<~Hawking> God did not create the Universe

[999_Springs]

Ah yes, this story that's been hogging the front page of newspapers for days.

I don't think Hawking is qualified to make statements like that. Science and religion are essentially completely separate things. Science takes apart the world to see what we can discover about it. Religion puts things together to find meaning. Once cannot necessarily disprove the other. Just because Hawking's M-theory is compatible with the non-existence of God doesn't imply, on its own, that God doesn't exist.

[SlappyMcGee]

Some basic facts:

Science cannot disprove religion, nor is it actively trying to. Why? Because most agree that religion -in fact- exists.
Science can disprove all of the tenets of most religions, and does, constantly. Re: Dinosaurs, the Universe
Religion cannot disprove science because Religion does not attempt to -prove- anything. It just says "This is like this."
Finally, science cannot disprove belief in a higher power because the potential for such a thing would have to live outside of our world, and thus, be unscientific. That said, it is definitely not whatever God, Deity, Space Duck, or Pasta-Based Alien you happen to have latched onto.

[scythe]

I like the idea that all the people who have been entirely convinced for their entire lives that there is a zombie wizard in the sky are going to stop because some astrophysicist with cerebral palsy says it's bullshit.

I find it amusing.

[taaveti]

Has anyone actually found a legit quote from Hawking saying that god doesn't exist? I've seen plenty of news articles in which a reporter who can't comprehend basic arithmetic, let alone theoretical physics, stating that Hawking says there isn't a god, but the only solid quotes I've seen are saying that there doesn't have to be a god- that it's possible for the universe we know to spontaneously spring into existence with no prime motivator other than gravity.
This seems more like a bunch of reporters reading a paper which says that there are places cold enough for ice to form naturally without any human intervention, and then going on to write articles about "scientist claims that humans can't make ice".

[squibbles]

Supposedly his new book has a substantial amount of content dedicated to this.

Personally, I think it's somewhat ridiculous that someone could attempt to make such an ultimate claim on such a subject. Nobody is, has been, or ever will be qualified to make that claim.

[smartalco]

This seems more like a bunch of reporters reading a paper which says that there are places cold enough for ice to form naturally without any human intervention, and then going on to write articles about "scientist claims that humans can't make ice".

Regardless of the content at hand, this is one of the most awesome analogies I have ever read. although that may be because I'm reading it while tired.

[otters]

Topic title is misleading, Hawking's intention was to state that no God is necessary for the universe's existence.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Topic title is misleading, Hawking's intention was to state that no God is necessary for the universe's existence.

Thank you.

It's basically a (much more general) echo of Laplace's reply to Napoleon, when the emperor asked where God fits into his model of the universe: "I had no need of that hypothesis."

On the tangent some of you seem to be going down: I'd only say that science is unfit to disprove any kind of god one might propose simply because logic, itself, is not a field of science. It is otherwise quite possible to definitively disprove the existence of many of the silly little deities you've invented (including the billions of variations of the Christian God) by showing that the claims of such are logically inconsistent. But yes, it's true that you can wimp out of the whole discussion by claiming that there might be some kind of "god" we've never thought about before, which, because we would necessarily lack any kind of description of it, reduces that claim to, "there could be things we've never heard of before". And that's clearly true, although to use that to conclude the existence of an invisible zombie wizard, as many of you people seem to be doing, is Sparta.

[otters~1]

It's basically a (much more general) echo of Laplace's reply to Napoleon, when the emperor asked where God fits into his model of the universe: "I had no need of that hypothesis."

Props.


Also I have a hankering for Space Duck now.

[SkyPanda]

Personally, I think it's somewhat ridiculous that someone could attempt to make such an ultimate claim on such a subject. Nobody is, has been, or ever will be qualified to make that claim.

...and halfway across the world, a scientist on the verge of creating an amazing time-travelling dimension-leaping spaceship reads squibbles' post, wipes away a single tear and with head hanging, throws his masterpiece into the trash
:(

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

How did I miss this...

