Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

[PolyHedral]

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

How can something which must be there before any creation, be created?

 

[paarsurrey]

Any more I like reading about the Universe, it's too large to care about, however
I've read that if the Universe is eternal no creator would be needed.

Would a self exiting essence principle need to be created?

Please elaborate further.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

Quran also mentions such a phenomenon, in my opinion:

Remember the day when We shall roll up the heavens like the rolling up of written scrolls by a scribe. As We began the first creation, so shall We repeat it—a promise binding upon Us; We shall certainly perform it.

21:105

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

 

[paarsurrey]

Some interesting logic where all of a sudden an unfathomable amount of energy just existed without time needing to pass. The calculation has to do with the point the universe "started" expanding, which says little about where all of it came from.

This is like following verse in the Quran, in my opinion:

[51:48] And We have built the heaven with Our own hands, and verily We have vast* powers.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

• It is expanding

 

[paarsurrey]

Totally agree.

me also

 

[paarsurrey]

It seems to me he is saying that the universe self-created ex nihilo. Me = mind-blown.

The universe is deaf and dumb; it cannot create anything on its own, in my opinion.

 

[Storm]

The universe is deaf and dumb; it cannot create anything on its own, in my opinion.

You're part of the universe. Probably not deaf and dumb, statistically, and if you are, there's still the rest of the species.

 

[paarsurrey]

There would still be "no need" for it to be true, even if it could. He is saying we dont need God to explain anything. While a panentheistic God is posible (and pretty much what I believe ) it doesnt offer any explanation of the stuff that he spoke on such documental.

And we need that Hawking should explain it; who asked him to explain? It was all there even if Hawking would have not existed to explain it, in my opinion.

 

[paarsurrey]

And how would Stephen Hawking know one way or another?

Humans sure have greatly inflated ego's. All of human knowledge wouldn't even complete the first page in the book of the universe.

I agree with you.

 

[paarsurrey]

A Buddhist explanation is that this is not the first universe to have existed, and it won't be the last. Once one universe has run it's course, another one takes it's place, and the process continues. Whatever was left of the last universe was probably what started this one off, is my personal belief. 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. Ultimately, we still don't know for sure, and I'm not sure we're ever really going to.

I agree with the one coloured in magenta

 

[paarsurrey]

Some crazy things he calls math and science.

And do math and science exist really?

 

[PolyHedral]

And do math and science exist really?

Math underpins the structure of the universe to a frankly scary degree.

 

[paarsurrey]

What equation disproves God?

I don't think there is any such equation; it could be a non-equation or imbalance, in my opinion.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

me also

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

I agree with you

 

[paarsurrey]

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

Please elaborate

 

[outhouse]

Please elaborate

there is nothing at all that can be attribited to any deity by scientific standards at any time, that eludes to creation in any way shape or form.

 

[idav]

And do math and science exist really?

As much as language and knowledge exist.

Please elaborate

It's unproductive to try and prove something didn't happen. Science attempts to understand what did happen thus eliminating the rest of the infinite possibilities.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

I agree with what you have stated above and I have coloured in magenta.

 

[PolyHedral]

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.

The question of the nature of reality is not one that can be answered in any agreeable manner. What's the point of asking? Instead, we should focus on experiment and modelling - something which science excels at.