Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

[Falvlun]

No, I haven't missed the point. He refers to a creator God, but there are many interpretations of a creator God; he's presuming only the most popular notion, and ruling that out.

My bolding. As others have pointed out, it doesn't look like Hawking is ruling out anything. His argument is that the god hypothesis is not necessary to explain the existence of the universe. For example, if two vehicles get into a crash, it is not necessary that one of them was a Jeep. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't a Jeep; it only means that it didn't have to be a Jeep.

This argument can essentially be used for any God concept. It has always been popular to claim that the universe could not have formed without God, making God a necessary being. All Hawking is pointing out is that, no, there can be other explanations.

 

[Super Universe]

The fact that "before the big bang" is like saying "north of the north pole".

So the work that theoretical physicists have been doing for the last 30 years doesn't account for anything at all?

The string theory idea that two 5 dimensional membranes collided with each other to produce the big bang, that is just dismissed as what exactly?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So the work that theoretical physicists have been doing for the last 30 years doesn't account for anything at all?

The string theory idea that two 5 dimensional membranes collided with each other to produce the big bang, that is just dismissed as what exactly?

Never heard Hawking talk about that.

Perhaps you mean what exists outside our universe, not before it.

 

[Super Universe]

Never heard Hawking talk about that.

Perhaps you mean what exists outside our universe, not before it.

You never heard Hawking talk about that? Well that's because he conveniently left it out.

I don't mean what exists outside our universe. Strings exist beneath our three dimensional universe. They create every dimension. They are more fundamental than the big bang itself.

 

[Copernicus]

No, I haven't missed the point. He refers to a creator God, but there are many interpretations of a creator God; he's presuming only the most popular notion, and ruling that out. Almost 16% of the world's population does not believe in that type of God. In a nutshell, he did not do his homework.

No, you did miss the point, and Falvlun noticed this as well. Mlodinow and Hawking were never ruling out a creator God. They were just saying that there was no reason to assume such a God as a creator agency. The creation of the universe can be understood as a natural phenomenon according to physics as they understand it.

And I don't think there is any need to ad hominem with "Your panentheistic alternative God ... your God ... Unless you can supply one. Can you?" It's not about me...

You're right, it isn't about you. Nor was my criticism. I attacked your argument, not your character. I meant no disrespect by that. I actually agreed with your point that your panentheistic God was not addressed by their argument--unless you think of that god as some kind of creator god. Mlodinow and Hawking attacked a reason for believing in a particular version of God. Your version is no different from the Abrahamic God with respect to their argument, because you have supplied no reason to believe in it. In fact, I was genuinely curious. What motivation would you give for believing in the existence of such a God? If you don't feel you need to give a motivation to support your faith, I'm not going to argue with you. I just see that as no different from faith in any other version of God. They all strike me as gratuitous claims.

Go back and read that I said I believe the scope of his premise is narrow. And that may be so by deliberate design, despite his disclaimer of not wanting to offend anyone's faith. A backhanded compliment if ever I heard one, running the risk of ******* off about 40% of the world's population. I'm not quite sure I understand why a theoretical physicist is publically broaching the subject of needing a creator God. God usually doesn't enter discussions of theoretical physics.

Sorry to disagree with you again, and no disrespect intended. However, all they attacked was the empirical claim made by so many believers in a creator God--that such a being is necessary to explain why there is something and not nothing. Or the beginning of the universe. Or any other physical event that we observe in nature.

I don't recall he said that in this episode. I can only say for certain that Michio Kaku accepts multiple universes.

Fair enough. I didn't see the video, but I did read the Hawking/Mladinow book. I've also seen interviews with Mladinow. So one thing I remember is that they espoused a belief in multiple universes (M-Theory). Indeed, I thought that that was an essential component of their argument.

 

[Photonic]

The big bang originated from what exactly?

And with that, I'm convinced you have no intention to have any real argument with me.

 

[Super Universe]

And with that, I'm convinced you have no intention to have any real argument with me.

So you're a scientific pantheist huh, yet you somehow don't know a thing about what theoretical physicists have been working on for the past 30 years?

 

[Photonic]

So you're a scientific pantheist huh, yet you somehow don't know a thing about what theoretical physicists have been working on for the past 30 years?

Considering I'm a student of physics, probably a bit more of an idea than you.

Who knows

 

[Pleroma]

Stephen Hawking keeps changing his opinions often and he his inconsistent, don't take him seriously.

