Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

[peterslovo]

Interesting read.

Linkie: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...ss_igoogle_cnn

LONDON, England (CNN) -- God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.

His book -- as the title suggests -- is an attempt to answer "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything," he writes, quoting Douglas Adams' cult science fiction romp, "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

His answer is "M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space." He doesn't explain much of that in the excerpt, which is the introduction to the book.

But he says he understands the feeling of the great English scientist Isaac Newton that God did "create" and "conserve" order in the universe.

It was the discovery of other solar systems outside our own, in 1992, that undercut a key idea of Newton's -- that our world was so uniquely designed to be comfortable for human life that some divine creator must have been responsible.

But, Hawking argues, if there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life.

And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.

From there he introduces the idea of multiple universes, saying that if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours -- and in such a universe, something not only can, but must, arise from nothing.

Therefore, he concludes, there's no need for God to explain it.

But some of Hawking's Cambridge colleagues said the physicist has missed the point.

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing," said Denis Alexander.

"Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.

"Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," said Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

And Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God.

But, he said, "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

Hawking's book will be published on September 7 in the United States and September 9 in the United Kingdom.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Don't people just buy his books to look smart, but never read them?

M-theory is String Theory, no? Maybe he IS god. How else is he still alive?

[toast2266]

a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe...

reason and credibility: the hallmarks of religion.

[OldLarry]

posed this in the bible thread but:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mMHtVRPlg0"]YouTube- David Cross Impressions[/nomedia]

just kills me

[iscariot]

reason and credibility: the hallmarks of religion.

I lol'd...

[grrrr]

And of course, CNN couldn't even get that right. He did not state that "god did not create the universe", he stated, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going."

But writing it their way is more likely to inflame the masses, which is what media aims to do anymore.

[ski_adk]

And of course, CNN couldn't even get that right. He did not state that "god did not create the universe", he stated, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going."

But writing it their way is more likely to inflame the masses, which is what media aims to do anymore.

Ratings at the expense of truth.

[GeezerSteve]

Religion has nothing to do with truth. Religion is about preserving the status quo power. Duh.

And the concept of "god" to Hawking and Einstein is wholly irrelevant to the modern fairy tale religions' concept of an anthropomorphic "God." Someone who has accepted the existence of a Judeo/Christian God or Islamic Allah is necessarily irrational, and so it's a waste of time making the rational argument that it's all just a fairy tale.

Any public figure who broaches the subject of whether or not a diety exists will be brutally attacked, and those who attempt to do so (e.g., Spinoza, 19th Century rationalists, Russell) are forced to do so in nuanced ways which the masses are unable to interpret.

So why bother even bringing up the subject? If you do, you'll just get attacked and a bunch of double talk nonsense palaver like this:

"Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," said Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

[Poop~Ghost]

god or the lack there of

1. can rarely be civilly discussed
2. seems to lead directly to fundamentalism
3. arguing about it makes each side dig in further

4. makes for super awesome internet fights

[iscariot]

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[Crass3000]

M-theory is String Theory, no?

M-Theory is an extension of string theory as per:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

They're not the same.

[GeezerSteve]

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Yeah, I thought about posting that link.

[ski_adk]

I think the point that Hawking is trying to make is that we don't need to consider an invisible sky being waving a magic wand or barking an order for creation to happen. Basically, he's trying to clear people's mind of whatever assumptions they have of God and creation so that they think about the processes and mechanics involved.

Personally, I don't understand this friction between theists and scientists. Science deals with what can be observed and explained while religion deals with what cannot. At no point whatsoever, past and probably future will science outright deny religion -- by it's own logic it can't. Why? Because you cannot prove the non-existence of something. In scienctific terms, God is probably unlikely, but not impossible..nothing is totally impossible, just unprobable. (Conversely, isn't it quite ironic though how religion likes to pick and choose which aspects of science it accepts and denies.)

On that note however, I don't understand why science can't make nice with the religious crowd either. All they have to say is "science is the method of God" and the 2 groups should be able to get along swimmingly.

[doughboyshredder]

Religion has nothing to do with truth. Religion is about preserving the status quo power. Duh.

