Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

[outhouse]

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

So true, science atleast corrects its mistakes

 

[Photonic]

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.

He lost a bet to Leonard Susskind, but it was Stephen Hawkings himself who discovered the model that proved him incorrect.

Besides, that's an inane point anyways. Science is allowed to be wrong.

 

[idav]

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.

Going into tangents doesn't disprove anything I've said.

 

[Valjean]

And how would Stephen Hawking know one way or another?

What equation disproves God?

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

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

You've missed the whole point, SU. Hawking doesn't disprove anything, he makes no conclusions, nor does he deny God. He just says that there is a natural explanation for certain phenomena, and proposing a magical agent is simply not necessary.

I've always respected Stephen Hawking's intelligence and tenacity in the face of his illness.

However, I see one flaw in his reasoning (how arrogant of me ). He seems to be referring to a pantheistic God, a God who is the universe. He doesn't consider the possibility of a panentheistic and transcendant God... in my reasoning, the universe could very well have been created by God, even though there was "no before" this universe.

But he's not denying a God -- pantheistic, panentheistic or otherwise. He's not saying the universe couldn't have been "created" by God. He's just saying that the whole show could have come about by purely impersonal, natural mechanisms.

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

Is nobody reading what he actually said? HE DID NOT SAY THERE WAS NO GOD!!!!!!

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.

Galileo knew even less, so how could make any accurate conclusion that the Earth moved around the Sun?
Your point is non sequitur.

 

[GawdAweful]

To me Hawking seems to be philosophysing about the meaning/or lack of in the universe. Ironic since he disregards philosophy as antiquated in his intoduction of The Grand Design. Then, as I see it, runs head long into it. Why is God mentioned at all in it's pages? Right...he's selling a book.

 

[Valjean]

It was the theists that brought up God, GawdAweful. Hawking was just following the data when he was beset on all sides by contradictators charging heresy. He pretty much had to respond.

 

[Super Universe]

You've missed the whole point, SU. Hawking doesn't disprove anything, he makes no conclusions, nor does he deny God. He just says that there is a natural explanation for certain phenomena, and proposing a magical agent is simply not necessary.

But he's not denying a God -- pantheistic, panentheistic or otherwise. He's not saying the universe couldn't have been "created" by God. He's just saying that the whole show could have come about by purely impersonal, natural mechanisms.


Is nobody reading what he actually said? HE DID NOT SAY THERE WAS NO GOD!!!!!!


Galileo knew even less, so how could make any accurate conclusion that the Earth moved around the Sun?
Your point is non sequitur.

The point is this, Hawking doesn't know. I didn't miss it, I knew it was there all the time. If he can't explain where the strings in string theory originate from then he doesn't know if they come from God or not. God is not magical any more or less than physics is magical.

Hawking doesn't know enough to say the universe could have come about by purely natural mechanisms. Hawking is just another human and all human knowledge together doesn't even complete one page in the book of All That Is. You think all that out there is empty and that you're the top of the line being in all of existence when you're really at the bottom of a very long list. Humanity is in the first grade stage of evolution.

Galileo knew even less than Hawking so how could he make any accurate prediction that the earth moved around the sun? Galileo invented the telescope. What has Hawking invented? The point is correct, saying that God is not necessary for the multiverse to exist suggests that you know everything about how it came to be. Hawking might be the smartest kid in first grade but he's still in first grade.

 

[Photonic]

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

I find this ironic, as many people come to the conclusion that there is one.

 

[GawdAweful]

contradictators

Not sure if this is a new word.
It is to me, anyway.
But it's great!

 

[Super Universe]

I find this ironic, as many people come to the conclusion that there is one.

So faith, or lack of it, is the same standard for the scientists?

If the strings in string theory originate from God then what does that do to Hawkings theory that God is not needed for the universe to have formed the way it did?

No God, no universe.

 

[Photonic]

So faith, or lack of it, is the same standard for the scientists?

If the strings in string theory originate from God then what does that do to Hawkings theory that God is not needed for the universe to have formed the way it did?

No God, no universe.

So god originated from what exactly?

 

[Copernicus]

Last night I got to see the full episode of the show in which he describes why there is no need for God in the creation of the universe. As I understood his reasoning, before the Big Bang, time did not exist and there was no "before". Therefore there was nothing for God to exist in. However, I see one flaw in his reasoning (how arrogant of me ). He seems to be referring to a pantheistic God, a God who is the universe. He doesn't consider the possibility of a panentheistic and transcendent God. If God is transcendent, which as a panentheistic Hindu I believe, then God exists outside of time. A transcendent God does not need time or anything to exist in, therefore in my reasoning, the universe could very well have been created by God, even though there was "no before" this universe.

Hawking was relying on Occam's Razor to make his point. Natural laws, as we now understand them, would have led inevitably to the reality that we live in, so a "creator god" isn't needed to explain how the physical universe that we know came to be.

