Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe
- Thread starter lwien
- Start date
steiner666
Serial vapist
"But, Hawking argues, if there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life.
And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it."
Something i've always thought myself. The more you study the universe and come to comprehend (or rather, accept that you could never comprehend lol) it's ever-expanding vastness, the less likely the idea of god gets. It's funny how ignorant people like to remain in order to give their life some sort of greater meaning. Even when "facts" in a religions supposed word of god are refuted by cold hard science, people still cling to it.
And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it."
Something i've always thought myself. The more you study the universe and come to comprehend (or rather, accept that you could never comprehend lol) it's ever-expanding vastness, the less likely the idea of god gets. It's funny how ignorant people like to remain in order to give their life some sort of greater meaning. Even when "facts" in a religions supposed word of god are refuted by cold hard science, people still cling to it.
i get the feeling that hawking understands a lot about advanced mathematics but very little about the concept of god. i am not a religious person and have a science degree and i agree with his colleagues quoted in the article---he missed the point.
one thing is certain, in an amoral society he would have been smothered at birth instead of given wheels and a talk box. so in a sense, mr. hawking owes his life to his non-existent god.
one thing is certain, in an amoral society he would have been smothered at birth instead of given wheels and a talk box. so in a sense, mr. hawking owes his life to his non-existent god.
lwien
Well-Known Member
SSS said:
But that's assuming that a sense of right and wrong is God given. Is it beyond comprehension that we can have morality without a belief in God, or that even possibly have a higher moral standard without the belief in God, especially when one considers all of the immoral acts done in His name.
lwien said:
natural law has no right and wrong. morality is not based on nature. gravity is a natural phenomenon that controls most aspects of our lives but it does not control our morality. that's the flaw in hawking's logic. does that mean there is a god? i don't know. but gravity does not explain why there is some guy in a wheelchair and a computer running his mouth breathing my oxygen. logic dictates that his first breath should have been his last.
the electrician
Well-Known Member
SSS said:
is it so hard for people to come to a vague consensus on what is and isnt good for their own kind? no, the majority of animals do it for a living. its got nothing whatsoever to do with a god. morality is a human phenomenon, and should have far less weight than something that governs the action of the universe
a "god" is just something that fills in the blanks and act as a scapegoat, while requiring no understanding (in fact the lower the understanding the better) of the world around you. which is pretty bloody useful i suppose and is a reason why the idea is still floating around perhaps
furthermore this guy in the article says "Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative,". what he fails to notice is there is no need for a reason or meaning, as reasoning is something that sets humans apart from the other bottom feeders. last time i checked you couldnt reason with a quark, or any other fundamental particle which causes things to be. his comments seem to imply that humans have been around before humans were around.
Pappy
shmaporist
Another intelligent thread from my friends at FC!
Haven't had time to get into Hawking's theory yet but my take on religion is they are superstition based to quell people's collective fear. Most major religions were devised when people were too ignorant to know any better. And most modern religions, like Scientology, are devised to prey on people's fear and ignorance while picking their pockets. Not a big religion fan!
Having dropped acid I'd say God is an infinitely more complex topic.
Will get back to you on the gravity thing.
Haven't had time to get into Hawking's theory yet but my take on religion is they are superstition based to quell people's collective fear. Most major religions were devised when people were too ignorant to know any better. And most modern religions, like Scientology, are devised to prey on people's fear and ignorance while picking their pockets. Not a big religion fan!
Having dropped acid I'd say God is an infinitely more complex topic.
Will get back to you on the gravity thing.
bcleez
Well-Known Member
SSS said:
This is not true. I have a degree in Anthropology and can easily take the other side to prove you wrong. This is an ethnocentric point of view.
BTW for the uneducated people in this forum, Stephen Hawking was not always disabled and was a fully functioning human into his early 20's where he first had symptoms of ALS. Let's hope none of you get a disease in your life time so that the tables can't be turned on you.
Electrician: You are right, people were just so clueless 2000 years ago. They had no concept of the universe, science, biology etc. Religion is a way to control people that is all. Spirituality is different than religion.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Yup. The thing that is REALLY fascinating about that article is this quote:
"M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space."
The more we know, the more we know what we don't know.
"M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space."
The more we know, the more we know what we don't know.
LOCKSTOCK93
Well-Known Member
The Evolution of God is a good read. Covers the development of civilization from the hunter gather world to the present, and the role of deities, powers, and ceremony. A good read.
