tests I used the OneOdio Studio Max 2 Wireless DJ Headphones that I reviewed last month. After installing the audio driver, I installed Creative Nexus, which is a relatively new app designed for the latest Sound Blaster cards. Then I discovered the AE-X needed both a driver update from 1.00.15.0001 to 1.01.09.000 and a firmware update from 1.00.06.0000 to 1.00.06.0002, then I was set to go. It should be noted that the card did not work without the driver (not Plug and Play). As you can see above, you can manage the firmware, driver, and inputs via Advanced Settings on the Device tab. By default Nexus enabled "Direct Mode". Upon clicking on Acoustic Engine, the Equalizer can be enabled and set to four different presets, which are: Gaming Music Movies Footsteps Enhancer There's also a dedicated Scout Mode for gamers. I mainly used Tidal and Spotify in the past week to listen to some of my Liked Songs (which now total over 700) in Shuffle mode; there were no pops or interference that I could hear. I also found a 5.1 Surround Music playlist on Tidal that sounded really great over Studio Max 2 headphones. When I reviewed the Audigy FX Pro, I went out and purchased a Logitech Z906 set second-hand for €100 specifically to use with the card, but in this instance all I could get on the AE-X was the 3D output of surround sound through Coaxial SPDIF and although it still sounded great, it isn't quite as good as DTS Interactive via my onboard Realtek ALC1220. Conclusion So what have I learned? The AE-X lacks multi-channel support for 5.1/7.1 setups and drops support for modern surround technologies like Dolby or DTS, functioning strictly as a stereo output device. So to really benefit, you will need Studio-grade headphones to "hear" the benefits of this card. With that being said, I can imagine it will appeal to gamers who are switching between console and PC. By utilizing the SPDIF in port, you could just plug your headphones into the AE-X (front or rear port) and then switch between PC and Console without having to move the headphones to a different port. As I said in the Sound Blaster Audigy review, the EQ in the Creative Nexus app offers safe presets, which allows a user to further tweak the lows, mids, and highs for a personal listening experience. Of course it all depends on the headphones you hook up to it. Speaking of headphones, I kind of wish I had higher-quality Studio-grade headphones to really test this card with; I'm not usually wearing headphones in my day to day duties. The only time I will wear them is if I want to listen to music very late at night and I don't want to disturb my neighbors, so my rating (verdict) is based on this fact. Someone with a PC/Console setup and wears headphone religiously to game, and consume media will benefit much more than I from the high-quality Headphone Amps that are included in the AE-X. Once again, I do feel like Creative could have gone the extra mile to support the S/PDIF port a bit more. Why include it if you're not supporting the main popular digital formats? It seems like the decision was more of a legacy-based one, offering uncompressed 2-channel PCM audio, for users with high-fidelity audio systems and external DACs. Maybe I will be lucky enough to review a card that truly includes all these features in the future. I am sure readers with far more knowledge on audio systems than me will correct me in the comments below. I'll just say I am happy to learn what I don't know! Where to buy The Sound Blaster AE-X is available to purchase now in preorder for $179.99 on the U.S. Creative website, or for £169.99 on the Creative UK website and will start shipping to customers from June 25.
    • $80 or 90%, anything else would be financial suicide one way or another.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      165
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      88
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      73
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!