Stephen Hawking Says That God Did Not

[churchill]

The 1st time I have watched Larry King from start to finish - 3 very interesting guests including this chap http://deepakchopra.com/ who seems to talk a lot of sense -

Surely this book by Hawkins will spark a lot of debate - I have not read it yet nor the book' Muhammad' by Mr Chopra .

see more at Tonight on Larry King Live!

Posted: 07:00 PM ET

Legendary Physicist Stephen Hawking!

Stephen Hawking says that God did not

create the universe!

In a rare interview, hear his controversial new

claims on the origins of life and mankind’s

ultimate mysteries – why are we here?

http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/10/tonight-on-larry-king-live-166/

[churchill]

According to the CNN interview the creation of the universe from nothing can be explained by science but this does not mean that God does not exist /

and very interesting how science, mathematics ,physics and religion can come together !

[Xangsamhua]

Does Professor Hawking indicate if it's the God that exists or the God that doesn't exist that did not create the universe?

Perhaps he could clarify what or who precisely he's referring to. After all, it's not much good referring to something that does not exist as a non-creator of the universe, or to posit a creator that can't be defined in any intelligible or logical way.

Is Professor Hawking's proposition any more meaningful that to say that "nothing" created the universe, which is absurd - "nothing" can't create anything; nor can it sit on its hands while "something" creates it. To say that nothing created the universe assumes that there was a creation, even though nothing brought it about. (???)

Presumably Professor Hawking really just wants to say that the universe is uncreated - it's just always "been there". "Something" is the given, the default position in ontology, and therefore cosmology. "Nothing" is simply the negation of "something". Talk of "creating" and "creation" (presumably ex nihilo, out of nothing) is meaningless.

Oh dear. Time for my meds, I think.

[churchill]

Does Professor Hawking indicate if it's the God that exists or the God that doesn't exist that did not create the universe?

He explains the creation of the universe - without a God/

Perhaps he could clarify what or who precisely he's referring to. After all, it's not much good referring to something that does not exist as a non-creator of the universe, or to posit a creator that can't be defined in any intelligible or logical way.

he is trying to clarify the scientific creation of the universe - not to explain religious beliefs

Is Professor Hawking's proposition any more meaningful that to say that "nothing" created the universe, which is absurd - "nothing" can't create anything; nor can it sit on its hands while "something" creates it. To say that nothing created the universe assumes that there was a creation, even though nothing brought it about. (???)

He is not saying God does not exist - but that the creation of the universe can be expained through science /

Presumably Professor Hawking really just wants to say that the universe is uncreated - it's just always "been there". "Something" is the given, the default position in ontology, and therefore cosmology. "Nothing" is simply the negation of "something". Talk of "creating" and "creation" (presumably ex nihilo, out of nothing) is meaningless.

I think he is saying that the universe was created from nothing and that as one goes back - as space gets smaller so time has less meaning / Time to read the book !

Oh dear. Time for my meds, I think.

[canuckamuck]

I think Mr Hawking is attempted to put the mystery of existence into a formula so he can sleep well at night.

What he has ascertained does not explain why there is something instead of nothing, nor how order can come from chaos.

I think I will read his book someday, but I am disappointed that he appears to chosen a hypothesis that is flawed from the beginning.

[churchill]

I think Mr Hawking is attempted to put the mystery of existence into a formula so he can sleep well at night.

What he has ascertained does not explain why there is something instead of nothing, nor how order can come from chaos.

I think I will read his book someday, but I am disappointed that he appears to chosen a hypothesis that is flawed from the beginning.

Is it not possible to accept the scientific creation of the universe and God?

[Fookhaht]

Hawking is out of his element. Should stick to science and leave God to the theologians.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Fookhaht

[canuckamuck]

I think Mr Hawking is attempted to put the mystery of existence into a formula so he can sleep well at night.

What he has ascertained does not explain why there is something instead of nothing, nor how order can come from chaos.

I think I will read his book someday, but I am disappointed that he appears to chosen a hypothesis that is flawed from the beginning.

Is it not possible to accept the scientific creation of the universe and God?

Well I guess that depends on what part of creation you attribute to God. It is widely held by people of faith that God created all of the physical laws of which science is attempting to quantify. It can also be said that science is the discovery of order set in place by God. But if you say science and God are separate then it becomes problematic.

[Xangsamhua]

I think Mr Hawking is attempted to put the mystery of existence into a formula so he can sleep well at night.

What he has ascertained does not explain why there is something instead of nothing, nor how order can come from chaos.

I think I will read his book someday, but I am disappointed that he appears to chosen a hypothesis that is flawed from the beginning.

Is it not possible to accept the scientific creation of the universe and God?

Despite my logic-chopping above I would think it is. Deism was the preferred position of the Enlightenment, and the final position of Antony Flew, after decades of relentlessly argued atheism. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Antony_Flew I've not read much of Dawkins, but I suspect he would worry about Deism's possible implications for "intelligent design".

