Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

[dyanaprajna2011]

He didn't disprove god, he proved god isn't necessary.

That's the thing. I don't he ever said outright that there is no god (at least here), but simply that a god wasn't necessary to explain the beginnings of the universe, which I tend to agree with.

 

[Super Universe]

He didn't disprove god, he proved god isn't necessary.

Which equation proves that God did not start the big bang?

Also, if the big bang is true then how come the recent extrapolations of matter in the universe show it as a lattice or kind of weave rather than an expanding balloon?

Also, where do the strings in string theory come from?

And this dark energy comes from where?

Stephen Hawking doesn't know nearly enough to make any conclusions about God.

 

[idav]

Which equation proves that God did not start the big bang?

Rather than asking what didn't start the big bang, science works with what did.

 

[idav]

Also, if the big bang is true then how come the recent extrapolations of matter in the universe show it as a lattice or kind of weave rather than an expanding balloon?

Waves are also particles.

Also, where do the strings in string theory come from?

Strings are imaginary, the forces they represent are not.

And this dark energy comes from where?

We don't know what dark energy is which is where it gets its name from.

Stephen Hawking doesn't know nearly enough to make any conclusions about God.

Hawkings interest is where the universe came from regardless of it's origin.

Meh what would a comspologist know anyway. lol

 

[Jainarayan]

As a Buddhist, I see no need of a creator god to have started it all off. It's possible the universe, or rather, the energies that make up the universe, are themselves eternal, but this is simply speculation on my part.

Sure, I grant that as your belief. :yes: You believe there was something before, as I do, regardless of what it was; he says there was no before. That's where you and I agree, and disagree with him.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, I agree it is a bold statement, one that I think is colored by personal belief (or lack thereof). But I'm not attempting to assassinate his character. My own belief is that universes pop into and out of existence, like soap bubbles, perhaps by a black hole singularity from another universe. Consider all the matter and energy that falls into a black hole. One universe "pinching one off" if you will, to form another.

I completely agree.

On a side note, I do respect Hawking. He is brilliant. However, if he is only saying a god isn't necessary, then I find that completely underwhelming. I don't understand the want to bring up such as I think most watching his program would already agree, regardless of faith.

 

[fallingblood]

Thinking about it more, if I understand correctly, Hawking never showed that a god isn't needed. He simply put forth a solution (which is debatable) that does not fully explain how things first kicked off.

I might have to check out this documentary just to try to understand his reasoning better.

 

[Thief]

Did anyone follow through and watch the following program....
wherein Hawking had to renounce his long standing view of information.
(can it be destroyed?)

If he can be wrong about this one item ( so important to his fame)...
then who is he? to say there is no God.

 

[Super Universe]

Waves are also particles.

Strings are imaginary, the forces they represent are not.

We don't know what dark energy is which is where it gets its name from.


Hawkings interest is where the universe came from regardless of it's origin.

Meh what would a comspologist know anyway. lol

Waves are also particles? Ah, but don't waves travel outward from their source? There would be a giant empty hole in the middle. There isn't.

Strings are imaginary? And gravity is not?

We don't know what dark energy is? So if Hawking doesn't know everything then how can he make any accurate conclusion whatsoever about God other than saying he just doesn't know?

Stephen Hawking doesn't even know .0000000001 of the universe.

 

[idav]

Waves are also particles? Ah, but don't waves travel outward from their source? There would be a giant empty hole in the middle. There isn't.

What?

Strings are imaginary? And gravity is not?

Exactly so why talk about strings as if we are looking for balls of yarn?

We don't know what dark energy is? So if Hawking doesn't know everything then how can he make any accurate conclusion whatsoever about God other than saying he just doesn't know?

Stephen Hawking doesn't even know .0000000001 of the universe.

Wow. Don't know everything does not equal knowing nothing. Jeez you have a bigger head than Hawking LOL.

edit: to make more sense, hopefully

 

[Super Universe]

What?

Exactly so why talk about strings as if we are looking for balls of yarn?



Wow. Don't know everything does not equal knowing nothing. Jeez you have a bigger head than Hawking LOL.

edit: to make more sense, hopefully

Don't waves travel outward from their source? If the source of the universe was a single expansion wouldn't we see all matter in the form of an expanding balloon? Instead it's in the shape of a weave with spacial gaps between the weaves of matter.

