1. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    02 Sep '10 09:28
    An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -

    Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

    Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.
  2. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    02 Sep '10 11:35
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -

    Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

    Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.
    it seems he says that gravity will be responsible for spontaneously generating the universe.

    i don't understand that. in the early moments of the universe i was under the impression that gravity was combined with the strong force, weak force and electromagnetic force into one singular superforce. how will that force suddenly "break" and cause the big bang?
    maybe he was misquoted because bbc don't get it.

    anyway, there is always an event behind which we can place god. i don't find it possible to prove conclusively that god is redundant.
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    02 Sep '10 11:36
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -

    Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

    Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.
    oh yeah, biology hasn't made god redundant, only disproves the constant interference of god, else everything dies out.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 Sep '10 13:37
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    anyway, there is always an event behind which we can place god. i don't find it possible to prove conclusively that god is redundant.
    Why not? Surely if we can show that the universe as we know it could, within the basic laws of physics have come about through nothing more than the most basic laws of physics, then we can simply take those laws as brute facts, and God is redundant.
    In fact, I can't really see how God could not be redundant. Just about any scenario where we take the start of the universe as a brute fact, is no less reasonable than taking Gods existence as a brute fact.
    ie it is just as reasonable to say:
    1. The universe popped into existence for unknown reasons or no reason at all (brute fact).
    and
    2. God existed for unknown reasons or for no reason (brute fact) and created the universe.
  5. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    02 Sep '10 13:40
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -

    Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

    Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.
    Biology has done no such thing. Reputation is only as good as the opinion of people: how's that worked out historically, again?
  6. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    02 Sep '10 13:57
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Biology has done no such thing. Reputation is only as good as the opinion of people: how's that worked out historically, again?
    So where would you say God fits into biology?
  7. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36093
    02 Sep '10 14:00
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why not? Surely if we can show that the universe as we know it could, within the basic laws of physics have come about through nothing more than the most basic laws of physics, then we can simply take those laws as brute facts, and God is redundant.
    In fact, I can't really see how God could not be redundant. Just about any scenario where we take the star ...[text shortened]... and
    2. God existed for unknown reasons or for no reason (brute fact) and created the universe.
    This is a metaphysical question. Most theist philosophers would point out that the universe is contingent (i.e. need not have been) and argue that God is a necessary being. It's not that God's existence is a brute fact but that God cannot but exist.

    I would like to see more on this theory that argues that the Universe could pop out of nothing. Any physicists here who can explain it in layman's terms?
  8. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148578
    02 Sep '10 14:03
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    So where would you say God fits into biology?
    It is not so much that God does or does not fit into biology as much as your
    views/beliefs about biology.
    Kelly
  9. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    02 Sep '10 14:10
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    So where would you say God fits into biology?
    Biology is the study of...

    Theology is the study of...
  10. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    02 Sep '10 14:11
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    It is not so much that God does or does not fit into biology as much as your
    views/beliefs about biology.
    Kelly
    Feel free to interject where God fits into biology with relevant evidence s’il vous plaît.

    Whimsical hearsay and ancient texts excluded.
  11. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    02 Sep '10 14:15
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Biology is the study of...

    Theology is the study of...
    Biology is the study of...life and living organisms

    Theology is the study of...ancient fairytales
  12. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8074
    02 Sep '10 14:30
    Fortunately, Stephen Hawking has not been granted "all-knowing" status. From his previous books, I surmised he was probably an atheist (or agnostic), as was Sagan. I enjoyed their books and both were learned men. That doesn't mean they were/are always right.
  13. Standard memberua41
    Sharp Edge
    Dulling my blade
    Joined
    11 Dec '09
    Moves
    14434
    02 Sep '10 16:07
    Cool. What made the laws of the physics that inevitably made the big bang?

    Every side of the argument just makes more and more specialized definitions of a god. This is redundant
  14. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    02 Sep '10 19:271 edit
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -

    Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

    Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.
    Don't neglect that the word "theories" are in this comment..Lol.
    Oh but wait!!!!!!! That means proof to you guys....I forgot.
  15. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    02 Sep '10 19:291 edit
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    So where would you say God fits into biology?
    Why doesn't he fit into everything we see?
Back to Top