Personally, I think it's somewhat ridiculous that someone could attempt to make such an ultimate claim on such a subject. Nobody is, has been, or ever will be qualified to make that claim.

...except for you, of course. As a Christian, you know rather precisely the God who created all, His personal feelings about the universe, the direction He intends it to move, and how He has partitioned and makes use of His extra-universal realm. You certainly know that it wasn't Allah, Krishna, An, or Enlil (because, c'mon, don't be ridiculous).
Best of all, that access to a qualitatively superior (and therefore unchallengeable) basis of knowledge that you call faith is making a virtue out of knowing all of this without any evidence whatsoever and in spite of ample reasoning to the contrary.

Hawking's statement was that any kind of god is not necessary to explain the origin and function of the universe, and you are otherwise free to slap in "because my god willed it so" anywhere in his book. He has not disproven any gods, nor did he intend to. He is not making any ultimate claims, but here you are condemning him for it because you mistakenly believe your enormous collection of ultimate claims are under attack.

[blackson]

How did I miss this...

Personally, I think it's somewhat ridiculous that someone could attempt to make such an ultimate claim on such a subject. Nobody is, has been, or ever will be qualified to make that claim.

...except for you, of course. As a Christian, you know rather precisely the God who created all, His personal feelings about the universe, the direction He intends it to move, and how He has partitioned and makes use of His extra-universal realm. You certainly know that it wasn't Allah, Krishna, An, or Enlil (because, c'mon, don't be ridiculous).
Best of all, that access to a qualitatively superior (and therefore unchallengeable) basis of knowledge that you call faith is making a virtue out of knowing all of this without any evidence whatsoever and in spite of ample reasoning to the contrary.

Hawking's statement was that any kind of god is not necessary to explain the origin and function of the universe, and you are otherwise free to slap in "because my god willed it so" anywhere in his book. He has not disproven any gods, nor did he intend to. He is not making any ultimate claims, but here you are condemning him for it because you mistakenly believe your enormous collection of ultimate claims are under attack.

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't make him qualified, which is what he was arguing. Anyone can say "There is definitely a god" or "There is no god", but that doesn't make them (pretty much any Theist or Atheist) qualified to make such a claim.

[otters]

How did I miss this...

Personally, I think it's somewhat ridiculous that someone could attempt to make such an ultimate claim on such a subject. Nobody is, has been, or ever will be qualified to make that claim.

...except for you, of course. As a Christian, you know rather precisely the God who created all, His personal feelings about the universe, the direction He intends it to move, and how He has partitioned and makes use of His extra-universal realm. You certainly know that it wasn't Allah, Krishna, An, or Enlil (because, c'mon, don't be ridiculous).
Best of all, that access to a qualitatively superior (and therefore unchallengeable) basis of knowledge that you call faith is making a virtue out of knowing all of this without any evidence whatsoever and in spite of ample reasoning to the contrary.

Hawking's statement was that any kind of god is not necessary to explain the origin and function of the universe, and you are otherwise free to slap in "because my god willed it so" anywhere in his book. He has not disproven any gods, nor did he intend to. He is not making any ultimate claims, but here you are condemning him for it because you mistakenly believe your enormous collection of ultimate claims are under attack.

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't make him qualified, which is what he was arguing. Anyone can say "There is definitely a god" or "There is no god", but that doesn't make them (pretty much any Theist or Atheist) qualified to make such a claim.

Who, then, is qualified to condemn the existence of imaginary beings?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't make him qualified, which is what he was arguing. Anyone can say "There is definitely a god" or "There is no god", but that doesn't make them (pretty much any Theist or Atheist) qualified to make such a claim.

Hawking's statement was that any kind of god is not necessary to explain the origin and function of the universe, and you are otherwise free to slap in "because my god willed it so" anywhere in his book. He has not disproven any gods, nor did he intend to. He is not making any ultimate claims, but here you are condemning him for it because you mistakenly believe your enormous collection of ultimate claims are under attack.