The problem with Deism is that, after tipping your hat at the Deity for getting things under way, there's not much more to be said about him/her/it. And really, why bother creating a universe unless you're going to tinker with it, especially when your creation has given rise to such flawed and contrary beings as humans? Still, if the deity is by definition a creative principle I suppose he would create, wouldn't he? But he might be busy creating lots of universes and seeing how they turn out, so he wouldn't be too bored after all.

[churchill]

Is there not a physical world explained by science - and a spiritual world that cannot be explained by science - The Universe is Physical so can be explained ?

[canuckamuck]

Is there not a physical world explained by science - and a spiritual world that cannot be explained by science - The Universe is Physical so can be explained ?

Of course, but the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual. Science can discover the physical laws but not necessarily the purpose.

[bagheera]

So, if there is or were a god that created everything, where did that god come from and if  he\she\it took only one week to create the earth why the rush job?...could have taken more time over it, made earth a bit bigger and Germany a bit smaller or something.......

[canuckamuck]

So, if there is or were a god that created everything, where did that god come from and if  he\she\it took only one week to create the earth why the rush job?...could have taken more time over it, made earth a bit bigger and Germany a bit smaller or something.......

Have you ever thought that that God is all there is? In that case how could He come from something?

Creating the Earth is a small thing, making matter from nothing, that's a very big deal.

[emsfeld]

Well I guess that depends on what part of creation you attribute to God. It is widely held by people of faith that God created all of the physical laws of which science is attempting to quantify. It can also be said that science is the discovery of order set in place by God. But if you say science and God are separate then it becomes problematic.

Who set God in place then?

[canuckamuck]

Who set God in place then?

see post 13

[emsfeld]

So, if there is or were a god that created everything, where did that god come from and if he\she\it took only one week to create the earth why the rush job?...could have taken more time over it, made earth a bit bigger and Germany a bit smaller or something.......

Have you ever thought that that God is all there is? In that case how could He come from something?

Creating the Earth is a small thing, making matter from nothing, that's a very big deal.

Just read your answer to my somewhat similar question. I have thought about what you are suggesting, admittedly, not long and deeply, but have you ever thought about that the universe itself has no end and no beginning? Therefore doesnt need a creator to have created it nor to even exist?

Edited September 11, 2010 by emsfeld

[Fookhaht]

Well I guess that depends on what part of creation you attribute to God. It is widely held by people of faith that God created all of the physical laws of which science is attempting to quantify. It can also be said that science is the discovery of order set in place by God. But if you say science and God are separate then it becomes problematic.

Who set God in place then?

The normal theological answer: God is eternal (always was, always will be). Wrap your finite human intellect around THAT one!

[churchill]

Is there not a physical world explained by science - and a spiritual world that cannot be explained by science - The Universe is Physical so can be explained ?

Of course, but the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual. Science can discover the physical laws but not necessarily the purpose.

'but the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual'

How?

Edited September 11, 2010 by churchill

[bagheera]

So, if there is or were a god that created everything, where did that god come from and if  he\she\it took only one week to create the earth why the rush job?...could have taken more time over it, made earth a bit bigger and Germany a bit smaller or something.......

Have you ever thought that that God is all there is? In that case how could He come from something?

Creating the Earth is a small thing, making matter from nothing, that's a very big deal.

If god is all there is how can god be a 'he'.......don't tell me....old man, clouds, long flowing white beard, cherubs,....

[canuckamuck]

Is there not a physical world explained by science - and a spiritual world that cannot be explained by science - The Universe is Physical so can be explained ?

Of course, but the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual. Science can discover the physical laws but not necessarily the purpose.

'but the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual'

How?

Through the application of infinite wisdom

[canuckamuck]

So, if there is or were a god that created everything, where did that god come from and if  he\she\it took only one week to create the earth why the rush job?...could have taken more time over it, made earth a bit bigger and Germany a bit smaller or something.......

Have you ever thought that that God is all there is? In that case how could He come from something?

Creating the Earth is a small thing, making matter from nothing, that's a very big deal.

If god is all there is how can god be a 'he'.......don't tell me....old man, clouds, long flowing white beard, cherubs,....

would it make a difference?

[canuckamuck]

Just read your answer to my somewhat similar question. I have thought about what you are suggesting, admittedly, not long and deeply, but have you ever thought about that the universe itself has no end and no beginning? Therefore doesnt need a creator to have created it nor to even exist?

Because when I look at the universe and in particularly our world, I see order.

[churchill]

Is there not a physical world explained by science - and a spiritual world that cannot be explained by science - The Universe is Physical so can be explained ?

Of course, but the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual. Science can discover the physical laws but not necessarily the purpose.

'but the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual'

How?

Through the application of infinite wisdom

Infinite wisdom - means ?

One could say that Stephen Hawkins has infinite wisom in his field

Edited September 11, 2010 by churchill

[bagheera]

So, if there is or were a god that created everything, where did that god come from and if  he\she\it took only one week to create the earth why the rush job?...could have taken more time over it, made earth a bit bigger and Germany a bit smaller or something.......

Have you ever thought that that God is all there is? In that case how could He come from something?

Creating the Earth is a small thing, making matter from nothing, that's a very big deal.

