God did not create the universe, says Hawking

Reuters ^ | Thu Sep 2, | Michael Holden

[WhatNot]

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

[stylin19a]

yikes...science and math collide.
to even imagine order out of chaos is incredible, considering all the unknowns. What are the possible odds
of it happening like Hawking says ?

I don't know, but let's take 10 knowns.

Take 10 identical coins and mark them 1 to 10.
Place them in your pocket.
Now take one out.
There is 1 chance in 10 that you will get number one.
Now replace it, and the overall chance that number two follows number one is not 1 in 10, but 1 in 100.
With each new coin taken out, the risk will be multiplied by 10, so that the chance of ten following nine, is 1 in 10 000 000 000 or 10 billion.

Nice try Perfessor.

[Yardstick]

Here’s what I think it comes down to: a universe without God is an absurdity, and a universe with God is a mystery. It’s hard for our intellects to get comfortable with either, but at least the latter allows for the possibility of meaning and rationality and true personhood.

[WhatNot]

yes, I think your right, he's just grabbing for headlines, desiring so much to be relevant once again.

[Republican Extremist]

*******Perhaps he is some sort of “Hyper” or super-agnostic, believing that God is more than just uninvolved in the day to day affairs of people, but also uninvolved in anything, a by-stander watching the “big-bang” just happen, like we might stand in awe watching a fireworks spectacle. *******

No, you either believe in fate, or that every single atom is moved in a pre-determined manner by the hand of a greater being, or you believe in chance, or that things happen randomly, but within a narrow framework of laws (aka: physics).

Quantum Mechanics has proven the latter to be the truth.

Chance also does not rule out the possibility of a Creator, it just means the Creator may have created the opportunity and the physical laws to govern the opportunity of a universe springing into existence on it's own.

Hawking, Guth, etcetera are not thinking about just the beginning of this universe. They are thinking about what came before, and what else there may be besides this universe. Maybe God created the big picture, and the picture is merely larger than presumed.

[Yardstick]

What is unknown becomes known over time.

What do you mean by "known". How do particles moving along paths governed by the laws of physics "know" anything?

[Republican Extremist]

******** Here’s what I think it comes down to: a universe without God is an absurdity, and a universe with God is a mystery. It’s hard for our intellects to get comfortable with either, but at least the latter allows for the possibility of meaning and rationality and true personhood. *******

Everybody loves a good mystery, but trying to solve mysteries is an essential quality of being human.

Science and Religion are both attempts at getting to the end of the mystery, are they not?

[editor-surveyor]

Nonsense!

The ‘mistake’ is the arrogant fools that presume to correct God. He didn’t allow the meaning of his word to be corrupted, and he places numerous numeric and abstract seals within the text to assure us.

The blind dismiss them.

[WhatNot]

So first cause (big picture) was supernatural, which open the door for the natural (big-bang) to occur?

[irishtenor]

Take it up with God. That’s what he called himself when Moses asked who he should say was sending him to the Hebrews.

[editor-surveyor]

> “Science and Religion are both attempts at getting to the end of the mystery, are they not?”

.
No, they are not.

Religion is a defense mechanism, an alibi, to excuse deviance from God’s commandments.

“Science” is another defense mechanism to sidestep the everpresent evidence of God.

[editor-surveyor]

> “What are the possible odds
of it happening like Hawking says ?”

.
Infinitely less than zero!
.

[Republican Extremist]

*****What is unknown becomes known over time.****

What do you mean by "known". How do particles moving along paths governed by the laws of physics "know" anything?*****

I would point you back to the days of Galileo where religion persecuted people for advocating the Theory of Copernicus that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

The unknown became known.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

must ping self to watch this

[fortheDeclaration]

LOL! Ex.3:14 And G-d said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM';

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Exodus3.html

[Republican Extremist]

******Nonsense! The ‘mistake’ is the arrogant fools that presume to correct God. He didn’t allow the meaning of his word to be corrupted, and he places numerous numeric and abstract seals within the text to assure us. The blind dismiss them. *******

Sure...

Again: There are no Hebrew words for "I AM".

The text you are reading today is not what was written originally. Parts have been left out (see "The Council of Nicea"), and parts were mis-translated (No Hebrew word for "I AM").

[Republican Extremist]

*******So first cause (big picture) was supernatural, which open the door for the natural (big-bang) to occur? ******

That possibilty exists. I am not ruling out a supreme being.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Nobody. They have always existed. Glad you're so confident in knowing that since I think many scientists aren't sure what things were like prior to the Big Bang, but I digress. Why do they exist in the first place? Why are they the way they are instead of some other way? I'm not saying God is necessarily responsible or involved, just wondering.

[Republican Extremist]

That is an English, not the original Hebrew.

Btw, who wrote Exodus?

[WhatNot]

We know the universe isn't eternal, otherwise the finite energy would have run out. We know that all events have a cause. We know that for the atheist and evolutionist, all causes and events are natural so the "first cause" has to be a natural one.

I think my description, of Hyper-agnostic, best describes the worldview of Hawkings.

[cerberus]

I'm not offended by his opinion, but instead I am saddened by it. It pains me to see an intellectual giant such as Hawking be so utterly blind.

As Jefferson said, "...it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." In fact I respect his opinion and don't find it "utterly blind" as you say. If the existence of God were provable then I could agree that he is "blind" but, since it is not, I will regard it as the intelligent opinion of a person who has devoted his life to trying to comprehend the great mysteries though I do not necessarily agree with his conclusion.