I think that Hawking was able to put together the information he needed to prove that universal laws, gravity most importantly, could have created the universe and, more basically, matter from non-matter.
I think that Hawking was able to put together the information he needed to prove that universal laws, gravity most importantly, could have created the universe and, more basically, matter from non-matter.
bcleez said:
ok, i was wrong about hawking. he should have been ground into dog food in his 20's.
and maybe some other culture would have made a dude in a wheelchair and a talk box a living god like the ewoks did to c3po in return of the jedi. regardless of your/my/his view a true scientist knows one thing---what he/she does not know. the big assumption that hawking is riding is that "god" is the same thing to all people. and as far as i'm aware, hawking has spent no time in his studies attempting to qualify/quantify what "god" even is to humans. that seems like a subject best tackled by someone with your background rather than a physicist.
hawking has reversed his theories so many times i get the impression that he is more celebrity than scientist these days.
lwien
Well-Known Member
SSS said:
Is that so different than the God we currently have. Some dude with long white hair and a white beard that floats up in the clouds with his army of winged angels whose arch nemesis is a talking snake that talks ladies into eating apples. Not saying that that's the God I believe in, but I'm sure as hell, many do. As a matter of fact, I'd say that most do, and that isn't any more of a stretch than C3Po with his sidekick of an angel who runs around in a wheelchair and speaks through a talk box.
Hawking wasn't claiming that there is no God. He's just stating that it doesn't take a divinity to create the universe.
bcleez
Well-Known Member
It can precede OUR universe (gravity that is). Check out M-Theory. One of the ideas is that infinite floating membranes of other universes touched bringing our universe into existence.
Don't crucify me for packing a whole concept into 1 sentence... it barely scratches the surface.
Don't crucify me for packing a whole concept into 1 sentence... it barely scratches the surface.
steiner666
Serial vapist
lwien said:
LOL yeah at least the ewoks god manifested himself physically and even floated about in the air for a bit, more than any earthly gods ever done
bcleez
Well-Known Member
A lot of the conversation is revolving around the "christian god". There are TONS of other gods out there.
You are right though, he isn't saying god doesn't exist, but that he did not create the universe. I am sure he would say God doesn't exist, but his msg would totally be ignored by zealots and it would bring on a bigger argument.
A great professor I had for Anthropology started off the class by attacking the issue that if god existed and we were made in his image why are our skeletons so imperfect, why does it hurt to stand/sit etc etc, pointing out all of the simple imperfections we live with... which wouldn't exist with a perfect omnipotent god... once again compressing a ton of ideas into a few sentences.
You are right though, he isn't saying god doesn't exist, but that he did not create the universe. I am sure he would say God doesn't exist, but his msg would totally be ignored by zealots and it would bring on a bigger argument.
A great professor I had for Anthropology started off the class by attacking the issue that if god existed and we were made in his image why are our skeletons so imperfect, why does it hurt to stand/sit etc etc, pointing out all of the simple imperfections we live with... which wouldn't exist with a perfect omnipotent god... once again compressing a ton of ideas into a few sentences.
Happycamper
Sweet Dreams Babycakes
bcleez said:
It's just peoples true colours shining through.
stinkmeaner
Well-Known Member
Obama tries to get Hawking to take back statement by headlock
It seems we have a definitional problem on our hands. For Dr. Hawking "universe" means the world where the known laws of physics apply. Understanding the term in this way makes it a lot easier to see why Hawking might think that gravity may have existed prior to, outside of the universe as we know it. This in turn makes the rest of his explanation sensible.
It's not *news*, though, and I'm very surprised it was covered so sloppily in this article. The only way that this qualifies as news is if readers understand "universe" in the more colloquial/traditional sense (and the way I was taking it above), meaning the set of everything that exists and the location in which those things exist. But clearly, that's not what Hawking means.
Seems like another in a long line of cases of sloppy science reporting ginning up a controversy where none exists. Dr. Hawking's comments are no more a denial of any "God" role in the creation of the colloquial universe than classic origin theories like the big bang.
It's not *news*, though, and I'm very surprised it was covered so sloppily in this article. The only way that this qualifies as news is if readers understand "universe" in the more colloquial/traditional sense (and the way I was taking it above), meaning the set of everything that exists and the location in which those things exist. But clearly, that's not what Hawking means.
Seems like another in a long line of cases of sloppy science reporting ginning up a controversy where none exists. Dr. Hawking's comments are no more a denial of any "God" role in the creation of the colloquial universe than classic origin theories like the big bang.