If god is all there is how can god be a 'he'.......don't tell me....old man, clouds, long flowing white beard, cherubs,....

would it make a difference?

Well, yes it would make a difference if god were an old man with a long flowing white beard and surrounded by naked children with wings, sounds like a paedophile on acid.

[Fookhaht]

Infinite wisdom - means ?

One could say that Stephen Hawkins has infinite wisom in his field

Hardly. Using "infinite" there is a hundred-million times overstatement!!!!!!!!

[canuckamuck]

'but the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual'

How?

Through the application of infinite wisdom

Infinite wisdom - means ?

One could say that Stephen Hawkins has infinite wisom in his field

I believe that Mr. Hawking would disagree with that assumption.

People trip over the misconception that the intelligence that created the universe must somehow by comprehended by the finite and conflicted human mind. This is human nature we measure things by what we know. Infinite wisdom would be knowing everything to the point of thought and creation becoming a continuum without error.

Edited September 11, 2010 by canuckamuck

[churchill]

Theology unnecessary, Stephen Hawking tells CNN

'Theology is unnecessary. So says Stephen Hawking, the world-famous physicist who controversially argues in a new book that God did not create the universe.

"God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator," Hawking told CNN's "Larry King Live" in an interview that aired Friday.'

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/11/stephen.hawking.interview/#fbid=oOAv1RYamWs&wom=false

[Xangsamhua]

Theology unnecessary, Stephen Hawking tells CNN

'Theology is unnecessary. So says Stephen Hawking, the world-famous physicist who controversially argues in a new book that God did not create the universe.

Bugger! I spent 5 years doing a Masters in Theology. I wonder what my fellow-students and I were doing all that time?

Strong increase in enrolments in postgraduate theology

ACU and the Forum of Australian Catholic Institutes of Theology (FACIT) Taskforce have announced a surge in postgraduate theology course enrolments in the past decade.

Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Affairs) Professor Gabrielle McMullen said the results were encouraging and indicated the relevance of theological studies to contemporary Australia. The report identified that the combined degree Bachelor of Theology/Bachelor of Social Work is increasing in popularity at an undergraduate level, with the Doctor of Philosophy particularly showing growth at a postgraduate level.

FACIT member institutions include ACU, Broken Bay Institute, Catholic Institute of Sydney, Catholic Theological College Melbourne, Catholic Theological College of South Australia, Jesuit Theological College, John Paul II Institute of Marriage and the Family, St Paul's Theological College, University of Notre Dame Australia and Yarra Theological Union.

http://www.acu.edu.a...y_10_october/#8

[MrRichard2009]

I have always found it interesting that Science and Religion are saying the same thing, in that matter has always existed and God has always existed,...... however atheists who prefer science say how silly it is for god to have always existed and not have a beginning or a creator and people who side with religion to say how silly it is for matter to have always existed and not need a creator or beginning.

The problem with calling this line of thinking incorrect is that nothing would exist if everything needed a creator, either something created the creator who created the creator ect ..... same as mass........ OR God doesn't need creation Or mass doesn't need creation Or mass was created by god ........... any way you slice it for one group to not understand the idea that something has always existed is foolish because both sides are saying the same thing.

Lets look at the contradictions:

You simply can NOT create something from nothing so for mass to exist it has to have either been created by a god where the rules don't apply OR always existed not needing a creator

For a God to exist either it always existed or was created from the mass that already existed with no creator ........ assuming "god" was the first god

We have observable evidence of how our universe came to be from the Plank era .. 10X-26 sec. That's 10 to the minus 26th power in seconds from the beginning ..... to a singularity in time ..... what we don't know is anything prior to that , we don't know if "god" dropped that singularity into empty space and let her rip or if the expansion collapsing theory is correct or if some junior high school dropout from another universe created it and we are on his desk in some glass dome only thinking we are so large as to make that nonsense.

So while he is correct to say we don't need god to explain it the explanation is far from clear ..... If something can't come from nothing and something can't always exist how does anything exist at all ? Obviously EITHER or BOTH is untrue ... things can and do exist without creation or you can create something from nothing. .... OR Both ....... meaning both the big bang and god can exist at the same time or singularly. ....... or not at all

The upshot is that Hawking is correct.................... however those that study Physics know full well he is a hack and a liar ..... Hawking Radiation for example was stolen from a famous man from India ...... Chandakressar He wants to take credit for black holes ? get real ..... He is just a cripple and no one wants to look bad by making a cripple look bad. People like Rodger Penrose that most folks have never heard of have contributed well more to the advancement of science rather than the advancement of themselves than him.

[bagheera]

'but the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual'

How?

Through the application of infinite wisdom

Infinite wisdom - means ?

One could say that Stephen Hawkins has infinite wisom in his field

I believe that Mr. Hawking would disagree with that assumption.

People trip over the misconception that the intelligence that created the universe must somehow by comprehended by the finite and conflicted human mind. This is human nature we measure things by what we know. Infinite wisdom would be knowing everything to the point of thought and creation becoming a continuum without error.

"thought and creation becoming a continuum without error"......do go on....