Stephen Hawking: “The laws of science are sufficient, we don't need God."

originally posted by: Frocharocha
I don't know how to introduce to that, so here's what he said:


AThe laws of science are sufficient to explain the origin of the universe. It is not necessary to invoke God”

Nope. The laws of science cannot explain the laws of science. The laws are just pattern of activity observed, recorded, and given names. They explain nothing. They only record observations, classify, label, and match patterns. That's it.

It still leaves us with the big question. I AM. But, Who am I?

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: Grimpachi

Go ahead and tell us how science explains the origin of the universe then. I'll eagerly await your response.

Before the Big Bang it is thought there was a singularity, but before there was a singularity we don't know.

Saying you do not know is appropriate and truthful. Making up sh!t isn't.

Before the singularity there could have been a universe that collapsed in on itself, but we don't know.

God of the Gaps is a fallacy which is what people are doing when they insert "god" where we don't know.

Here I can agree with you. I'm not inclined to insert god into anything either.

Here's something to think about, from a great "atheist" philosopher:

"God... acts from the same necessity from which he exists".

I won't pretend to understand the whole meaning of that, but it's powerful nonetheless.

a reply to: Kapusta

Don't move the goal post, you said there is a law of nature of no creation with out a creator.

Your experience is not a law of nature but merely an observation.

Or did you mean to say that it is your opinion that there is a law that says that.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I doubt anyone on this board has any where near the intellectual level to call him a retard about anything.

I would venture to say he knows more about philosophy then most of us.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Kapusta

Don't move the goal post, you said there is a law of nature of no creation with out a creator.

Your experience is not a law of nature but merely an observation.

Or did you mean to say that it is your opinion that there is a law that says that.

According to the Nature I have observed , Their seems to be a pattern that indicates every creation has a creator , Would you otherwise disagree ? and if so can you please provide observable evidence .

a reply to: Kapusta

So that is just an observation, not a law.
You said it is a law of nature.

I would agree and disagree, I think things are created sure, but doesn't mean it had to have a creator of sorts.

I have always felt sorry for this man. Now I have one more reason.

His interview with John Oliver was pretty amusing. It's good to see he has a sense of humor.

God isn't needed to explain the origin of the universe.

What is there to get upset about?

People can still believe in God etc. Sorry that there are no "fingerprints" to point to any of the Gods claimed to have created everything.

Science updates it's knowledge.

Religion evolves to fit in.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

If god doesnt exist then who created the universe?

a reply to: danielsil18

If God doesn't need a creator, why should the universe?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Good answer.

The god of the gaps once created lightning.

Now it doesn't.

a reply to: mOjOm

So being close to the truth is like good when dancing or tossing hand grenades . You can score a point in horse shoes too . The truth is a very specific thing but a what ever is a what ever . Some call it close enough for Govt. work

a reply to: danielsil18

Who created god?

Or are we going to apply the logic that god was the only thing/person that didn't need one.

The laws of science are God or at least created by God, existentially.


Of course we needed God to create us...sure he may have created us and then went in hiding


I think I would hide too if I created such a foul thing as mankind!

originally posted by: Kapusta
Ohh forgive my sarcasm , We must be having a serious moment.

I was basing my opinion off of my own personal observation.

Maybe you can provide me some evidence that something is created out of nothing.

It's not that I'm having a serious moment so much as "boyo" is a bit derogatory, that's all. To me it implies that I'm a youngster who doesn't know any better which I'm not.

So are you claiming to have personally observed Creation of the Universe by God???

When did I claim Something from Nothing which needs explaining???

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: mOjOm

So being close to the truth is like good when dancing or tossing hand grenades . You can score a point in horse shoes too . The truth is a very specific thing but a what ever is a what ever . Some call it close enough for Govt. work

This is true. But being closer to the truth is still better than being further away from it is it not???

Since nobody has a lock on what "the Truth" is in this case I suppose closer is still better. Science at least has supporting evidence for it's truths. The same can't be said for Religion.

Excuse me if I comment on the above exchange:


Some “thing” can’t be created from no “thing”


In order for creation to take place it must come from some “thing”

By “thing” I mean such as a man and woman or even some sort of God


Of course God must be eternal or no “thing” would exist


Therefore we know God is the original “thing”

a reply to: Willtell

So what makes you think "God" is this eternal original thing exactly???

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: danielsil18

Who created god?

Or are we going to apply the logic that god was the only thing/person that didn't need one.

Theists usually say that it makes more sense to them that an intelligent, complex, powerful being always existed and created matter rather than matter always existing.