[blackson]

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't make him qualified, which is what he was arguing. Anyone can say "There is definitely a god" or "There is no god", but that doesn't make them (pretty much any Theist or Atheist) qualified to make such a claim.

Hawking's statement was that any kind of god is not necessary to explain the origin and function of the universe, and you are otherwise free to slap in "because my god willed it so" anywhere in his book. He has not disproven any gods, nor did he intend to. He is not making any ultimate claims, but here you are condemning him for it because you mistakenly believe your enormous collection of ultimate claims are under attack.

Oh, excuse me, I should have filtered what I was quoting. I was only responding to your first paragraph where you went off on the Christianity tangent.

[Tanner]

Oh, excuse me, I should have filtered what I was quoting. I was only responding to your first paragraph where you went off on the Christianity tangent.

On the tangent some of you seem to be going down: I'd only say that science is unfit to disprove any kind of god one might propose simply because logic, itself, is not a field of science. It is otherwise quite possible to definitively disprove the existence of many of the silly little deities you've invented (including the billions of variations of the Christian God) by showing that the claims of such are logically inconsistent. But yes, it's true that you can wimp out of the whole discussion by claiming that there might be some kind of "god" we've never thought about before, which, because we would necessarily lack any kind of description of it, reduces that claim to, "there could be things we've never heard of before". And that's clearly true, although to use that to conclude the existence of an invisible zombie wizard, as many of you people seem to be doing, is Sparta.

When it's not even a page long, there's really no excuse not to be aware of the entire thread.

To reiterate and modify what Suki's already said: from a philosophical point of view, Hawking barely needs to defend himself at all in the opinion that there is no god-type entity. The burden of proof lies squarely on the person proposing that such a thing exists and the reality is that if there were solid, empirical proof that god exists, we... well, I shouldn't speak for all of us, I wouldn't be having this conversation. Imagine for a moment that I have a box and tell you that God (or a god, if you prefer) is in the box. You needn't give me reasons why it's impossible for god to be in the box; I need to convince you that my assertion is correct. Again, this is the philosophical burden of proof and not the scientific one. We should all already be entirely aware of the fact that this silly invisible, incorporeal god character is outside the realm of empirical study.

Edit: Still makes decent sense in the morning. High five.

[squibbles]

How did I miss this...

Personally, I think it's somewhat ridiculous that someone could attempt to make such an ultimate claim on such a subject. Nobody is, has been, or ever will be qualified to make that claim.

...except for you, of course. As a Christian, you know rather precisely the God who created all, His personal feelings about the universe, the direction He intends it to move, and how He has partitioned and makes use of His extra-universal realm. You certainly know that it wasn't Allah, Krishna, An, or Enlil (because, c'mon, don't be ridiculous).
Best of all, that access to a qualitatively superior (and therefore unchallengeable) basis of knowledge that you call faith is making a virtue out of knowing all of this without any evidence whatsoever and in spite of ample reasoning to the contrary.

Hawking's statement was that any kind of god is not necessary to explain the origin and function of the universe, and you are otherwise free to slap in "because my god willed it so" anywhere in his book. He has not disproven any gods, nor did he intend to. He is not making any ultimate claims, but here you are condemning him for it because you mistakenly believe your enormous collection of ultimate claims are under attack.

Err, no, not at all, and I thought you of all people would know that I am not Christian, Suki, given the two page debate on my religion we had. >_>

I was saying that it's impossible to either prove or disprove whether a god created the universe or not. I'll admit, I was uninformed of the topic at the time of posting, so I assumed that the title was, well...accurate, and from that basis comes my statement. While yes, it was based on incorrect logic, I think it's understandably mistaken, but either way, my statement still stands. Nobody is or ever will be qualified to make an ultimate claim as to the existence of a god, and by proxy, the origin of the universe.

[Tanner]

Nobody is or ever will be qualified to make an ultimate claim as to the existence of a god, and by proxy, the origin of the universe.

