Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God


Recommended Posts

thommcg

Only God knows why God exists. Who am I to read into the mind of God? But, if God did not exist there's no way the Universe would exist. So God must exist.

No, if gravity and other natural forces didn't exist there's no way the universe would exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pezzonovante

What's the reason behind God's existence? Or does he just exist without reason?

As I said previously, only God knows why He exists. There's no point in me trying to guess why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
brentaal

As I said previously, only God knows why He exists. There's no point in me trying to guess why.

Which means your argument has absolutely no credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pezzonovante

Yeah, I'm sure of it know. You really are mentally incapable of thinking for yourself. What is it, tell me, that I blindly believe without any logic? That the universe exists? So...when I look up into the night sky, and I see stars, it's all a lie? Is that what you're telling me?

You blindly believe that the Universe has always just existed for no reason. You can't give a reason why it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doli

So he changed his mind:

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary".

Link to post
Share on other sites
thommcg

Look, it's not because of logic that I believe in God...

I find it much more logical to believe that a superior being, i.e, God...

Your believe in God is both illogical and logical? All within 15 minutes? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Frank B.

You blindly believe that the Universe has always just existed for no reason. You can't give a reason why it does.

You blindly believe that a god just exists for no reason. You can't give a reason why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pezzonovante

Which means your argument has absolutely no credibility.

According to you of course. To me there's no credibillity to your argument that the Universe has always just existed for no reason.

You blindly believe that a god just exists for no reason. You can't give a reason why.

Of course I do, as I have mentioned multiple times already. Thing is both the believers, like me, and non-believers, like you, blindly believe at a certain point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
brentaal

According to you of course.

No, not according to me but according to the standards that you set up yourself.

You said the scientific side makes no sense because then "everything exists without a reason".

You couldn't provide any reason for the existence of your god. That's doublethink.

To me there's no credibillity to your argument that the Universe has always just existed for no reason.

When did I state that as my argument? Link pls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul Paliath
You blindly believe that the Universe has always just existed for no reason. You can't give a reason why it does.

Why does there have to be a reason? Is there a reason for God's existence?

First and foremost, you seem to insinuate that atheists are blindly believing. However, you're accusing us of doing the same thing that you are doing -- blindly believing without questioning, without proof -- but when you do it, it apparently is fine because you're blindly believing in the existence of a God. Next, we have actual evidence that back theories. Yes, admittedly, theories could be wrong. The universe is epically massive, and there's really so little that we currently know of it.

Nevertheless, the universe is expanding. We have evidence backing the big bang theory because of observations of gravity. The universe just exists. And again, it's so massive, that we don't know if there's more universes, if, over a grand length of time that humans cannot even fathom, universes simply come and go because they just are. What such evidence exists of your God?

And again, why can't things merely exist? I'd like to mention that we can only displace, or transform matter. We cannot create or destroy it. Thus, everything just is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
vincent

I find it much more logical to believe that a superior being, i.e, God, makes the universe exist, rather than believing (yes, you are also blindly believing) that everything just exists without any reason.

Yes because you've dabbled in theoretical physics

So he changed his mind:

"The more the universe seems comprehensible. The more it seems pointless"

Steven Weinberg

Link to post
Share on other sites
treemonster

Something to think about. ?

Scenario #1

You claim to be holding an apple. You say that its in your hand. However, I can't see it. No one else can see it. We can't touch it, we can't feel it, we obviously can't hear it, and by extension of those, we cannot taste it. How will you prove to me (by the same standards of science where evidence dictates what is real and what is not) that you are holding an Apple? Saying that I must have "faith" that you really are holding an apple is avoiding the question. Telling me that x number of people believe that you are holding an apple makes no difference to me, because that just proves to me that other people believe the apple exists, it does not prove to me that the apple actually exists. You cannot show me a book that says teh apple exists, because that just tells me that a book exists which claims that you are holding the apple. You cannot use the excuse/question of "how else can I be holding an apple if the apple does nto exists" because that is still avoiding the question: how can you prove to me that I am holding an apple?

Scenario #2

I claim to be holding an Apple. I say that its in my hand. if I open my hand, you can see it. You can touch it. You can feel it. if I allowed you to, you can taste it. You do not need faith to assume that I am holding the apple, you understand that the apple exists and is currently residing in my hand because all five of your senses have confirmed it. The same five sense that you've been using all your life to confirm or debunk situations where the existence of something is questioned. You do not need the secondary source of a book to tell you that the apple is in my hand. You also don't need to care about how many other people think or believe I am holding the apple, because your observations can be reproduced. All hygiene aside, you too can see, touch, an taste the apple as well.

