Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

[idav]

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

I just see everything as one so I usually fail to see a distinction.

 

[Pleroma]

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?

Religion has reached the highest form of philosophical thought, there is nothing more higher than this.

The face of Truth is hidden by a golden disk. O Pushan (Effulgent Being)! Uncover (Thy face) that I, the worshipper of Truth, may behold Thee.
XVI

O Pushan! O Sun, sole traveller of the heavens, controller of all, son of Prajapati, withdraw Thy rays and gather up Thy burning effulgence. Now through Thy Grace I behold Thy blessed and glorious form. The Purusha (Effulgent Being) who dwells within Thee, I am He. Here the sun, who is the giver of all light, is used as the symbol of the Infinite, giver of all wisdom. The seeker after Truth prays to the Effulgent One to control His dazzling rays, that his eyes, no longer blinded by them, may behold the Truth. Having perceived It, he proclaims: “Now I see that that Effulgent Being and I are one and the same, and my delusion is destroyed.” By the light of Truth he is able to discriminate between the real and the unreal, and the knowledge thus gained convinces him that he is one with the Supreme; that there is no difference between himself and the Supreme Truth; or as Christ said, “I and my Father are one.” Gospel of John.

Its in all religions of the world, scientists are very late to this party as they are very slow to realize this.

 

[Photonic]

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)

Heat is the transfer of energy from one system to another, not matter. Space-time is dimensional, and not matter, nor energy.

 

[Breathe]

Heat is the transfer of energy from one system to another, not matter. Space-time is dimensional, and not matter, nor energy.

Wow, I should go live in a cave and throw rocks at shadows.
Thanks for the correction.

 

[Photonic]

Wow, I should go live in a cave and throw rocks at shadows.
Thanks for the correction.

I wouldn't be a scientist if I didn't teach along the way.

Edit: I wouldn't be able to be a good scientist, rather.

 

[PolyHedral]

Religion has reached the highest form of philosophical thought, there is nothing more higher than this.

Apart from math.

Also, why does it matter if it's the "highest?" Science has done unimaginably more practical things.

 

[Breathe]

I wouldn't be a scientist if I didn't teach along the way.

Edit: I wouldn't be able to be a good scientist, rather.

As one who's always been interested in science, that's practically an open invitation for me to bug you with questions.

 

[Photonic]

As one who's always been interested in science, that's practically an open invitation for me to bug you with questions.

Well, I'm always available to explain what I can.

 

[Pleroma]

Apart from math.

Nope, that too, Intelligence exists in Platonic realms.

 

[PolyHedral]

Nope, that too, Intelligence exists in Platonic realms.

Yes, but math underlies Platonic ideals. (I should know, I have great interest in both. )

 

[Copernicus]

Is that not a contradiction?

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

Not exactly. Contradictions are logical, but Mlodinow and Hawking's argument is empirical. They can rule out God on empirical grounds, but not logical grounds. The Abrahamic God could have created everything just as we find it, leaving us in a universe that looks deceptively like such a God doesn't exist.

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.

I have read parts of them, but that doesn't mean that I interpret them the way you do. If you want to claim some interpretation of them, you'll have to be more specific.

You may feel no obligation to defend your claim, but you were the one who claimed that there was a panentheistic God that couldn't be "ruled out" in the same sense that the Abrahamic one was. I disagreed and claimed that it could by "ruled out" in exactly the same sense--as an unnecessary entity. Whether or not you choose to think of that type of God as a "creator" is beside the point. Mlodinow and Hawking do not address the relevance of other conceptions of deities.

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.

Perhaps you ought to read the Hawking/Mlodinow book before you make such sweeping claims. They very definitely do take the existence of other universes into account. Indeed, they seem to take that as one of the foundations of their argument. They also take into account everything you mention here. You have really misunderstood them if you think that their argument is incomplete in the way you describe it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

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.

We are all guilty of being wrong about things all the time. Science is a methodology for choosing the best of competing theories about what is right. If being wrong is putting your shoe in your mouth, then all of us have shoes in our mouths all the time, because we are always wrong about some things we believe. Hawking was taking a philosophical stance on the existence of God. He was saying that the concept does not survive the test of Occam's Razor. As far as I can tell, neither does your panentheistic version of "God". You have asserted that such a God exists, but you have not offered any reason to believe that to be the case. You haven't said what it buys anyone to hold such a belief. That is essentially all that Hawking said about the Abrahamic "creator" God--it doesn't buy us anything to believe in such a God. That God doesn't explain anything that science can't explain better.

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.

Numbers are irrelevant. The number of claimants or believers don't make beliefs true or false, only more or less socially acceptable. Atheists have been denying the existence of God since time immemorial. Read the Upanishads and Vedas, which make disparaging references to the Carvaka or Lokayata school of thought. Hawking just makes the same claim with a modern twist to it.

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.

As you wish. These discussions are voluntary, and you shouldn't stay in the kitchen if you can't stand the heat. It escapes me how you can entitle a thread Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis and expect not to end up in a ******* debate between theists and atheists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Religion has reached the highest form of philosophical thought, there is nothing more higher than this.

Subjective opinion. "Highest form" could mean anything. I'm asking for real, tangible benefits.