"It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin, Descent of Man

[Kablizzy]

Nobody is or ever will be qualified to make an ultimate claim as to the existence of a god, and by proxy, the origin of the universe.

"It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin, Descent of Man

"Tanner is a fucking stupid name." - 1 Corinthians 4:14

[a happy song]

The main problem I have with all of this, is that many Christian's adamant need to defend themselves so vocally against any kind of claim Vs. the idea of a god is an indication of insecurity.

Isn't faith supposed to be strong enough to stand up n the face of that kind of opposition?

An old Friend once said to me: "I've no need to prove the existence of my God. I have a relationship with Him and I know Him, that's all that matters to me."

-

There's an article that's being passed around. it claims to counter Hawking's claim that no god is needed for the universe to have been created.

Dail Mail Article: As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God.

In it, the writer claims that if gravity is proof of the universe being able to form itself, then where did gravity come from?

Using this as a statement to prove that god must have had a hand in things is just as bold a statement as saying he did not. Indeed, if gravity needed a creator, then what created the creator?

The article ends with the line, "Hawking's new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence."

Right.

[SlappyMcGee]

The main problem I have with all of this, is that many Christian's adamant need to defend themselves so vocally against any kind of claim Vs. the idea of a god is an indication of insecurity.

Isn't faith supposed to be strong enough to stand up n the face of that kind of opposition?

An old Friend once said to me: "I've no need to prove the existence of my God. I have a relationship with Him and I know Him, that's all that matters to me."

-

There's an article that's being passed around. it claims to counter Hawking's claim that no god is needed for the universe to have been created.

Dail Mail Article: As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God.

In it, the writer claims that if gravity is proof of the universe being able to form itself, then where did gravity come from?

Using this as a statement to prove that god must have had a hand in things is just as bold a statement as saying he did not. Indeed, if gravity needed a creator, then what created the creator?

The article ends with the line, "Hawking's new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence."

Right.

I've heard that some theoretical physicists and their ilk seem to think the more they learn about the universe, the more they believe God had a hand because it`s so perfect.

[a happy song]

I've heard that some theoretical physicists and their ilk seem to think the more they learn about the universe, the more they believe God had a hand because it`s so perfect.

That, to me, is simply a show of man's inability to comprehend the infinite with any sense of true scale.

Like being blinded by the beauty of a beaming sun.

It seems like a cop-out in a sense, but perhaps it's the final truth that science will achieve.

That's a harrowing thought. I still go by the notion that any kind of creator that spawns us as pieces on the playing board of a sadistic game is something to be feared and defeated rather than loved.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

you of all people would know that I am not Christian, Suki, given the two page debate on my religion we had. >_>

Oh, whatever. I don't remember you people.

I've heard that some theoretical physicists and their ilk seem to think the more they learn about the universe, the more they believe God had a hand because it`s so perfect.

All I ever hear out of my brother is that the universe is fucking weird. One has to wonder why an omnipotent being needs such a contrived design in order to allow the universe to operate. If this universe was "intelligently" created, the creator must be severely mentally deranged. Why would it be more sensible for god to create a universe which works simply because he wills it to work, with no contorted relationships between cells and atoms and subatomic particles and waves? Why couldn't the fundamental building block of humans simply be humans, rather than tissues made of cells made of organic molecules made of atoms made of subatomic particles, etc., etc.?
I can't help but take any Fine Tuning arguments to their exact opposite intended effect: why is it more sensible that a god would make 99.9% of the universe completely unfit for, nor ever reachable, by us, the main focus of creation?

[scythe]

I've heard that some theoretical physicists and their ilk seem to think the more they learn about the universe, the more they believe God had a hand because it`s so perfect.

Math is beautiful. Physics is convoluted as hell.

[smartalco]

Why couldn't the fundamental building block of humans simply be humans

This gave me the mental picture of someone zooming out on a crowd of people, and when it gets high enough everyone just looks like cells and then you see a new person appear, and then another crowd, etc.