Why not keep this in mind before jumping down the throats of atheists demanding the same proof which you cannot give?

yeah but the god concept is nothing like an apple. good by definition is so vast and mysterious and utterly alien to us that the god concept is more along the lines of the subatomic particle rather than a very tangible and seeable object like an apple.

i mean how do you prove to a layman that a sub atomic particle really real, using this line of reasoning. you can't see a sub atomic particle, you can't touch just a single one can you? and if you do you can't feel it, yet many people will tell you it exists based on some mystical science thing that says a lot of wacky things!

you can't prove or disprove a subatomic particle exists with only your five senses. you need special instruments to know they are there.

at one point everyone knew matter was individeable. at one point everyone knew you couldn't split an atom. at one point everyone knew the earth was flat and at teh center of the universe.

science really doesn't say for certain one way or the other about the existence of god. any belief one way or the other is pure speculation based on faith or a rejection thereof. there is no science involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Neoauld

I'd take his word over The Word.

There's no way I'm going to believe there's an invisible man, sitting in a cloud kingdom, watching over everything and creating all life by simply snapping his fingers. It's nothing but superstitious nonsense to sing our kids to sleep.

exactly

besides, hawking while sleeping is smarter than the smartest religious nut on his best day

Link to post
Share on other sites
LiquidSolstice

<<snipped>>

yeah but the god concept is nothing like an apple. good by definition is so vast and mysterious and utterly alien to us that the god concept is more along the lines of the subatomic particle rather than a very tangible and seeable object like an apple.

i mean how do you prove to a layman that a sub atomic particle really real, using this line of reasoning. you can't see a sub atomic particle, you can't touch just a single one can you? and if you do you can't feel it, yet many people will tell you it exists based on some mystical science thing that says a lot of wacky things!

you can't prove or disprove a subatomic particle exists with only your five senses. you need special instruments to know they are there.

at one point everyone knew matter was individeable. at one point everyone knew you couldn't split an atom. at one point everyone knew the earth was flat and at teh center of the universe.

science really doesn't say for certain one way or the other about the existence of god. any belief one way or the other is pure speculation based on faith or a rejection thereof. there is no science involved.

Why does being "a laymen" excuse someone from properly understanding something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lamp0

Of course I do, as I have mentioned multiple times already. Thing is both the believers, like me, and non-believers, like you, blindly believe at a certain point.

Wouldn't you not consider those types of belief to be different? A religious person has faith; he has a unfounded conviction in his belief that the non-religious person wouldn't require.

Some one who believes in the big bang should believe so because the surrounding observations and body knowledge support such a hypothesis, and help build a theory to further understand how and why such a event would occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LiquidSolstice

According to you of course. To me there's no credibillity to your argument that the Universe has always just existed for no reason.

Of course I do, as I have mentioned multiple times already. Thing is both the believers, like me, and non-believers, like you, blindly believe at a certain point.

No, you're taking my words way out of context. I never said that I believe teh universe just is and doesn't have a start. What I DID say is that I refuse to believe that just because science hasn't found teh answer to that question yet, it DOESN'T suddenly mean that "god" is the answer behind, which is what you weakly believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rodrigo

The Same Hawkins moron that claims the Earth will be destroyed by aliens?????

He lost whatever credibility he might have had with retarded comments like that

Hahaha... lay off the crack.

Only God knows why God exists. Who am I to read into the mind of God? But, if God did not exist there's no way the Universe would exist. So God must exist.

There's a reason as to why I most of the time avoid discussing scientific stuff with religious creeps like you. So people like you usually bring the "you can't really explain there's no god" but when it's your turn to explain why a god exists the only thing you can say is that "you are a believer". Well, let me tell you that it is bull**** and it's a lame way to avoid the discussion. Senseless thinking like believing in some imaginary dumbass allowing things running rampant in the world is definitely not more logic than science (as far as it has gone today).

So he changed his mind:

Most of the time (if not always) people get smarter over the years. He obviously got to the conclussion that no gods exist. And why shouldn't we trust one of the smartest person alive on the planet? After all most if not all of his sayins are scientifically based and not just taken from some book from 1,700 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
treemonster

If you're not goign to add anything of value to this thread, or anything to do with the topic, stop baiting and trolling other people.

