Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

kmguru

kmguru

Staff member
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...
 
kmguru said:
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...
Click to expand...

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 ?!
 
Yosef said:
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 ?!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Nasor said:
Indeed. No one was around to see dinosaurs either, but we know a few things about them...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kajalamorth said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kajalamorth said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
How can something be created out of nothing?
Click to expand...
"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.
Atoms cannot be created or destroyed.
Click to expand...
Yes they can. Google "particle pair creation."
I hope to god he states his proof for his sake. A lot of creationist will try to strangle him.
Click to expand...
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.
 
spidergoat said:
Atoms can be destroyed, look at an atomic explosion where matter is converted into energy.
Click to expand...
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.
 
kmguru said:
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...
Click to expand...
No, no, no. 42 is the answer. Hawking is seeking to better understand the question.
 
Nasor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;) 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. :)
 
So who pushed the button to start the Big Bang? :rolleyes:
Or maybe the latch simply slipped off the barn door. :D
 
madanthonywayne said:
No, no, no. 42 is the answer. Hawking is seeking to better understand the question.
Click to expand...

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
 
Kajalamorth said:
I will shut up now and I will listen to the scientist. ;) 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. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
spidergoat said:
And the red shift and cosmic background radiation are evidence of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

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)..

It's not much different than finding the impression of a living thing that has been converted into rock.
Click to expand...

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??
 
Yosef said:
Was he present at the time of creation!
Click to expand...
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.

Kajalamorth said:
How can something create itself? How can something be created out of nothing?
Click to expand...
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.

Kajalamorth said:
A lot of creationist will try to strangle him.
Click to expand...
So much for love thy neighbour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top