Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

Originally posted by Dan St John
I've read, in earlier Stephen Hawking books, that he was actually TRYING to find relevance in God THROUGH physics, and that he felt he had done so. Why the change?

Because he is not dogmatic. His views fit the evidence.

I'm assuming his work led him to the conclusion God is not needed.

Originally posted by jaywill
Stephen Hawking also said that a computer virus should be considered a new life form.

You go ahead and follow Stephen Hawking in everything if you want to. Not me, not in everything.

I don't think a computer virus is a new life form.

Follow Stephen Hawking? Where's he going?

Originally posted by Dan St John
I've read, in earlier Stephen Hawking books, that he was actually TRYING to find relevance in God THROUGH physics, and that he felt he had done so. Why the change?

It sounds like you are referring to Stephen Hawking's question "Does God Play Dice?" and his analysis which was in response to Albert Einstein's comment "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." which is often paraphrased to "God does not play dice". This was related to apparent randomness in Quantum Mechanics. Einstein was an atheist and God in this context was a metaphor for nature. Same applies to Stephen Hawking's question.

This hasn't stopped creationists from taking these out of context though.

I personally believe that scientists should avoid such poetic language when trying to describe something which requires precision and clarity. However, metaphors often help the layperson to attempt to understand what is being portrayed. Maybe similes should be used instead. 😕

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Unfortunately I don’t understand poetry 🙁

And I hate it when poetry is used to answer my carefully laid out questions 🙁

Darwinism described as the most successful creation myth:

(Dawkins says Natural Selection responsible for the existence of life. Dawkins made Evolution an origin of life theory then)

YouTube&feature=related

Amen to that, the concept of a human being matter how smart being able to answer the most fundamental question of all is nonsense.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Because he is not dogmatic. His views fit the evidence.

I'm assuming his work led him to the conclusion God is not needed.

Disagree. I think he went searching for a lack of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Disagree. I think he went searching for a lack of God.

What led you to this conclusion?