Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by kmguru, Sep 2, 2010.

  1. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-god-not-n_n_703179.html


    LONDON — Did creation need a creator?

    British physicist and mathematician Stephen Hawking says no, arguing in his new book that there need not be a God behind the creation of the universe.

    The concept is explored in "The Grand Design," excerpts of which were printed in the British newspaper The Times on Thursday. The book, written with fellow physicist Leonard Mlodinow, is scheduled to be published by Bantam Press on Sept. 9.

    "The Grand Design," which the publishers call Hawking's first major work in nearly a decade, challenges Isaac Newton's theory God must have been involved in creation because our solar system couldn't have come out of chaos simply through nature.

    But Hawking says it isn't that simple. To understand the universe, it's necessary to know both how and why it behaves the way it does, calling the pursuit "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything."

    Ahh! sucks...I thought the ultimate answer is 42...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    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 ?!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    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.
     
  8. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,935
    Science often answers questions about things that are not observed directly.
     
  9. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Indeed. No one was around to see dinosaurs either, but we know a few things about them...
     
  10. Kajalamorth The Doctor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    76
    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.
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,935
    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.
     
  12. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    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.
     
  13. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    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.
     
  14. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    No, no, no. 42 is the answer. Hawking is seeking to better understand the question.
     
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,935
    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.
     
  16. Kajalamorth The Doctor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    76
    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!

     
  17. Cifo Day destroys the night, Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    685
    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!

     
  18. Cifo Day destroys the night, Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    685
    (yet another double post)
     
  19. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Perhaps you are right. You know, it would be hilarious if the answer is really 42 - a dimension less number for this Universe as the seed number*. (Like fine -structure constant!)


    * Reference - A new kind of science by Stephen Wolfram
     
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,935
    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.
     
  21. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    except god...


    (sorry couldn't resist..)
     
  22. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    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??
     
  23. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    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.
     

Share This Page