Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Mordeci, Sep 2, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mordeci

    Mordeci Banned Member

    Breaking from his previous mind of god theory professor Steven Hawkins now claims that the big bang can be simply explained by gravity and that god has nothing to do with the equation. It dosen't sound like much but he was one of the biggest and most well know supporters of a god-centric big bang theory so his confession could have drastic conseqences for the debate. Personally I never beliveved God had anything to do with the big bang (or anything else for that matter) but it should start a good debate.
  2. 000000

    000000 Well-Known Member

    Well how any scientist can even believe that the universe was created by something that has not been proven to exist in any capacity is beyond me. Good on him.
  3. Mystic

    Mystic Well-Known Member

  4. Reki

    Reki Well-Known Member

    Good for him imo, just a couple more billion people to go.
  5. Kemra

    Kemra Well-Known Member

    Stephen Hawking = my hero, I admire him so much, his strength, his intelligence, his vision. This latest statement only ups that opinion a few notches.

    Though kinda doubtful about some of his comments on aliens wanting our resources.. think he was just having a joke about that? Surely he wasn't serious.
  6. Axiom

    Axiom Account Closed

  7. Hache

    Hache Well-Known Member

    The irony of people believing in his theory is hilarious imo.
  8. Kemra

    Kemra Well-Known Member

    Irony? Lost me there.. what different point of view do you have that makes it ironic for people to believe in a theory put forward by one of the greatest minds of our time? Someone right up there with Einstein.
  9. Mystic

    Mystic Well-Known Member

    Please do enighten us as to why its hilarious. Presumably you have a better theory?

    Do tell.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2010
  10. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    I am interested to hear more about this... gravity is part of space-time which would have had to have been created during the big bang right? Maybe someone with a background in this stuff could talk on this, but I don't see how gravity disproves God...
  11. Axiom

    Axiom Account Closed

    I dont think he is saying it disproves the concept of God. I think he is saying that the big bang could have been caused by gravity in some way. God is still in the equation for, just way beyond the concept of gravity. Like gravity works in a system with a series of other aspects, one could suggest god created all these aspects,(one being gravity) which inturn led to the Big Bang.
  12. Kemra

    Kemra Well-Known Member

    He's not saying gravity disproves god, just that the big bang could have happened without divine intervention. Christian religions are fond of saying science can't explain everything, Stephen Hawking is saying now that the big bang could have happened without any help other than the laws governing our universe, that there was no need for a creator to lend a helping hand.

    As for gravity being around before the big bang it makes sense that there would have had to have been laws governing the massive singularity that our universe evolved from, probably they came into existence at the same time as that matter and energy.

    And before anyone groans and says how silly it is primal matter and energy popping into existence in an infinite void from nothing just think, which explanation seems simpler? That we come from such a random occurence? Or that in that same void a supremely advanced being of infinite power and intelligence popped into existence from nothing armed with all the knowledge to create a complex universe in a medium where nothing like it had ever existed before.. which is akin to inventing a cd player without ever having heard of sound.

    Occams Razor, whichever explanation is the simplest is usually the correct one.
  13. Hache

    Hache Well-Known Member

    It's hypocritical in some circumstances because a lot of atheists go around bashing God and religion for believing in something with no facts or evidence only to then start believing in scientific theorys because some physicist from Oxford told them he thinks it could be this.

    It's just as blind as core religion.

    The big bang theory is a waste of time and money.
  14. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    Then I suppose you can propose an alternate theory with evidence which supports it no?
  15. Hache

    Hache Well-Known Member

    I'd rather just get on with my life than dwell on the make believe. I dont have the answer so i'm not going to try and pretend I have one or look for one.
  16. Axiom

    Axiom Account Closed

    I can get that. Though, you actually say it's a waste of time and money. Just wondering why you think that.
  17. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    Then come back when you know a little bit about physics and astronomy.
  18. Kemra

    Kemra Well-Known Member

    No offence but your a classic example of one of those people I mentioned saying 'science can't explain everything'. Noone is 'bashing' god, we're simply applauding a scientist who is not scared to go against popular opinion and offer more reasonable theories than 'God did it, end of story'.

