Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

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


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking



i agree. i don't believe a supernatural ghost created the universe (or anything at all, for that matter)

nature created the universe.

what do you think..?

I believe what Hawking was actually saying was that a God isn't necessary.

Also, "spontaneous creation" is not something out of nothing. Theories regarding chaotic inflation, false vacuums, etc, imply a pre-existing, perhaps eternal context (eg, the "bulk" or superspace).

Hawking should know better.

There could have been pre-Big Bang natual influences that caused it and it could have had some type of intellegence though not necessary a god.

The article is a brief clip of Hawking's words. One would hope that anyone prepared to criticize him would first read the upcoming book (Mind ).

Also, this is mostly just the media pandering for a story. Hawking has never been a theist in the colloquial sense of the word, his "God" being much more akin to Einstein's (i.e. the beauty and wonder of the universe). Due to his stature, Hawking has addressed this topic many, many times already. An again-out-of-context quote about knowing God's mind (a metaphor, likely) doesn't change that.

In all, a non-story imo. The only affect of this coverage will be increased book sales, which will be a good thing in the long run, even if the God debate takes center stage over the much more interesting scientific findings.

Well, what else is he gonna say?

Hypothetically, if Hawking is a closet-believer and it was ever made known, it would seriously hurt his image, and physics students would be afraid to reference him in their papers. He would lose all kinds of respect (and friends, probably) within the scientific community.

I believe that an intelligence can exist outside a biological body.

So I believe in higher powers...just not what the major religions preach.

What created the Big Bang?

What was before it.

Originally posted by Digi
The article is a brief clip of Hawking's words. One would hope that anyone prepared to criticize him would first read the upcoming book (Mind ).Actually, I'm waiting for the Discovery channel to do the watered-down version.
Originally posted by the ninjak
What created the Big Bang?

What was before it.
At this point in our understanding, there are a number of theories which suggest empirically determinable, pre-existing contexts. In fact, it is hoped that the LHC will give us our first (albeit indirect) glimpse of dimensions outside the familiar ones.

Originally posted by the ninjak
I believe that an intelligence can exist outside a biological body.

So I believe in higher powers...just not what the major religions preach.

What created the Big Bang?

What was before it. I love the notion that there had to be something before it... Or that something actually had to cause it.

The truth is we don't know, so palming it off on a supernatural being is as silly as any other theory. Hawking is simply saying that physics can provide the answers as to how it can happen spontaneously. (Without a cause needed)

In other news, the Pope says God did create the universe.

I bet he said that he created it instead of God.Anyway I was joking so everyone knows.

Simple math proves that there is a power that impossibly never had an origin.

0+0=0

If I remember correctly it has been stated that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy's existence is a mathmatical impossibilty so we are bearing witness to a miraculous defiance of the non-existence that the simplest math problem supports.

Math supports an origin that is supernatural

non-existence+ non-existence= non-existence

0+0=1
Non-existence + Non-existence= massive amounts of energy

Why would intelligent people convince themselves that they can thank the emotionless emptiness of space for accidentally making them?

I'm agnostic so neither. The only way we will know which one is when were dead and not a single second before.

Originally posted by Kinasin
The only way we will know which one is when were dead... Actually, if atheism is right, we won't know then, either.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, what else is he gonna say?

Hypothetically, if Hawking is a closet-believer and it was ever made known, it would seriously hurt his image, and physics students would be afraid to reference him in their papers. He would lose all kinds of respect (and friends, probably) within the scientific community.

thats not necessarily true

the co-discoverer of DNA is a devout catholic

it only seems strange to other scientists because the number of people who are religious in the scientific community is, iirc, under 5%, definatly under 10.

lol, we had a creationist in our lab for a year. The only time it became tough was when we were talking about evolutionary interpretations of our data, which wasn't a lot.

Originally posted by inimalist
it only seems strange to other scientists because the number of people who are religious in the scientific community is, iirc, under 5%, definatly under 10.

I hear 10% thrown around a lot, though I'm not sure if that was talking about scientists specifically or some other traditionally non-religious demographic. I do think, however, that any such statistic shows a correlation between certain types of knowledge and non-religiosity.

The razor's edge of saying things like that is that it can come across as "atheists are smarter" or some variation thereof, which is neither appropriate nor necessarily true. I always try to clarify that it is exposure to certain ideas or ways of thinking....it's not that those who are religious can't grasp the concepts, just that they've never been exposed to them, especially those in highly specialized fields.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats not necessarily true

the co-discoverer of DNA is a devout catholic


Which happened in the 50's when atheism was a lot less common.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which happened in the 50's when atheism was a lot less common.

