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

a reply to: TarzanBeta

There are so many things wrong in your post.

First science doesnt prove anything. So for you to say that an infinite universe has to be proven is wrong.

Second, saying that because an infinite universe hasnt being "proven", therefore, there was a beginning is erroneous logic.

Then you go on with your argument with the assumption that there had to be a beginning.

At last, birth and death does not imply that the universe needs a beginning.

It astounds me in this day and age that sane, intelligent people cannot see that "god" is a creation of man. Hawking is right - god is unnecessary. 2000 years ago, perhaps "he" wasn't - he was needed to explain things that science didn't yet allow us to understand. God of the gaps is right - there are far fewer gaps these days and they're narrowing every day. I for one long for the day when god and religion don't get in the way of people's lives.

a reply to: Willtell

Its a great topic as a thought experiment friend. I am not saying there is no god but I do think is he right in saying that from a scientific perspective a God would not be required to explain what we think we know at the moment. Anyways , Stephen rocks!

a reply to: Willtell

If you can see that anything created has to have some creator then the equation is that there MUST be a God somewhere

But you are making a big assumption, and its that the universe is a creation.

God deniers are contradicting themselves since they acknowledge everything has an origin but refuse to believe in a God force

Again you make the assumption that the universe had a beginning.

I can make up stories too and say that the universe had to be created. Therefore, the Spaghetti Monster.

a reply to: Hyperia

Few understand time

Time is a measurement of dynamic nature or the relationship and relativity of nature within time and place

The say if you travel at a certain speed you age less. Age less that what?

a reply to: redtic

ill tell you a secret, nothing has really changed. You are just the same as the people you think are insane

a reply to: Willtell

Time is a magic trick, i can define time, i can make it simple, the main purpose of time is logistics and warfare. Time doesnt exist, never has, its a human invention, fourth dimension, godly aspect, divine intervention. Time doesnt define life nor death, travel from a to b doesnt define time, time is defined by gravity, your clock is a defintion of time, but not what time is. A clock starts when you are born, time is doesnt.

Circle of life

a reply to: danielsil18

One doesn’t have to look at things in terms of creation.

It is not the highest form of understanding


Some philosophers and mystics say creation is a delusion


Like this:

A car is a creation but the sources of the car, steel, rubber, electricity and somewhere along the lines of the materials that make up a car can’t be traced.


There has to be some point of deep mystery and we can call that God just like the scientist label dark energy and dark matter and insist it exists but they can’t explain it!

a reply to: Frocharocha

We don't nor never needed God to explain How. In the grand scheme of everything the How things happened have almost no bearing on spirituality. Which is why spiritually minded people have no issue with the science of how. It is only the religious minded who feel the need to enforce a scriptural How.

Although it is interesting when the How is answered by scriptures and in some way proven by science, scriptures can always be taken as metaphorical and thus there is no requirement that scriptures align with science.

The most important question to consider has nothing to do with the How. Even if science could prove the How, even from the very beginning, that would do little to evolve mankind philosophically. Science is the knowledge of How.

Philosophy and Religion, or Devine Philosophy is the wisdom of Why. And it is the philosophy that asks Why which is far superior to the question that asks How.

The question to ask yourself. Is there a why?

If your answer is yes, then you must look to a Devine source for your answer. Science will never answer the question in your soul that asks Why are we here.

If that question exists in your soul then the question itself must have a Devine origin. Since the question itself is something that can only be answered by the Devine. Anything less than a Devine answer to Why is merely chaos.

So my question to Mr. Hawking is why is he here? If he has no purpose other than chaos then why should I believe anything he says? Since anything he says that cannot be proven scientifically is coming from the mouth of chaos.

I prefer to speak from the side of the Devine to keep myself protected from chaos.

Q: What is "science"?

Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't mean they're "smart". People, back 2,000 years ago, knew more about the universe, than most of today's civilization.

a reply to: Willtell

There has to be some point of deep mystery and we can call that God

God of the gaps.

a reply to: Frocharocha

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


God's Answer to that is .....What came First Stephen , The Chicken Or The Egg ?

Bottom line there is always a point of not knowing


The important thing in knowing is knowing what to know in time and place.


And in our vital dilemmas of this existence God is irrelevant.


What is relevant, imo, is what Buddha spoke about…not that I want to bring religious dogma into this.


But Buddha said this:


If I have been stuck with an arrow what difference does it make what kind wood the arrow is made of?

The important thing (in time and place) is to take the arrow out before it kills you

originally posted by: JuJuBee
Q: What is "science"?

Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't mean they're "smart". People, back 2,000 years ago, knew more about the universe, than most of today's civilization.

Obviously since they had telescopes, satellites, and better technology than us.

Im guessing they also knew what photons are.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

You can be as close as you choose to be and still be as far away from it then considering yourself to be partially pregnant . There is a trail to the truth . suppositions and theory will more then likely lead to a dead end . Not that it have never lead to a better truth but even that falls short . Maybe a bigger better Hadron Collider might do the trick ....might is the operative word .

I have no clue what the first part of that statement means. So you can either explain it to me, rewrite it, or just forget about it. It makes no difference to me which you choose.

My point was that if it's 2 o'clock and I think it's 1:50 and you think it's 1:30 one of us is closer to being correct than the other. Closer to the truth.

Does that mean it's always that way for all examples, no. But sometimes it is. So there ya go. No need for confusion or word games needed.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

God have to ask himself the same question though.

a reply to: Willtell

I think one problem is your use of the word God which you are using in very different terms than others use it. So maybe it would help to clear up the definitions of these things.

You say God is everything. That is why we don't see God, because God is everywhere and everything, correct??

So that would mean that God is also every murderer and rapist ever as well as the creator or pain, death, suffering, evil, etc. correct???

a reply to: Isurrender73

So my question to Mr. Hawking is why is he here? If he has no purpose other than chaos then why should I believe anything he says? Since anything he says that cannot be proven scientifically is coming from the mouth of chaos.

I prefer to speak from the side of the Devine to keep myself protected from chaos.

What???

Perfect serendipity! I made this just a few hours ago to toss on facebook. (very bored I am) It sums this thread up well I think.

a reply to: Willtell

Bottom line there is always a point of not knowing

At that point the best thing to say is:

We don't know.