No God Created the Universe: Stephen Hawking
 

In his previous works, Stephen Hawking hinted at understanding God through uncovering the secrets of the universe. With his upcoming book, however, he has changed his position. God has no place in his theory of creation.

His upcoming book The Grand Design should certainly lead to many debates, criticism, and opposition from the Intelligent Design crowd.

God did not create the universe, says Hawking | Reuters

• What do you think? Can you wrap your mind around something being created from nothing?
• Do you think the bulk of Hawking's work will mark science's final rejection of God?
• Do you think science and religion will continue to coexist?
• Do you think they should?
• Do you think they can, adequately?

As one who was raised non-religious, these questions are a bit difficult for me to consider. I have thought for a long time that faith and science could coexist. Take the Dalai Lama's position on science, for example. But Buddhist philosophy is more existential and empirical than religious faiths such as Christianity.

How is one to resolve this question of creation?

Completely unrelated. I don't believe that a black hole is what other scientist claim/make it out, to be. I think the center of one is actually an object of left over material ... like ash after burning wood, that is so dense and completely black, the ultimate "black" color. Nothing fantastic at all about that.

Because of that, I believe Stephen Hawking is wrong about God. I'm sorry but sometimes scientists, much like religious folk, search for alarmingly remarkable explanations in completely rational and simple processes. In order to explain god you need to come up with something incredibly spectacular and complex where there is a simple yet completely plausible explanation devoid of mysticism or divinity.

So:

What do you think? Can you wrap your mind around something being created from nothing?
Yes. It can happen. But I don't think that's what happened in regards to how the universe came to be.

Do you think the bulk of Hawking's work will mark science's final rejection of God?
No, they will continue to attempt to scientifically disprove God even after he comes down and unleashes the apocalypse upon us. Why don't we just focus on curing erectile dysfunction and attaining immortality? We know they exist. Forget the rest and just live your damned life.

Do you think science and religion will continue to coexist?
Has it ever co existed? Although many mainstream scientists are following suit, religion is just ridiculous IMO.

Do you think they should?
Don't really care. Just get me my damned flying car!!

Do you think they can, adequately?
Nope.

What do you think? Can you wrap your mind around something being created from nothing?
Possibly. The idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed always seemed like an oversimplification.
Do you think the bulk of Hawking's work will mark science's final rejection of God?
It should have happened a long, long time ago. Religion and science should never play together.
Do you think science and religion will continue to coexist?
Sure. Separately.
Do you think they should?
God, yes. Religion poisons science, and frankly science has no place in a system which depends entirely on faith. They're entirely different.
Do you think they can, adequately?
For some people, yes. For other people, no. I don't believe in god or religion or anything supernatural, but people who do are welcome to do so as long as they can maintain the wall between religion and science. I would never dream of walking into a church and correcting the Bible, so I expect the same respect from religious folks. Fortunately, most religious people are more than happy to respect my beliefs and the objective, critical nature of science.
How is one to resolve this question of creation?
Creation implies a creator, which seems to be in religion's territory.

What do you think? Can you wrap your mind around something being created from nothing?
Sure, but it seems like there probably has to be a little more to it then that. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case to find out that "something" was going on before hand. We just haven't gotten deep enough to know yet.

Do you think the bulk of Hawking's work will mark science's final rejection of God?
Absolutely not. I mean can't you hear the argument already? "Well what created something from nothing? God of course!" Religion and a belief in God is so deeply rooted in blind faith that I doubt much of anything could really sway the true believers at this point. On second though you might see less and less of it with each new generation.

Do you think science and religion will continue to coexist?
Yes...well I suppose no differently then they do now.

Do you think they should?
Should they continue to coexist? Meh I guess so, if it gets people through the day and they aren't pushing it on me I couldn't care less if they want to try.

Do you think they can, adequately?
Probably not but some seem to be giving a it a pretty serious try (creation museum anyone?). At the end of the day people will justify their faith in light of changing scientific opinion (God works in mysterious ways right?) and we'll go from there, for some it will work for others it won't.

How is one to resolve this question of creation?
See answer to question #2.

