Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

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.

I have to say, I love these threads that proport God has been "proven" to exist or not exist. They are simply hysterical. 😵

Originally posted by whodey
I have to say, I love these threads that proport God has been "proven" to exist or not exist. They are simply hysterical. 😵

Where in the OP did it say such a thing?

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.

Shrug. The theist just claims that god designed the laws of physics and remains untroubled by this sort of finding.

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.

lets say that we are looking for god. no point in wondering who created god since we haven't even found god yet.

also, just because we explain how the universe came to be that doesn't mean we can exclude god. god might be viewed as a mysterious gardener. you see a patch of land with nice tomatoes growing on them. you can explain that those tomatoes need nutrients and water and you correctly say that the most logical assumption is that the water comes from rain, the nutrients were there from another plant that lived there. but what if a gardener waters the plants when you aren't looking? what if the gardener was there all along? your previous discoveries make him redundant. yet he might still exist despite that


sure, for science's sake we don't deal with hearsay and wishful thinking. and sure, the burden of proof lies with me.

I think we can probably concede that there are two clear possibilities at this point:

1. god exists and created the universe. Some people believe this and some don't. For those who believe the existence of the universe itself is proof. For those who don't there is no proof, and likely will not be.

2. god doesn't exist and the universe can be explained naturally. Believers will query this - how can you explain something from nothing? This implies a creator. Non-believers will argue that proposing god as an explanation for this something from nothing adds no further help to the problem.

There really is no way around this, unless god were to suddenly appear and put the whole thing to rest. Or, unless it were able to be demonstrated that there is a valid way to get something from nothing. (I'd encourage people to read Paul Davies book 'The Goldilocks Enigma' for a really interesting discussion of this point.)
Truth be told though, no matter how great the argument, believers won't accept, in the same way climate deniers disbelieve climate change, or creationists disbelieve evolution. And likewise, atheists are unlikely to be swayed by god's appearance - it isn't real, they might claim.

I'm not sure why we continue to debate these things that will never be resolved. It's fun, granted. But doesn't it feel a bit like banging your head against a wall?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Shrug. The theist just claims that god designed the laws of physics and remains untroubled by this sort of finding.

Finding, you mean statement of belief don't you?
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Biology is the study of...life and living organisms

Theology is the study of...ancient fairytales

Looks like the name fits. Nicely done.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
also, just because we explain how the universe came to be that doesn't mean we can exclude god.

At no point have I (or Stephen Hawking) said that excluding God is a requirement or a necessary conclusion. What we are saying is that he is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe. ie there are alternative explanations that are just as viable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
At no point have I (or Stephen Hawking) said that excluding God is a requirement or a necessary conclusion. What we are saying is that he is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe. ie there are alternative explanations that are just as viable.

No, not really. Any "alternative" is simply something that looks like Him, acts like Him, but denies being Him.

Originally posted by twhitehead
At no point have I (or Stephen Hawking) said that excluding God is a requirement or a necessary conclusion. What we are saying is that he is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe. ie there are alternative explanations that are just as viable.

You don't even need a reason to explain away God, you just do it. It isn't like
one is needed, if you don't want to accept God any reason will do.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Finding, you mean statement of belief don't you?
Kelly

Umm, nope.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, not really. Any "alternative" is simply something that looks like Him, acts like Him, but denies being Him.

You obviously haven't followed the thread. Stephen Hawking is suggesting that the universe could come about without something that acts like God.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't even need a reason to explain away God, you just do it. It isn't like
one is needed, if you don't want to accept God any reason will do.
Kelly

You don't need a reason, if there is no evidence for God. If there is evidence, then you do need to find alternative explanations for the evidence or accept that the evidence points to the existence of God.
I don't think there is evidence, so I would agree with you - I have no need of a reason to explain away God, because there is nothing to explain away. Its not as you claim that "any reason will do" but rather "no reason is required".
It seems Stephen Hawking used to think that the creation of the universe was evidence for God, and now he has found an alternative explanation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You don't need a reason, if there is no evidence for God. If there is evidence, then you do need to find alternative explanations for the evidence or accept that the evidence points to the existence of God.
I don't think there is evidence, so I would agree with you - I have no need of a reason to explain away God, because there is nothing to explain away ...[text shortened]... ion of the universe was evidence for God, and now he has found an alternative explanation.

No evidence, life could be called evidence, there are several things about the
universe that could be called evidence, yet if you are dead set against calling
any of them evidence they are not according to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by galveston75
Don't neglect that the word "theories" are in this comment..Lol.
Oh but wait!!!!!!! That means proof to you guys....I forgot.

What the general public consider to be theory is actually conjecture or hypothesis. In the scientific world a theory is something that is rigorously tentative. Based on all the evidence the scientific community accept is very likely to be true but always open for scrutiny and hence improving knowledge, as it will be foolish to say knowledge in anything is 100% correct.

This is still far more thorough and accurate than speculating in something that has no basis whatsoever aside from anecdotes.