Stephen Hawking: God was not needed for the creation of the Universe.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Must be a bit of a slow day in the News when this makes the front page of The Times.


In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”


Should make for an interesting book, maybe providing some answers to us non religious believers out there on the origins of our Universe

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I wont link to the Times article as Rupert Murdoch now charges for it.


[edit on 2-9-2010 by woodwardjnr]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by woodwardjnr]




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
To me, that is saying a whole lot of nothing.

Maybe God IS spontaneous creation.

Maybe Spontaneous Creation IS God.

What does that word GOD mean to Hawking?
It may not mean the same thing to me.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
To me, that is saying a whole lot of nothing.

Maybe God IS spontaneous creation.

Maybe Spontaneous Creation IS God.

What does that word GOD mean to Hawking?
It may not mean the same thing to me.


I think he's saying its the type of god you cant see, cant meet, who will not answer your questions, not like the deities of Abrahamic religions.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Funny how the scientists love to claim the “Laws of Physics” when attempting to explain away GOD and creation. However, those same scientists claim that the “Laws of Physics” also break down and do not hold true in all situations, especially when concerning the infinitesimally small or impossibly mind bogglingly great.

Yet no one asks, “If they are laws, then how can they be broken, or not hold true, and still remain laws?” Instead, they simply claim that “New laws, or different laws”, now apply to the situation of sub atomic physics or the big bang theory.

But the reality is that the scientists are now too proud to admit that they truly know nothing, no matter how many new laws they invent for the new situations which break the old supposed “laws”. GOD shows them their pride and ignorance when their laws break down upon the sub atomic level, and because the sub atomic relates to the greater whole, their suppositions of the universe at large are also incorrect and fleeting. But do they show humility in light of what they do not know? Of course not, instead, they only show pride and arrogance.

Imaging for a moment how insane you would feel if you were to realistically claim that you understand how the universe was made. But you do not claim this because it would seem absurd for you make such a claim to know that which no earthling can understand in its entirety. Then why do you not hold the scientists accountable for the same flaw when they should claim to know that which they do not.

It is a theory, and just that, a guess, and remember, it doesn't hold true in all cases, as none of the laws of physics apparently do given the unimaginable circumstances within the universe and beyond it. Their claims of knowledge are as pathetic and meaningless as the so called educated scientists were when they claimed that the world was flat. They still cannot to this day tell you when the sun will have its bursts, or when and where the asteroids will fall without a thousand upon thousand observations and measurements, and you will let them tell you that GOD does not exist? Don't be the arrogant fool that they are. If you find it strange that an educated man would say, “There is not GOD” do not be alarmed for the haughty, arrogant, and prideful are not looking for GOD, and so, they will always claim that he does not exist, for they must deny GOD or else if they should attempt to look for him then they would also be forced to see themselves for what they really are.

Rememeber, that the Church also has its astronomers and scientists as well. It is only that they realize with faith that GOD fully does exist, in all HIS glory and magesty.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Hot_Wings]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Hot_Wings
 


I will always side with science over religion, maybe its just a personal thing, but I'm looking for facts and evidence and am happy for not all my questions to be answered.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
I believe in God, I have felt his presence since I have collective memories as a small child. I believe we can not comprehend His
majesty. The Laws of our "known" universe, are just a very finite value, I believe what we perceive around us is just a tiny portion of God's radiance. Maybe our reality is just one breath of our creator, imagine Him taking another breath, and another, etc. Stephen Hawking is a great scientist, but maybe, just maybe he is not seeing the forest through the trees. Just because things evolve, or our universe started with the big bang, doesn't mean that our creator isn't real. It just means that He willed these things into existence. Like if someone smart builds a car that is also self repairing and self modifying. Maybe God creates things that are able to maintain themselves, or maybe he is indeed, propelling it along without us having any clue. Just gotta have faith in a power much greater than ourselves, and our "elite". Just one man's opinion.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 



“Because there is a law such as gravity


Last I heard no one could really explain gravity..

Pretty much sums up his book as nothing more than fiction..

Like, who knows for sure what happened 10,000 years ago, let alone a few billion years or more???



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
To me, that is saying a whole lot of nothing.

Maybe God IS spontaneous creation.

Maybe Spontaneous Creation IS God.

What does that word GOD mean to Hawking?
It may not mean the same thing to me.


Excellent point. Although I admire Mr. Hawkings' work, he has, as of late, become increasingly political. He also seems to be allowing his personal reservations to cloud his judgment; for example, to assert 'God was not needed for creation' is to imply 1. there actually was a 'creation', and 2. classical mechanics is etched in stone.