Considering the number of famous scientists though out history who were religious in one way or another I don't think Hawking would have anything to worry about if he were openly religious.

The scientific community seems to accept the work of people like Pasteur (germs), Kepler (orbital mechanics), Faraday (early laws of electromagnetics) and Maxwell (invariant speed of light, color photography) who were all very much religious. In fact there have been contributions to science by people who were clearly insane that respected because they've been tested and found to be accurate.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Simple math proves that there is a power that impossibly never had an origin.

0+0=0

If I remember correctly it has been stated that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy's existence is a mathmatical impossibilty so we are bearing witness to a miraculous defiance of the non-existence that the simplest math problem supports.

Math supports an origin that is supernatural

non-existence+ non-existence= non-existence

0+0=1
Non-existence + Non-existence= massive amounts of energy

Why would intelligent people convince themselves that they can thank the emotionless emptiness of space for accidentally making them?

Zero does not equal infinity.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Simple math proves that there is a power that impossibly never had an origin.

0+0=0

If I remember correctly it has been stated that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy's existence is a mathmatical impossibilty so we are bearing witness to a miraculous defiance of the non-existence that the simplest math problem supports.

Math supports an origin that is supernatural

non-existence+ non-existence= non-existence

0+0=1
Non-existence + Non-existence= massive amounts of energy

Why would intelligent people convince themselves that they can thank the emotionless emptiness of space for accidentally making them?

This only displays a rudimentary understanding of physics. I'm not an expert, and even I know this is false and has been proven to be false. You might do well to, ya know, actually read Hawking's book(s) and try to understand the proofs behind his theories before "disproving" him with a few physics memes and some elementary school math.

Because, really, do you think that this 0+0 refutation was forgotten entirely before being published by a world-renowned author? Your simple math fails at common sense.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which happened in the 50's when atheism was a lot less common.

look, nobody is going to argue that there are a lot of religious scientists

all I am saying, and like I said, with the personal experience of working in a scientific laboratory, doing and publishing research with a literal "evolution-did-not-make-man" creationist, is that people who hold religious values and beliefs are not discriminated against, so long as they don't go off the deep end.

Behe would be a good example of this latter point, as he, a christian biologist, was highly respected in his field until he started his completely pseduoscientific work on intelligent design.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Zero does not equal infinity.

Actually If zero is what you begin with and there isn't anything to add to it then you will have zero indefinitely. You will not have a miraculous explosion of matter and energy. That's simple isn't it? I'm wondering why crackpot scientists won't just admit that they can't produce anything but THEORIES that they CAN'T PROVE about the beginning of all things because they WILL NEVER KNOW! But they'll never say that there's anything that they don't have a "theory" on, and then they'll state their theories like they're scientific laws!

And I guess "everything exploded out of nothingness cause it had to" is a good enough explanation for the people that despise the idea of their spirit's being held accountable for anything. Cause I don't see any other reason to not believe in a creator of life. Everything has an origin in the physical world so the big bang has no reason to not have one. It's origin was simply outside of the finite world that we understand and produced by an infinite world that we're aware of but will never be able to explain with finite understanding.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Actually If zero is what you begin with and there isn't anything to add to it then you will have zero indefinitely. You will not have a miraculous explosion of matter and energy. That's simple isn't it? I'm wondering why crackpot scientists won't just admit that they can't produce anything but THEORIES that they CAN'T PROVE about the beginning of all things because they WILL NEVER KNOW! But they'll never say that there's anything that they don't have a "theory" on, and then they'll state their theories like they're scientific laws!

And I guess "everything exploded out of nothingness cause it had to" is a good enough explanation for the people that despise the idea of their spirit's being held accountable for anything. Cause I don't see any other reason to not believe in a creator of life. Everything has an origin in the physical world so the big bang has no reason to not have one. It's origin was simply outside of the finite world that we understand and produced by an infinite world that we're aware of but will never be able to explain with finite understanding. Origins for the Big Bang have a number of theories which are potentially testable (eg, brane theory), ie, they postulate higher dimensional contexts which the LHC may be able to illuminate. The question, of course, then becomes, where did these higher dimensional contexts come from? For me, the simplest answer (at some point) is SAW: Something Always Was. While this may mean 'God', it isn't necessarily so...though this begs another question/issue: an operational definition of 'God'.