This type of argument is very much in line with Dawkins' argument that the agency of a god is not needed to explain complex "designs" in nature. That complexity follows from the principle of natural selection. Your panentheistic "God" isn't needed to explain anything, so it is reasonable to ask what the point is of assuming the existence of such a being. How is the concept useful to you?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I've always respected Stephen Hawking's intelligence and tenacity in the face of his illness.

Last night I got to see the full episode of the show in which he describes why there is no need for God in the creation of the universe. As I understood his reasoning, before the Big Bang, time did not exist and there was no "before". Therefore there was nothing for God to exist in. However, I see one flaw in his reasoning (how arrogant of me ). He seems to be referring to a pantheistic God, a God who is the universe. He doesn't consider the possibility of a panentheistic and transcendent God. If God is transcendent, which as a panentheistic Hindu I believe, then God exists outside of time. A transcendent God does not need time or anything to exist in, therefore in my reasoning, the universe could very well have been created by God, even though there was "no before" this universe.

What say you?

Aside from agreeing with some other posters, I would say, the idea that God is outside of Time, is irrational. Without Time he cannot perform any action or experience the desire to create. Give him his own Time in whatever universe he exists in, but you cannot remove or render God 'immune' to Time.

'Transcendent' is being used here as an undefined catch-all in an attempt to posit an irrational model for God.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The point is this, Hawking doesn't know. I didn't miss it, I knew it was there all the time. If he can't explain where the strings in string theory originate from then he doesn't know if they come from God or not. God is not magical any more or less than physics is magical.

Hawking doesn't know enough to say the universe could have come about by purely natural mechanisms. Hawking is just another human and all human knowledge together doesn't even complete one page in the book of All That Is. You think all that out there is empty and that you're the top of the line being in all of existence when you're really at the bottom of a very long list. Humanity is in the first grade stage of evolution.

Galileo knew even less than Hawking so how could he make any accurate prediction that the earth moved around the sun? Galileo invented the telescope. What has Hawking invented? The point is correct, saying that God is not necessary for the multiverse to exist suggests that you know everything about how it came to be. Hawking might be the smartest kid in first grade but he's still in first grade.

One does not need to know everything in order to make correct conclusions.

Seems to be a combination of the Mere Opinion and Perfection fallacies; fail

 

[Thief]

Aside from agreeing with some other posters, I would say, the idea that God is outside of Time, is irrational. Without Time he cannot perform any action or experience the desire to create. Give him his own Time in whatever universe he exists in, but you cannot remove or render God 'immune' to Time.

'Transcendent' is being used here as an undefined catch-all in an attempt to posit an irrational model for God.

Time does not exist.
It is a quotient on a chalk board.
It is only a measure of movement.
Not a force or substance.

It is irrational to treat this item as an entity of reality.

It is not irrational to consider spiritual life as real.

 

[Thief]

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

Review the manner I post.

Attempting to approach God with equation and experiment will never work.
There will be no photos or fingerprints.

Deciding upon the existence of God is a matter of mind and heart.

But even when science comes to play...so does God.
Separating a creation from it's Creator?...not likely.

So now science would abandon a basic principle of it's own making....
cause and effect.
And would do so to say.... 'substance' just happens.
No God needed.

So contrary...and convenient..... at the same time.

 

[otokage007]

I've always respected Stephen Hawking's intelligence and tenacity in the face of his illness.

Last night I got to see the full episode of the show in which he describes why there is no need for God in the creation of the universe. As I understood his reasoning, before the Big Bang, time did not exist and there was no "before". Therefore there was nothing for God to exist in. However, I see one flaw in his reasoning (how arrogant of me ). He seems to be referring to a pantheistic God, a God who is the universe. He doesn't consider the possibility of a panentheistic and transcendent God. If God is transcendent, which as a panentheistic Hindu I believe, then God exists outside of time. A transcendent God does not need time or anything to exist in, therefore in my reasoning, the universe could very well have been created by God, even though there was "no before" this universe.

What say you?

Existence out of time is not possible.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Time does not exist.
It is a quotient on a chalk board.
It is only a measure of movement.
Not a force or substance.

It is irrational to treat this item as an entity of reality.

It is not irrational to consider spiritual life as real.

Without the ability to move or change states, nothing gets done.

reword it however you like. the idea is irrational, like removing 'length'.

 

[Man of Faith]

I've always respected Stephen Hawking's intelligence..."

In his last book he claimed that philosophy is dead, science killed it. Now he feels the need to philosophy away God. It’s fine to admire intelligence, but I admire wisdom more, like the wisdom that comes from being a child of God. People are born with their intelligence so why admire chance? Yet people have to develop their wisdom.

Let’s say that I carry a plastic ball from one side of the yard to the other. A scientist comes along and says there is no reason to suspect that an intelligent being placed that ball there, it could have gotten there by being blown there by the wind. He may be right, yet an intelligent being did place the ball there. You see, the scientist wasn’t there when the ball was placed there, so they have to make a best guess, based on their presuppositions about the natural world.

 

[Jainarayan]

Science is allowed to be wrong.

No one said it isn't. Science should always question itself. If it doesn't, it becomes stuck in time. We'd still be believing that mice come from grain.