The first assertion that there was a creation is to be confident in the big bang theory and it's mechanics-- which is far from certain. I am of the opinion that the universe wasn't created, and that with enough research, a body of evidence concerning imaginary numbers and other dimensions will be built up over time. If this happens, it will erase the need for both the singularity that 'banged' and there being a genuine 'beginning'. This would also suggest that perhaps the reason we observed the 'bang' or it's effects, is that, being confined to a four-dimensional universe, we are unable to observe things in their totality; the 'singularity' may very well be merely an 'interference' manifestation between universes, and observed from our four-dimensional space-time, it indeed does appear like a 'beginning', but would it appear like a 'beginning' if things could be observed in their absolute totality? I believe it would not. It would appear as 'one' and simply 'be'. This 'be' needs a name-- God.

However, a disturbing fact about Mr. Hawking, being a prominent physicist (as am I-- not prominent, however), is his view, here, concerning classical mechanics-- it's as if he intentionally leaves quantum mechanics/theory [and it's body of evidence] absent in favor of classical mechanics. Whether he does that because he knows something I'm not aware of, or that he finds comfort in classical mechanics due to it's predictable, seemingly complete nature. It may be [as with Einstein] because it frightens Hawking. There are a lot of fellow scientists and layman out there wanting to discredit the importance of quantum theory in favor of classical mechanics; just Google 'bell's theorem refuted' and you will get a million suggestions-- all based on the inherent bias of preferring a classical mechanics view.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by imherejusttoread]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by imherejusttoread]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by imherejusttoread]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by imherejusttoread]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr



Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”






Seems as mr. hawking has a new idea about gravity...
gravity was a function of the mechanics of the cosmos, perhaps he's placing gravity outside of the dimensions because it sounds as if his view is that gravity is not just a building block it is more like an organizing thing...

perhaps gravity helps the subatomic energies to pop into existance to begin with...instead of gravity being the result of mass.

if i could afford the book i would try to read it, interesting
another way to have a creation without a GØD.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by St Udio]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Ive got to laugh at these mad scientists, constantly trying to adapt their theories to fit their belief system. So Dr Hawking how does it feel to spend your whole life searching with your so called more intelligent mind and then realising MY GOD! I know nothing at all................absolutely nothing. He's been wrong before (they all have ) and he will be wrong again (they all will).



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed for the creation of the Universe.


In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”


Well, he and we can only speculate on that question/possibility of course because no one knows or will most likely never know when and how or even by whom the Universe is “created”.

Personally I do believe now that the Big Bang theory is wrong and that the Universe is infinite and was always there, because that is not only much easier for me to except and believe in, but it is in my opinion also the most logic.

Because for instance, when I would believe that the Universe is not infinite, I must pounder my brains endlessly about the question; what lays behind where its end then?

I must say that I find his other remark that spontaneous creation is a possible reason for why we exist quite remarkable.


I find all of Stephen Hawking's latest’s thoughts and remarks about things related to the universe and humanity quite remarkable.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Once science tackles that largest gap in knowledge - the gap where god is supposed to have left his evidence - the beginning of the universe, there will be little hope of a deity residing anywhere inside or outside of the universe. Little else draws the ire of the devout as much as astrophysicists tackling the gap where their god currently resides.

You've got to give credit to the devout though. On just the first page we've had them call an incredibly intelligent scientist stupid, wrong, talking nothing and even the old 'I can call {whatever} god if I want to'. Frankly I'm more enamored with the awe of tackling the mysteries of the cosmos than the arrogance of presuming there is no mystery and that all the answers source to an invisible, all powerful deity.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


It is a little annoying that the devout are so quick on these threads, ready to bash someone who has made it their life's goal to understand the universe. Someone who has worked harder and researched more than most on trying to understand how the Universe works. Surely this a noble effort by a human and should command some sort of respect?

Maybe it would be better if we just listened to Glen Beck instead, he probably knows a bit more than Hawking



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I am going to get this book today. I was not even aware that he had a new book out. I own three of his other books and treasure them (A brief History of Time, The Universe in a nutshell and On the Shoulders of Giants). This guys mind is incredible. If you have never read any of his books I HIGHLY recommend them to you.

I do not mind the religion versus Science debate. In my opinion it just shows that we care about each other and really do take an interest in the well being of others. I think it also shows that we have a desire for an exchange of information between each other.