And the concept of "god" to Hawking and Einstein is wholly irrelevant to the modern fairy tale religions' concept of an anthropomorphic "God." Someone who has accepted the existence of a Judeo/Christian God or Islamic Allah is necessarily irrational, and so it's a waste of time making the rational argument that it's all just a fairy tale.

Any public figure who broaches the subject of whether or not a diety exists will be brutally attacked, and those who attempt to do so (e.g., Spinoza, 19th Century rationalists, Russell) are forced to do so in nuanced ways which the masses are unable to interpret.

So why bother even bringing up the subject? If you do, you'll just get attacked and a bunch of double talk nonsense palaver like this:

QFT ............

[quixotle]

I think the point that Hawking is trying to make is that we don't need to consider an invisible sky being waving a magic wand or barking an order for creation to happen. Basically, he's trying to clear people's mind of whatever assumptions they have of God and creation so that they think about the processes and mechanics involved.

Personally, I don't understand this friction between theists and scientists. Science deals with what can be observed and explained while religion deals with what cannot. At no point whatsoever, past and probably future will science outright deny religion -- by it's own logic it can't. Why? Because you cannot prove the non-existence of something. In scienctific terms, God is probably unlikely, but not impossible..nothing is totally impossible, just unprobable. (Conversely, isn't it quite ironic though how religion likes to pick and choose which aspects of science it accepts and denies.)

On that note however, I don't understand why science can't make nice with the religious crowd either. All they have to say is "science is the method of God" and the 2 groups should be able to get along swimmingly.

What is ironic is that almost every religion on earth purports itself to be a beacon of tolerance and a moral compass for humanity, when in reality religion is the source of almost all of the world's bigotry, intolerance, and conflict. The problem is for one to be truly religious, one has to be irrational and illogical, therefore by it's very nature religion attracts the dumbest members of society. There is no argument for religion, no intelligent, thoughtful human being can defend the concept of religion. In one hundred years our great great great grandchildren will look back on our times and shake their heads wondering how we could send robots to Mars but still believed in ancient fairy tales to the point that we let them dictate our lives. I'm not athiest, I can't say with certainty that there is no god or higher being out there somewhere. But there is one thing I'm absolutely certain of: Every religion on earth is a laughable, idiotic, farce. Why supposedly intelligent people cling to these ridiculous beliefs is beyond me. Religion is a poison.

[brice618]

There are many problems with religion as we see it exemplified today. Any time you try and congregate a large number of people among the auspice of love and forgiveness you will always, always, always, see at least some perversion of it. In a way that's the true point of religion, in my opinion. It isn't about a moralist worldview and wielding it over peoples head, its about realizing that every one is, generally, in the same boat. We aren't perfect, we won't ever be, so accept that and accept your own and peoples imperfection, and care for them.

Religion in the US has too closely resembled capitalism for far too long. Its a numbers game, and the best way to win it (because that's what we do in 'merica, we win!) is to divide things into clear, black and white, moralism/ dogma. I think it can be, and is, done on a very small scale differently.

[OldLarry]

I'm sorry, maybe I missed it, but has ICP weighed in on this important matter?

[chatton18]

And Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God.

But, he said, "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

I'm sorry but if this guy's argument is that "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe" can someone please explain to me who created and why there is a God.

[Dickeymotto]

What is ironic is that almost every religion on earth purports itself to be a beacon of tolerance and a moral compass for humanity, when in reality religion is the source of almost all of the world's bigotry, intolerance, and conflict. The problem is for one to be truly religious, one has to be irrational and illogical, therefore by it's very nature religion attracts the dumbest members of society. There is no argument for religion, no intelligent, thoughtful human being can defend the concept of religion. In one hundred years our great great great grandchildren will look back on our times and shake their heads wondering how we could send robots to Mars but still believed in ancient fairy tales to the point that we let them dictate our lives. I'm not athiest, I can't say with certainty that there is no god or higher being out there somewhere. But there is one thing I'm absolutely certain of: Every religion on earth is a laughable, idiotic, farce. Why supposedly intelligent people cling to these ridiculous beliefs is beyond me. Religion is a poison.

