Hawking: God did not create Universe

[Jokerman]

Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe

Does the universe need a creator?

According to Britain's most eminent scientist Stephen Hawking on Wednesday, the answer is a resounding "no."

Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the universe, the acclaimed physicist has concluded in his new book "The Grand Design" -- parts of which were excerpted to the media Wednesday evening.

Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking argues.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," Hawking writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,” he writes.

Hawking writes that the first blow was the confirmed observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. “That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of earth-sun distance and solar mass -- far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings,” he writes.

And not only are other planets likely to exist, but whole other universes, known collectively as the multiverse, are too, says Hawking. If God’s intention was to create mankind, then these many untouchable worlds would surely be redundant, he suggests.

 

[masta247]

Nothing new here. Also, the thread title is misleading. Hawking said that "God did not HAVE to create the universe" - which means that creation of the universe can also be explained by the laws of physics.

 

[Jokerman]

which means that creation of the universe can also be explained by the laws of physics.

Unlike the creation of it by God, which can't "explain" it.

And where does he say those exact words, since you quoted him? "God did not have to create the universe." In this new book? What's new is this new book where he finally shows his atheism in no uncertain terms. Since Hawking is the authority figure of popular cosmology and physics, it's a big blow, politically, for believers. That's why it's a news story all over.

 

[Pittsey]

Considering his condition I'd expect him to be an atheist. And the fact he is an intelligent Scientist.

 

[masta247]

^I agree that Hawking became more of an agnostic than he was in the past but he's not an atheist.

@Jokerman
The sentence that I quoted was what I think that he meant. That you can explain creation of the universe by physics alone and you don't need to use God out there.

If you want me to quote Hawking then:
"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."

And a quote from that very latest book:

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

This latest book is all around the news because that one quote that you posted can be easily overinterpreted by atheists.

Creation of the universe by God can be explained (not scientifically of course) but it isn't reasonable to atheists. Hawking himself once wrote on his website that if God exists then he created the laws of science as rules and doesn't interfere with them.

He even once said that he himself was keen to believe in God but not a personal God. For example laws of physics would be that God.
It's amazing that they exist and are so good to us.

I also doubt the existence of a "personal God" per se and I can relate to that. Yet I'm not an Atheist.

Also this is interesting:
Does God Play Dice?

 

[Euphanasia]

Just another step towards realizing that there is probably no God. Humankind will eventually realize this collectively, unless religion kills us all beforehand.

 

[Shadows]

Atheist and Theist, both take positions that take a lot on faith to draw a conclusion that at this time, is unprovable.

 

[Illuminattile]

Atheist and Theist, both take positions that take a lot on faith to draw a conclusion that at this time, is unprovable.

Atheism is non-belief in god. That doesn't require any faith.

Trees and rocks and clouds are atheists, but they're not displaying any faith.

 

[masta247]

Atheism is non-belief in god. That doesn't require any faith.

Trees and rocks and clouds are atheists, but they're not displaying any faith.

No, they are Agnostic. Atheism is holding a definite belief that there is no God.

 

[Pittsey]

No. Trees and rocks and clouds display no believe in god or in atheism. They are impartial due to the fact they have no conscious thought.

 

[Sebastian]

Atheist and Theist, both take positions that take a lot on faith to draw a conclusion that at this time, is unprovable.

After all the countless discussion about God on this board, how can you come up with a statement like this?!!

 

[Jokerman]

Religious leaders hit back at Hawking - CNN.com

Religious leaders hit back at Hawking

London, England (CNN) -- Religious leaders in Britain on Friday hit back at claims by leading physicist Stephen Hawking that God had no role in the creation of the universe.

In his new book "The Grand Design," Britain's most famous scientist says that given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published in The Times of London.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he wrote.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going."

But the head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, told the Times that "physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing."

He added: "Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe. It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence."

Williams' comments were supported by leaders from across the religious spectrum in Britain. Writing in the Times, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said: "Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation ... The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being."

The Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, added: "I would totally endorse what the Chief Rabbi said so eloquently about the relationship between religion and science."

Ibrahim Mogra, an imam and committee chairman at the Muslim Council of Britain, was also quoted by the Times as saying: "If we look at the Universe and all that has been created, it indicates that somebody has been here to bring it into existence. That somebody is the almighty conqueror."

Hawking was also accused of "missing the point" by colleagues at the University of Cambridge in England.

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing," said Denis Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

"Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.

"Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," he added.

Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God.

"A creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."


The only comment I find of value in that is his colleague's: "The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation (to the faithful) for why there is something rather than nothing," said Denis Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. "Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge."

I agree. Hawking takes it for granted, as do I, that the God of the Bible is something made up. When he writes about God or is questioned about it, he's just talking about the concept of an All-Powerful Creator as an explanation for the existence of the Universe. He might be a little agnostic (uncertain) about it, but he's not talking about God as a possible religious belief. All he cares about is plugging the gaps.

 

[Bobby Sands]

After all the countless discussion about God on this board, how can you come up with a statement like this?!!

after the countless discussions about God on this board you are yet to post anything particularly relevant. all you do is shit on what someone else says to make yourself look intelligent.

bluffer.

 

[S O F I]

I'm not much into plugging gaps. Holes on the other hand..

 

[Sebastian]

after the countless discussions about God on this board you are yet to post anything particularly relevant. all you do is shit on what someone else says to make yourself look intelligent.

bluffer.

You are such an annoying tool.

90% of the time i ignore your comments towards me because they are so lame and wrong at the same time yet you have the nerve to always come back like a little kid and prove once again that you are the average dumbass neighbour.

Maybe you should really get out of your country. Get a job. Get a girlfriend. Do something with your miserable existence.

 

[Bobby Sands]

im not wrong. you do that alot. shit on what other people say so you look good.

its always resonses like "how can you believe that" or "your stupid if you think that". its annoying.

and my posts in the other thread were jokes btw. just to rise you

 

[Illuminattile]

No, they are Agnostic. Atheism is holding a definite belief that there is no God.

Agnosticism isn't a point on the spectrum between theism and atheism. Either you believe or you don't, there isn't anything in between. Agnosticism just means you accept that there can ultimately be no definitive proof either way. Having accepted that, you are still either a theist (i.e. you believe in god out of faith) or an atheist (i.e. you don't).

 

[Pittsey]

^^

If you're undecided are you both, or neither?

 

[Sebastian]

Neither.

 

[Synful*Luv]

In The God Delusion I think Dawkin does a phenomenal job at explaining what exactly many scientists mean when they refer to the term "god". As it seems to always lead to so much confusion after their use of the word. He goes through it right away in Chapter one. It's funny, because he references Hawking. And here we are.. right back at the same argument (not us in the thread, mind you, us as in the theists and non-theists) over what exactly does one mean when using the term "god."