I didn't talk about strings as balls of yarn, you're scientists came up with the idea of strings, not I.

What if God is creating the strings? Kind of throws Hawking's theory out the window, doesn't it?

Not knowing everything does not equal knowing nothing? That's correct but knowing .00000000001 of everything might mean that you should at least admit "I don't know", when it comes to God.

I have a bigger head than Hawking? I don't know, what does his measure?

 

[idav]

Don't waves travel outward from their source? If the source of the universe was a single expansion wouldn't we see all matter in the form of an expanding balloon? Instead it's in the shape of a weave with spacial gaps between the weaves of matter.

Close but space/time is also crucial component which have these gaps you speak of.

I didn't talk about strings as balls of yarn, you're scientists came up with the idea of strings, not I.

What if God is creating the strings? Kind of throws Hawking's theory out the window, doesn't it?

Really, ultra literal are we?

Not knowing everything does not equal knowing nothing? That's correct but knowing .00000000001 of everything might mean that you should at least admit "I don't know", when it comes to God.

Why would I care what anyone doesn't know. I'm interested in what people do know.

God doesn't need to be some immeasurable thing that no instrument can detect. They've done the maths enough that they have a very solid theory for how the universe came to be the way we see today and god doesn't happen to be part of the equation. 'God did it' doesn't make for a good variable.

 

[al-amiyr]

he is correct in context of not invoking mythology to explain how the formation of the universe began.

mythology has no place in science what so ever

He is using his own mythology. He has made bad judgments before.

 

[Photonic]

He is using his own mythology. He has made bad judgments before.

Justify your statement.

 

[al-amiyr]

Justify your statement.

There are two statements. Which one?

 

[outhouse]

He is using his own mythology. He has made bad judgments before.

no that is incorrect


from his level of knowledge, he can clearly see no hand of mythology that can be attrubuted to anything in nature at all for as long as the universe has been in existance

 

[Super Universe]

Close but space/time is also crucial component which have these gaps you speak of.

Really, ultra literal are we?


Why would I care what anyone doesn't know. I'm interested in what people do know.

God doesn't need to be some immeasurable thing that no instrument can detect. They've done the maths enough that they have a very solid theory for how the universe came to be the way we see today and god doesn't happen to be part of the equation. 'God did it' doesn't make for a good variable.

You're saying there are gaps in space/time? Uhh, who told you that?

God doesn't need to be some immeasurable thing that no instrument can detect? I didn't say He was, in fact, I believe that humanity will discover absolute proof of God, in about 70 years or so.

The scientists have done the math and have a solid theory for how the universe came to be? Which math or theory disproves God?

"God did it" doesn't make for good variable? Infinity is a difficult concept to understand.

 

[Jainarayan]

I completely agree.

On a side note, I do respect Hawking. He is brilliant. However, if he is only saying a god isn't necessary, then I find that completely underwhelming. I don't understand the want to bring up such as I think most watching his program would already agree, regardless of faith.

Thinking about it more, if I understand correctly, Hawking never showed that a god isn't needed. He simply put forth a solution (which is debatable) that does not fully explain how things first kicked off.

I might have to check out this documentary just to try to understand his reasoning better.

I think he said he personally does not believe in God. He gives the disclaimer saying he's not out to offend anyone's belief. Rather, he is attempting to show why a creator God isn't necessary, not that there is no God. Not that I think anyone believes theoretical physics could prove the existence of God or not.

 

[Jainarayan]

Did anyone follow through and watch the following program....
wherein Hawking had to renounce his long standing view of information.
(can it be destroyed?)

If he can be wrong about this one item ( so important to his fame)...
then who is he? to say there is no God.

I've seen that one before. He lost a bet with one of his colleagues, Susskind I believe is the scientist's name, over the destruction of information.

 

[Falvlun]

Did anyone follow through and watch the following program....
wherein Hawking had to renounce his long standing view of information.
(can it be destroyed?)

If he can be wrong about this one item ( so important to his fame)...
then who is he? to say there is no God.

Careful, Thief, this is as good a reason not to believe in various religions then, as well.