Stephen Hawking; Gödel and the end of physics

 

[Photonic]

Stephen Hawking keeps changing his opinions often and he his inconsistent, don't take him seriously.

Stephen Hawking; Gödel and the end of physics

Oh no, a scientist changed his opinion on something?!

How horrible!

 

[Pleroma]

Oh no, a scientist changed his opinion on something?!

How horrible!

Yes, once he said that the further discoveries of the exact sciences such as physics or physical theories is going to come to an end and now he is saying philosophy is dead. Which is very unwise of him. Physicists will be substituted by philosophers and theologians in the coming future.

 

[otokage007]

How do you know It is? Rather, what makes you think It is?

Isn't the logical path to think that God is made out of matter like anything else in this universe? If not, you would just invent a new sustance. But your imaginations lack any value, don't u think?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, once he said that the further discoveries of the exact sciences such as physics or physical theories is going to come to an end and now he is saying philosophy is dead. Which is very unwise of him. Physicists will be substituted by philosophers and theologians in the coming future.

Seems highly unlikely, considering the record of success and development the study of physics has given to the world, while philosophy has achieved... Well, nothing.

 

[Pleroma]

Seems highly unlikely, considering the record of success and development the study of physics has given to the world, while philosophy has achieved... Well, nothing.

Philosophy is the root of all wisdom which guides us as to what we can learn from science and what we learn from religion and we need both for a complete model of the cosmos.

 

[Jainarayan]

Isn't the logical path to think that God is made out of matter like anything else in this universe? If not, you would just invent a new sustance. But your imaginations lack any value, don't u think?

No. You don't understand the concept of God.

Start here:

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
God in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Breathe]

Isn't the logical path to think that God is made out of matter like anything else in this universe? If not, you would just invent a new sustance. But your imaginations lack any value, don't u think?

Isn't space not made out of matter? What about light, heat, or black holes? (I'm pretty sure heat is, light may arguably be, and black holes, I dunno)

 

[idav]

Isn't space not made out of matter?

Space is another substance but a lot of times people talk as if God isn't some sort of substance as well. Non-material?

 

[Breathe]

Space is another substance but a lot of times people talk as if God isn't some sort of substance as well. Non-material?

Depends who you're asking. As a panentheist, my view is, well, both yes and no.

 

[Jainarayan]

Mlodinow and Hawking were never ruling out a creator God. They were just saying that there was no reason to assume such a God as a creator agency.

Is that not a contradiction?

1. Not ruling out a creator.
2. Saying there is no need for a creator.

Your version is no different from the Abrahamic God with respect to their argument, because you have supplied no reason to believe in it. In fact, I was genuinely curious. What motivation would you give for believing in the existence of such a God? If you don't feel you need to give a motivation to support your faith, I'm not going to argue with you. I just see that as no different from faith in any other version of God. They all strike me as gratuitous claims.

I don't have to explain my reasons for my beliefs, because I did not make a claim that there is or is not a creator God. But if I were to supply a reason for my beliefs, I invite you to read the Vedas and Upanishads.

My original proposal is that Hawking's hypothesis is incomplete because I believe he took too narrow a view. He doesn't address the possibility of other universes, which many theoretical physicists accept; what comes after this universe?; what created the other universes?; how will this universe end?: it cannot end in a big crunch and burst into existence again, because his proposal includes that there is no "before" the universe. His proposal has too many holes in it, whether one believes in a creator not.

Personally I believe he put his foot in his mouth :foot: for personal and professional reasons. Albert Einstein was wrong about a static universe and admitted it when he was proven wrong. Hawking's been wrong before and admitted it. Sure, that's the nature of science, as it should be.

Only time will tell (no pun intended) if Hawking's claim is vindicated or not. But at this point he's making a bold claim that shakes the foundations of the belief systems of 2/3 of the world's population, despite his backhanded disclaimer to the contrary, with an unprovable and untestable hypothesis. Numbers do lie.

But I've said most of this already. It's unfortunate that this thread has deviated, as I see it, into a ******* contest of "atheist v. theist". On that note I will take my leave.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Philosophy is the root of all wisdom which guides us as to what we can learn from science and what we learn from religion and we need both for a complete model of the cosmos.

Then why has science acheived so much more than either philosophy or religion in terms of actually teaching us solid facts about the Universe? Why have philosophy and religion remained just as devisive, inconclusive and reluctant to further development as they have ever been?