    There is actually more evidence to support those theories to then there is to support god because they're based upon what we know of our universe and have discovered by way of physics and mathematics. These things we can observe and study, even the most outlandish sounding theories are being slowly tested and proven.

    What evidence have christians provided us with? A book, written by men, historically innacurate, full of lies. Come on, the world was created in 6 days between 4000 and 6000 years ago? All animals descended from a single pair after the flood.. proven wrong by genetic studies. The religion wasn't even around 2500 years ago according to the arcaeological records of the time yet according to you guys all the pagan religions came after it, not the other way around. God dosen't require faith, belief in that particular god requires massive amounts of ignorance of fact as evidenced by the church changing doctrine in light of new discoveries which discount its beliefs. The same church also now views the bible as 'stories intended to be metaphorical' after 2 thousand years of preaching it to be directly from the mouth of god via prophets and historically accurate to the point where men have been persecuted for going against it.

    I'm sorry people feel threatened by the truth, I really am. But you can live with the truth and still have faith, I do, I never said I was an atheist, I happen to believe very strongly in my own religion because of its teachings and morals. But I know at the end of the day thats all my religion is, a set of guidelines, not a licence to be ignorant and stop seeking answers.
  19. 1izombie

    1izombie Well-Known Member

    I fail to see how postulating a theory and holding it up to scrutiny is in any way being blind like religion. In fact science one day might prove this theory wrong (or right for that matter) and discard it as because evidence doesn't support it. In fact there are probably other competing theories out there that postulate different scenarios for the causes of the big bang. But I think the main point of agreement with Stephen Hawking is the statement that there is no need for a god. Ultimately tho, we may never know whether or not any theory about the big bag will be correct as there is stuff out there that might just be unknowable, which is why any theory about the big bang is just postulation at this moment. Here is where religion losses me as it does claim to know this answer and does claim to fill in the gaps of knowledge with nothing more than saying god did it. Oh and as well religion doesn't allow for any competing point of views that go contrary to doctrine and science welcomes contrary views in hopes that may progress knowledge.

    Oh and I like how you dismiss the theory as being a waste of time and money because I assume that your own competing theory (e.i. religion) provides you with a world view that is satisfying so no need to bother with it. Indeed why bother trying to understand anything when you already have the answer....that the kinda thinking that stifles creativity, advancement and knowledge and makes people ignorant of the truth...
  20. Mordeci

    Mordeci Banned Member

    For the sake of argument here is two articles that disagree with Hawikns on two seperate fronts The first is by Karl Giberson a Ph.D who attacks the science of his argument "Hawking's grand claims are indeed based on science -- sort of. Quantum mechanics is a real scientific theory, established beyond all doubt to be the way the world works. But quantum mechanics, like everything in fundamental physics, is deeply mathematical and not everything mathematical has a counter part in the real world. Not every solution to an equation corresponds to something that is actually happening." and also takes a shot at Physicists particularly the multi-verse enthusiasts as he calls them.

    The second article: is by Deepak Chopra who as you might imagine takes a much more spirtual approach to Hawkins claim in the end he concludes that "To expand our concept of God, it helps to look at the three main ideas that all religions are based on:

    A transcendent reality.

    The interconnectedness of all that exists.

    Embedded values of truth, love, compassion, and the other virtues that are experienced by human beings as handed down from a higher domain.

    If anything, today's most inventive speculative science supports all three premises including the idea that Platonic values are embedded in spacetime geometry at the Planck scale. It is no surprise that we don't need to invoke an external God, to explain creation, if God is already the reality from which the universe creates itself. The Grand Design is at its most intriguing when it denies God yet posits the existence of all the ingredients, either explicitly or by implication, that an almighty creator would draw upon to create itself." He throws in some science as well into his argument but for my taste it comes up short.

    Personally I like Hawkins theory, maybe their is a little biasis because I am an athesit and I want proof but the science makes sense to me, granted I am not an expert on the subject but what I have read and what I understand, this theory could very well explain most if not all of the beginning.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.