Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

I was thinking the exact same thing - but before I give you my answer, you will need to excuse me. The bell rings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

this is an excerpt from the book...

That is not qualified in any way.

Again, no qualification.

This is less certain since he has switched over to the construction 'not necessary'.

Otherwise he seems to be expressing himself with certainty.

Also, always of note in these kinds of cosmological discussions

the potential for 'spontaneous creation' is not seen as part of the universe. To me this potential is part of what is and hence a question is begged.

Note also: he is proposing an effect without a cause. I am not saying this is wrong, but he is not simply running against religious beliefs, but also scientific ones. Of course science does that and that is a positive quality.

It does sound like the universe caused itself. Alpha numeric linked, earlier in this thread, to a paper speculating! that the universe could self-create. I am not sure if this is what Hawking is basing his claims on, but the paper seemed speculative and presented itself that way. I only read the abstract. And again, it did not seem to cover why nothingness should have this potential to suddenly be filled.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Someone's been reading my posts!

The law - than the action. As in:

THE LAW: LET THERE BE LIGHT.

THE ACTION: AND THERE WAS LIGHT.


And before the law can be actioned:

First the formless [lawless] has to be converted to form [law abiding]. Is that not what science is all about?


I learnt all this from a mythical book called Genesis - world's first alphabetical book and one which sold more than BHT.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

the concept of something whether it's physics or creation produces a strange conundrum in how we percieve.

it seems that nothingness makes more sense than something. if there is nothing, then there is no question. if there is something we wonder why it has the properties it has, so therefore where it came from or how it came to be.

the concept of god is considered something, so then we have to wonder how that something came to be. it being always doesn't seem to make sense since we are always observing cause and effect.

nonexistence seems to make more sense than existence even though we exist.

maybe it's true since we yearn to get to the root of everything, possibly to the point of nothing and no reaction.

 

I found every neo science rejecting a finite universe by manifold neo manipulations of the most bogus, slight o hand casino science misrepresentations. I don't blame them. Because!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Causality only applies once time exists. Space and time were created at the instant of the big bang. No contradiction therefore.

 

Then the BB could not have been the first action and the universe could not be finite.

The enigma becomes slightly less if we see laws being precedent of matter and action. The notion the law came after the universe is like saying the car came before the car making manual. It is safest to use generic, everyday reductionist principles for the origins - because that is the only place they could come from, thus the origin is more the same than not so.

 

I call your logic stupid once and you throw a fit and talk about 'harassment'? I think you should learn what 'harassment' is because someone simply disagreeing with you and being able to explain why you're incorrect isn't 'harassment', its called a 'discussion' or 'debate'.

Or do you think you're going to go through life with no one ever disagreeing with you and saying "Your logic is flawed" or "Your argument is incorrect"? Please tell me if you honestly think someone saying such things is 'harassment' or 'bigoted'? Your posts seem to imply you think simple disagreement is wrong and horribly rude.

 

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 (1 hour)

 

I think you're mistaken, I don't see where Hawking is saying science has disproved God. He says he believes the universe can be explained, as least to his own satisfaction, without needing to conjure up mythical beings. Doesn't require a new model to explain something like that, you could just argue that the Big Bang didn't need a cause, or time goes infinitely far back, and the laws of physics simply are what they are for no reason. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it just means at this stage no one has shown why she would be necessary or useful to the picture.

If you're looking for a complete top-down explanation of everything, including the very laws of physics themselves, I've never seen an attempt by the physics community, including Hawking himself, to address such an issue. They like to push everything back to Action Principles and Lagrangians, but that doesn't explain where the Action Principle comes from or why it should be obeyed. Why should Hawking be obliged to have a 100% understanding of everything to assert his belief God is not needed to construct such a picture? No religion has ever presented a complete 100% understanding or description of God, yet I don't see you knocking anyone who would suggest God is necessary in any complete explanation.

 

Firstly, I hope you're not confusing what you call "action" and what physicists term the "Action Principle" I just mentioned in my previous post. Two totally different things, just want to make sure everyone understands that.

Secondly, we know there's light, we can see it. What's so special about a cultural tall-tale in which Zeus or Ra snaps his fingers and makes light? And you think this is a good scientific reference? You know it wasn't just light in the beginning, right? There's potentially an infinite number of different particle types in the quantum vacuum, photons are only one of them. Besides, what does the Bible tell us about the Hubble constant? Zippo, that's what. I'd look in the Bible for tips on how to get Leprosy, but that's about the only semi-useful scientific info I'd get.

So then who made God? If the universe can't somehow make itself, how can God make herself?

I'm pretty sure the oldest known writings come from the Hindus or thereabouts. As for Genesis, I've heard the oldest known copies of many sections are written in Greek and date back to Alexandrian times.

 

@CptBork

God, herself?

God mentions the pronoun "He" about himself hundred of times in the Holy Quran so please keep the "herself" for females.

 

I don't give any credence to your book. I say God could be a mid-30ish female with a beer belly, and tentacles sprouting from her head.

 

strangely enough, god is also described in a similar context

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm no major in Physics but I don't understand the statement that only the law of gravity is needed...

Gravity only affects things not nothing. Even if the law of gravity exists it has no affect if something which it can affect does not exist.

Or if you say that it does affect the nothing, but then that state would then be static, for example the law of entropy if there is no energy then at all given time the entropy would be the same- i.e this leads to nothing (no change), which makes sense as nothing leads to nothing (and I mean 'truly' nothing leads to 'truly' nothing) as far as I know. If there is no space then what are the possible distributions of something that doesn't exist? I don't know

I feel he has over-simplified his statement which makes absolutely no sense to me.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

even if you want to say the laws of physics reacted with the laws of physics which led to the universe you are still dealing with a self causal situation

 

Quite the opposite, theists keep telling me God has always existed.

 

James said ''No. Hawking said the laws of physics led to the formation of the universe. That's not the same as saying the universe caused itself.''

However, your assumption would be a contradiction, Hawking claims:

''“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.''

He means this, in the sense I have been aware of for a while, about the spontaneous nature particles can appear from the vacuum, the so-called ''something from nothing attitude.'' However, this does not disprove the existence of God.

There are many reasons for this.