Why does being "a laymen" excuse someone from properly understanding something?

most people aren't trained scientists who get paid to pour over and test data. even scientists themselves are laymen outside of their particular field, unless they follow another field as a hobby in their free time, and even then it's still pretty narrow.

i mean hawking is probably the smartest living man alive, but he does say some silly things. as i pointed out in my first post in this thread about the aliens. which is not to say it doesn't have merit.

just like arguing over the existence of aliens(either way we don't know and there is no real proof either way no matter how many ufo sighting with video we have), the god exists or doesn't exist for certain thing is silly, both from scientific and logical and mere natural senses observational points of view.

now similar to the aliens argument, it would be kind silly or at least arrogant to believe we are the only intelligent life in this vast universe in which we inhabit. it certain ly is possible. just as silly is to dismiss the possibility that there is some kind of being that fits the religous idea of god(in any of it's forms, the theologers are often contrdictory in their guesses of what god is), either of the creator of the whole of creation, including this and every other universe, or as some kind of special caretaker of certain people who demands to be worshipped in special buildings and all that jazz.

now imho the whole thing is absurd really, and not really in the interest of scientists to debate seriously, except when philosphizing idly over a beer among their colleagues.

imho none of the scieentific evidence can really say either way. a super string theory as i understand it doesn't negate the possibility of god at all, nor does the absence thereof(such as wehn hawking wrote his first book) mean there had to be some kind of god being creating the universe.

until science is at the level of being able to detect god, which as far asi know it's very far away from and generally doesn't concern itself with, then it's kind of a moot point. just like debating on the wether or not matter was immutable or not was a moot point before we could properly theorize and detect individual atoms and later split them in nuclear reactions.

even speculating if science will ever be able to answer all the questions of the universe that we have yet to imagine is a matter of faith, because due the nature of time and our experience thereoff, we cannot see into the future and say for certain right now that we wiull be able to answer these questions in the next 100 years or 500 years or 10000 years, or if we as a race will still be around to ask them.

Some one who believes in the big bang should believe so because the surrounding observations and body knowledge support such a hypothesis, and help build a theory to further understand how and why such a event would occur.

yes i agree.

most people won't spend the time and as such have faith that the scientists are right and are doing their best to answer such questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LiquidSolstice

most people aren't trained scientists who get paid to pour over and test data. even scientists themselves are laymen outside of their particular field, unless they follow another field as a hobby in their free time, and even then it's still pretty narrow.

i mean hawking is probably the smartest living man alive, but he does say some silly things. as i pointed out in my first post in this thread about the aliens. which is not to say it doesn't have merit.

just like arguing over the existence of aliens(either way we don't know and there is no real proof either way no matter how many ufo sighting with video we have), the god exists or doesn't exist for certain thing is silly, both from scientific and logical and mere natural senses observational points of view.

now similar to the aliens argument, it would be kind silly or at least arrogant to believe we are the only intelligent life in this vast universe in which we inhabit. it certain ly is possible. just as silly is to dismiss the possibility that there is some kind of being that fits the religous idea of god(in any of it's forms, the theologers are often contrdictory in their guesses of what god is), either of the creator of the whole of creation, including this and every other universe, or as some kind of special caretaker of certain people who demands to be worshipped in special buildings and all that jazz.

now imho the whole thing is absurd really, and not really in the interest of scientists to debate seriously, except when philosphizing idly over a beer among their colleagues.

imho none of the scieentific evidence can really say either way. a super string theory as i understand it doesn't negate the possibility of god at all, nor does the absence thereof(such as wehn hawking wrote his first book) mean there had to be some kind of god being creating the universe.

until science is at the level of being able to detect god, which as far asi know it's very far away from and generally doesn't concern itself with, then it's kind of a moot point. just like debating on the wether or not matter was immutable or not was a moot point before we could properly theorize and detect individual atoms and later split them in nuclear reactions.

even speculating if science will ever be able to answer all the questions of the universe that we have yet to imagine is a matter of faith, because due the nature of time and our experience thereoff, we cannot see into the future and say for certain right now that we wiull be able to answer these questions in the next 100 years or 500 years or 10000 years, or if we as a race will still be around to ask them.

Ah, I now understand where you're coming. I first assumed that you meant that it was acceptable due to the fact not all epople are scientists, but correct me if I'm wrong, what you're really saying is ?that it's easier for the general population to take the religious route due to a lack of interest/time/capability to understand the science behind things?

Which, if that's what you're saying, I totally agree with. it's a sad fact, but people find comfort in what they feel they can understand, thus religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

I really need to learn more about science before I make any claims trying to refute this, so I take back my previous post. I'd also like to believe this is true and I'd like to believe there is no 'God' - it would make anticipation of what happens after death easier. What I don't understand is where the first atom came from? How can something just exist? I don't understand this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeChipshop

Breaking news! Hawkins states obvious!

Link to post
Share on other sites
carson2255

"Can god microwave a burrito so hot that not even he can eat it?" - Homer Simpson

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

The Same Hawkins moron that claims the Earth will be destroyed by aliens?????

He lost whatever credibility he might have had with retarded comments like that

With how vast our universe is, you deem 'stupid' the idea that there are more advanced beings who could travel to Earth and destroy it? :/

Link to post
Share on other sites
helios01

Call me a reductionist, but a scientist saying something that science has been banging about -- no pun intended -- for decades/centuries? University of bleeding obvious malarkey? :laugh:

And still no proof. This new book 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.