I have to respectfully disagree. Most of my good friends are religious and can justify their beliefs in an intelligent, logical, and coherent manner. I myself am not at all religious and really don't care for the concept of religion in general. I just don't think idiots are an exclusive feature of religion. If there were never any religions, there would still be the ignorant masses squabbling over who is right. That is just human nature. Religion is more like an incubated petri dish, it doesn't create bacteria, its just the ideal environment for them to feed and multiply rapidly.

[leroy jenkins]

What is ironic is that almost every religion on earth purports itself to be a beacon of tolerance and a moral compass for humanity, when in reality religion is the source of almost all of the world's bigotry, intolerance, and conflict. The problem is for one to be truly religious, one has to be irrational and illogical, therefore by it's very nature religion attracts the dumbest members of society. There is no argument for religion, no intelligent, thoughtful human being can defend the concept of religion. In one hundred years our great great great grandchildren will look back on our times and shake their heads wondering how we could send robots to Mars but still believed in ancient fairy tales to the point that we let them dictate our lives. I'm not athiest, I can't say with certainty that there is no god or higher being out there somewhere. But there is one thing I'm absolutely certain of: Every religion on earth is a laughable, idiotic, farce. Why supposedly intelligent people cling to these ridiculous beliefs is beyond me. Religion is a poison.

You know whats even more ironic? How bout when atheists point out how intolerant religion is all the time, yet are just as intolerant themselves.

I've known people of all religions, and apart from some batshit crazy jehovah's witnesses, no one has ever disrespected my right to form my own beliefs besides angry self righteous atheists.

I dont think its religion thats intolerant, I think its just people.

You say youre an agnostic, congrats, that seems to be about the least annoying religious viewpoint.

[OldLarry]

can we take this to religious asshattery please? oh wait-

[doughboyshredder]

You know whats even more ironic? How bout when atheists point out how intolerant religion is all the time, yet are just as intolerant themselves.

except that tolerance is not part of the teachings of atheism, while it is part of the teachings of most religions.

An intolerant atheist is not a hypocrite, while an intolerant Christian most certainly is.

[Captain Anal]

you know how much bullshit i got growing up from douchebag born-again alliance christians in my town and extended family? i made a conscious decision when i was about 8 years old to stop going to church because it creeped me out. for the next 10 years of my life i was regularly given shit and berated for not going to church and not accepting christ etc. they would try to trick me or force me into going to church and even succeeded now and then. then they'd get pissed off when i would leave the building and just wait outside for a few hours until they were done.

these people were assholes and needless to say i avoid them like the plague. a bunch of self righteous cunts who talked down to me like i was some kind of inferior being because i wasn't a regular church-goer. these are the kind of people who would hand out jesus pamphlets instead of candy at halloween.

generally i consider myself to not only be very tolerant... but accepting. but being exposed to all of their nonsense for so long really made me hate people like that. i can't help it.

i always have thought that the idea of a god was absurd (at least in the sense that most christians seem to believe in a god). but i am open to the possibility that there is some kind of unseen power (NOT an entity) behind the creation of things. but i prefer not to think about it.

[neck beard]

Science deals with what can be observed and explained while religion deals with what cannot.

you cannot prove the non-existence of something.

Sorry man, you have crashed and burned on this one. 100% upside down logic. I don't care your opinion regards religion, that is your choice. But you can't bastardize Bertrand Russell like that.

- there is an infinite number of things that cannot be observed. Just make them up, like afterlife and god and teapots orbiting the sun.

- atheists are not burdened with having to prove the non-existence of something. Religious people made up the god, why should a rational person have to prove the non-existence. I can make anything up, you are quite justified in asking me to prove it before you yourself subscribe toi it. It am out of line asking you to disprove something that I invented out of my imagination, like teapots orbiting the sun.

Sorry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

It is a pity that the construct of religion ever expanded past being just a feel good hobby. Because that is all it is.

[OldLarry]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLT66...ayer_embedded#!