The face of Truth is hidden by a golden disk. O Pushan (Effulgent Being)! Uncover (Thy face) that I, the worshipper of Truth, may behold Thee.
XVI

O Pushan! O Sun, sole traveller of the heavens, controller of all, son of Prajapati, withdraw Thy rays and gather up Thy burning effulgence. Now through Thy Grace I behold Thy blessed and glorious form. The Purusha (Effulgent Being) who dwells within Thee, I am He. Here the sun, who is the giver of all light, is used as the symbol of the Infinite, giver of all wisdom. The seeker after Truth prays to the Effulgent One to control His dazzling rays, that his eyes, no longer blinded by them, may behold the Truth. Having perceived It, he proclaims: “Now I see that that Effulgent Being and I are one and the same, and my delusion is destroyed.” By the light of Truth he is able to discriminate between the real and the unreal, and the knowledge thus gained convinces him that he is one with the Supreme; that there is no difference between himself and the Supreme Truth; or as Christ said, “I and my Father are one.” Gospel of John.

Weird, nonsensical ramblings aren't exactly helpful.

Its in all religions of the world, scientists are very late to this party as they are very slow to realize this.

Well, they were the ones who figured out how to keep people alive, fed, clothed, comfortable and provided the possibility for us to actually understand how the real world works. And they did all that in only a couple hundred years.

Religion and philosophy, meanwhile, are dragging us back to the stone age.

 

[Pleroma]

Well, they were the ones who figured out how to keep people alive, fed, clothed, comfortable and provided the possibility for us to actually understand how the real world works. And they did all that in only a couple hundred years.

Religion and philosophy, meanwhile, are dragging us back to the stone age.

Its wrong to think that Science and Religion are diverging, in fact they are converging and we need both for a complete model of the cosmos. Scientists and atheists don't even have a clear clue as to what the nature of Reality actually is.

I am with Bernard D'Espagnat not with Stephen Hawking because Bernard is more intellectually honest than Stephen Hawking.

"The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in."

- Bernard D'Espagnat.

 

[Storm]

Well, they were the ones who figured out how to keep people alive, fed, clothed, comfortable and provided the possibility for us to actually understand how the real world works. And they did all that in only a couple hundred years.

Religion and philosophy, meanwhile, are dragging us back to the stone age.

Hysteria is not much of an argument.

 

[Thief]

Its wrong to think that Science and Religion are diverging, in fact they are converging and we need both for a complete model of the cosmos. Scientists and atheists don't even have a clear clue as to what the nature of Reality actually is.

I am with Bernard D'Espagnat not with Stephen Hawking because Bernard is more intellectually honest than Stephen Hawking.

"The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in."

- Bernard D'Espagnat.

Like the quote.
Too bad he stepped down to an example as he concluded.
Taking a poke at the US was not needful.

The first paragraph...on the mark.

 

[Pleroma]

Like the quote.
Too bad he stepped down to an example as he concluded.
Taking a poke at the US was not needful.

The first paragraph...on the mark.

Yes, the existence of divine is not going to change anything because Carl Jung says both Good and evil are rent in us. There is as much evil and good in the east as it is in the west and there is as much wisdom in the west as it is in the east. He was talking in general I think, its true that scientists from the west are more atheistic and don't allow for a God hypothesis than those scientists from the east, they are a bit religious. I think it was a general comment made against the positivism of Science and many eastern thinkers see scientists as God as though they are infallible without realizing that even the assumptions of science can be questioned and the position of scientists can be criticized so he thinks if we fix the west then the east will copy that.

Its true that the decisions that this country U.S takes affects worldwide.

 

[Thief]

Yes, the existence of divine is not going to change anything because Carl Jung says both Good and evil are rent in us. There is as much evil and good in the east as it is in the west and there is as much wisdom in the west as it is in the east. He was talking in general I think, its true that scientists from the west are more atheistic and don't allow for a God hypothesis than those scientists from the east, they are a bit religious. I think it was a general comment made against the positivism of Science and many eastern thinkers see scientists as God as though they are infallible without realizing that even the assumptions of science can be questioned and the position of scientists can be criticized so he thinks if we fix the west then the east will copy that.

Its true that the decisions that this country U.S takes affects worldwide.

And with that allow me to clarify my own perspective.

The quoted paragraph of D'Espagnat claims science and religion are coming together.

I believe in God because of science.
Science is a study of His creation.

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

I give the definitions to help understand the issue:

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force), interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[1]
Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Question: "What does it mean that God is transcendent?"

Answer: To transcend means “to exist above and independent from; to rise above, surpass, succeed.” By this definition, God is the only truly transcendent Being. The “LORD God Almighty” (in Hebrew, El Shaddai) created all things on the earth, beneath the earth and in the heavens above, yet He exists above and independent from them. All things are upheld by His mighty power (Hebrews 1:3), yet He is upheld by Himself alone. The whole universe exists in Him and for Him that He may receive glory, honor and praise.
What does it mean that God is transcendent?

While I agree with your above sentence; I would say that Quran also supports this view, in my opinion, but without using cumbersome terminology it makes it easy to understand:

[39:63] Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is Guardian over all things
[39:64] To Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth; and as for those who disbelieve in the Signs of Allah, these it is who are the losers.
[39:68] And they do not esteem Allah, with the esteem that is due to Him. And the whole earth will be but His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be rolled up in His right hand. Glory to Him and exalted is He above that which they associate with Him.
The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

 

[paarsurrey]

I say that he is also making a bold statement by saying nothing existed before the big bang. It is possible that there have been a series of big bangs and really, we don't know what was there before.

The one true attributive God is the creator of time, big bangs, "something" and "nothingness"; he is the creator of everything, in my opinion.

 

[paarsurrey]

I agree.


Also, what about if the Big Bang came from something else? Then there could have still been time and space; just not here.

Time and space are also creations of the one true attributive creator God, in my opinion.