Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He might have some insights but I really don't understand how he can make such a claim. Was he present at the time of creation ?!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

None of the people who claim that god was necessary for creation were present for it, and it doesn't seem to stop any of them. I suspect he simply means that based on our current understanding of physical reality, it would be possible for the universe we see around us to come into being without a divine creator. He's probably not claiming that there necessarily wasn't one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To put it in layman's terms (as I understand it) there is a way to mathematically formulate the "beginning of time" such that it has no actual beginning. Note that this is different from saying that time extends eternally into the past. I think the (sensationalist) headline is suggesting that if there is no beginning then there is no need to define a creation event or a creator.

 

Science often answers questions about things that are not observed directly.

 

Indeed. No one was around to see dinosaurs either, but we know a few things about them...

 

That is completely different. There is solid proof of dinosaurs ex: Fossils. But you can't really prove what created the universe now can you?

How can something create itself? How can something be created out of nothing? Even if the universe didn't start here it had to start somewhere, right? Atoms cannot be created or destroyed. I love science but I hate anyone who tells me that there is nothing behind the creation.

I hope to god he states his proof for his sake. A lot of creationist will try to strangle him.

 

Fossils are indirect evidence, just like the cosmic backround radiation.

Atoms can be destroyed, look at an atomic explosion where matter is converted into energy. Energy is conserved, but the universe is a combination of the positive energy of matter balanced by the "negative" of gravitational potential energy. The total energy is zero, meaning that no energy was required in the creation of the universe, thus no cause.

 

You are missing the point, which is that science can make predictions about things that happened in the past by looking at the leftovers that are still around to be examined. For example, to learn about dinosaurs, which no one has ever actually seen, we can look at the leftover bones. To learn about the creation of the universe, we look at the leftover remains -the universe itself.

"Nothing," in the sense that you mean it, has never been observed, so we don't know whether or not something can be created out of it. We don't know what existed before the universe as we know it, so we have no idea what sort of properties "nothing" might have had.

Yes they can. Google "particle pair creation."

Well, I assume it's in the book...

In any case, I'll repeat what I said earlier: I doubt that he will claim that creation by a god definitely didn't happen. He probably merely claims that the universe could have been created without a god.

 

No offense, especially since you're apparently on my side, but that statement makes me cringe a little. In a nuclear explosion only atomic binding energy is lost. The actual number of protons and neutrons in the matter before and after the explosion doesn't change. It's very analogous to a chemical explosion, where all the same atoms are still around, but now have different chemical bonds.

 

No, no, no. 42 is the answer. Hawking is seeking to better understand the question.

 

But some atoms are destroyed, aren't they? The binding energy defines the structure of an atom. I didn't say neutrons and protons were destroyed.

 

I will shut up now and I will listen to the scientist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have nothing to debate it. Though the dinosaur thing doesn't make sense to me. Dinosaurs were discovered using fossils. If you have fossils and they are categorized as dinosaurs. You can't really say they are not, no? Because that fossil is the definition of a dinosaur.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So who pushed the button to start the Big Bang?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or maybe the latch simply slipped off the barn door.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

(yet another double post)

 

And the red shift and cosmic backround radiation are evidence of the Big Bang. It's not much different than finding the impression of a living thing that has been converted into rock.

 

except god...


(sorry couldn't resist..)

 

um..i don't think that was concluded,it is still in the theory classification..
not trying to devalue the science, as i do find it fascinating..

i keep hearing 'maybe' 'could be' ' scientist think' whenever i watch a discover/history/science show or read scientific america or discover mag.
i do understand the science,(definatly not the math)..

hmm..
choices..choices..
get buried..
get cremated..
get shot into space..
get fossilized..hmmm
i kind like that one..where would i have to go/do to get that to happen??

 

Stupid logic. By that logic if someone commits a crime and there were no witnesses then its not possible to convict them. In a court evidence based on scientific analysis, which makes use of our understanding of how certain things work, is used to convict people even when no eye witness was there. Same happens in science, you can deduce what occurred even if you don't directly witness it.

That's an argument from ignorance. We didn't know how the Sun fuelled itself till 100 years ago, but the fact people investigated lead to us working it out.

Besides a causally consistent self creating universe is compatible with the known behaviour of gravity.

Just because you don't know how to go about addressing a question doesn't mean no one else does either.

So much for love thy neighbour.