As long as we keep learning what someone else thinks and attempt to share what we think we are on the right path.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


It is a little annoying that the devout are so quick on these threads, ready to bash someone who has made it their life's goal to understand the universe. Someone who has worked harder and researched more than most on trying to understand how the Universe works. Surely this a noble effort by a human and should command some sort of respect?


Agreed. Though if you think you already have the easy answer that requires no thought or effort whatsoever, it makes it a lot easier to be condescending to those who realize we don't have the answer and work diligently to find it. Especially if their findings involve refuting their deity's claims.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I suppose all the fancy equations we have gives us ultimate knowledge of the universe.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


The Universe, and indeed everything, cannot ever be created from nothing. But the finite universe, is the matrix and the controllers have promoted it for some time.

The Universe is a holographic technology of sorts, living organic holograph, which indeed means there are Creators/Designers/Teachers, and its not very large in size, size is irrelevant to an infinity in an infinity, with infinite numbers of universes and infinities. Even a grain of sand has a infinite potential within it.

Steven Hawkins and most mainstream physicsts dont understand that infinity is not an extra, they already discovered the huge infinities in the universe and the vacuum, and should have realized what infinity is and means. In an infinite universe/ominiverse, nothing in it is finite.

This means all inanimate matter reclyces infinitely without beginning or ending, having always existed. Even if you could create inanimate matter from nothing tomorrow.

Consciousness/life/soul also exists for ever, without beginning and ending, and if there was a Parent, one who suddenly created a new slice of soul, a child, that child would have existed forever, without beginning or ending and in "size" is = to the infinity itself, and thus child is also = parent. Infinity equalizes everyone.

You have to turn the pryamid system and pyramid religions of control upside down, invert it.

So metaphorically speaking your life is an eternal roll of film and each clip in it is the incarnation you are experiencing.

Also "time" is interesting, for its only a program in your head in a holographic universe based on orbit of planet around sun, and solar systems a bit like a time mechanism/clock.

Those broadcasting/streaming in the signal from "No Time" still progress and create order out of chaos with segments and sequence, however, thereotically all things, past, present and future are simltaneous.

We are the past to them, They, the Infinite Family of Light/Life/Soul/Consciousness are our Future Selves, in Progression. Every hair on your head is counted.

One day, when we have actually learn to love and yearn for equality, to not even kill someone trying to harm us, for they are all family, and you wouldnt kill your 10 year old boy trying to harm you, would you? The one most awake is the more progressed and has the most responsibility. When we progress and reach the next level in love, the whole film clip roll of your life bumps ahead. One day it will be us, guiding the new children here.

Infinity is the platform of everything, and the fact that in infinity, all that is, existed forever, is the actual foundation, for some reason overlooked.

And holograms are technology and have creators.

If you took a journal and worked in meditation on raising your consciousness, and love for everyone, and noted how many times the sun brightened the room when you had a wonderful positive thought, or cut through the clouds, you would realize that there is no coincidences and hollograms have projects----STARS, which seem to be input/output systems, from beyond the cosmos. I sungaze too, phone home.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Unity_99]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Wow. That is an interesting theory. Very in depth and very complex.

matrix
controllers
living organic holograph
The word Infinite was used 15 times and the definition at least 5 more
Consciousness/life/soul
pyramid
metaphorically speaking
chaos
theoretically

Yeah I think that basically covers it.




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps
 


Infinity is the foundation of everything. And in it, there is matter that recycles infinitely. Creation of nothing, observable, is merely recording a broadcast signal in, its not looking at the cause, and the holographic universe, the organic matter that resembles organisms, cells, but its all like pixels, that which is projected into hologram form, and is a construct.

In infinity all is inifinite, all matter recycles, and all soul progresses. The things to contemplate are: holographic universe (the spoon is not real. Everything you see, hear or think is real is a picture in your brain, conversely also part of the hologram, so mind/soul really, like watching a DVD on the other side, in school probably, learning something valuable), "Time", "No Time", "Infinity".

And to ignore infinity and what it means to exist within it, is more than oversight.





[edit on 2-9-2010 by Unity_99]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
In an infinite universe/ominiverse, nothing in it is finite.


Your lifespan as a biological human is most certainly finite as are plenty of other things in the universe. Your theory is interesting I suppose but relies on a lot of unsupported assumptions along with some supported facts. It's a bit "new-agey" though and I think I'm going to have to stick with discoveries of science rather than such pseudoscientific philosophy.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join