I was raised in a VERY conservative christian family and often have discussions with my parents about similar issues of science and faith. The conversations usually end up with me getting pissed off when the Bible makes its first appearance and an obscure verse that could mean pretty much anything is used to justify a certain belief...in the end well

"We just don't really know God's ultimate plan Wes, we just have to believe, pray and he'll show us the way."

What do you do with that?

This is the most complete explanation of something from nothing that a layman could potentially wrap their head around, that I am aware of. It's by Lawrence Krauss, I gather he has a book on the same topic, but I had to pick my jaw up the first time I watched the video. I can't imagine the book. Beware it weighs in at nearly and hour, but is absolutely worth the watch.


In terms of people's personal beliefs? Not going matter one iota. People are already too good at ignoring facts when they contradict the things they want to be true. The feats of cognitive dissonance I see put on display by various people both astound and stupify.

As far as science and religion go, science kicked out the supernatural a long time ago. Making predictions gets a whole lot hairier when you assume some omnipotent is mucking about in your experiments. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Well, if Stephen Hawking said God didn't create the universe, well, I guess that solves that.

Look, there's no question Stephen Hawking is the most brilliant physicist since Einstein, and Einstein was the most brilliant since Newton. I would never deny that.

But the man's a physicist. Physics is what he knows. Maybe nobody knows physics better, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with mastery of other subjects.

I would never go to a theologian for an opinion on quantum mechanics. If anyone ever came to me (not, by the way, that I would consider myself the rabbinic equivalent of Stephen Hawking!) and said, "Rabbi, can you please give me your opinions on the implications of special relativity to me?" I'd tell them to find a physicist: as a rabbi, I have no qualifications to give opinions on that subject.

So why on earth would we decide that a physicist-- even a once in a lifetime physicist-- is qualified to give expert opinions about God?

Well, since I think God created the universe ex nihilo, yes. I do think something can be created from nothing.

Why would it? Scientists disagree with one another often. Many scientists are religious people. Other respected scientists have expressed atheist views, and it didn't cause all scientists everywhere to suddenly become atheists. Some respected scientists have expressed theistic views, and it didn't cause all other scientists to become believers.

Of course.

Without doubt. Both are vitally important to human existence, in very different ways.

I hope so. I think it's important that religion curb the tendency of some of its believers to fundamentalism, which is not good religion, and tends to attempt to impress its absolutist views everywhere, including the province of science, where it has no business. Likewise, if the few outspoken scientists who are aggressive professional skeptics could rein it in a bit, and take a little more of a live and let live attitude, that would be helpful also. Religion and science can coexist, and even do so productively and in harmony. But they need to respect one another, and give one another space. It's possible. Will it happen? Who can say?

What I find interesting about htis story is how it seems to be reported differently in the US and UK.

The UK coverage says "Hawking says God was not needed", the US coverage seems to say "Hawking says there was no God".

It's subtle, but in science there is a very clear understanding that ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.

Hawking chose his words carefully, and in the interview I heard, he didn't state it is an atheist universe, he just stated that it doesn't prove there's a God.

There's little doubt that Hawking is an incredible mind, capable of understanding things on a level the rest of cannot reach. It doesn't make him right. And as noted, as more accurately described in Britain, his work says God is not necessary. He did not say, as suggested in the US headline, that God is ruled out. His arguement is that given the conditions extant at the time of the Big Bang (and there are viable theories that don't require a Big Bang), the universe as it is now was inevitable. God was not required, given those conditions.

What he cannot explain, because it cannot be deduced from anything in this universe, is what gave rise to those conditions in the first place.

The US likes sensationalist headlines, especially where religion is concerned.

Thanks for the clarification, UK brethren :)

Yes, thanks, and this brings up an interesting distinction. Yet, my thinking is that if "God is not necessary" for creation....then doesn't that take God out of the equation by undermining omnipotence? Or does it mean that God, too, came out of nothing? What, then, was the force that created God? Is God capable of nothingness? Is God a being that was once a nonbeing? Is God self-creating?

Some interesting comments so far. I hope to revisit some of them when I have more time.

Its been a long time since I've read a bible but if I recall in Genesis God had just always been there, got really bored and decided to create people to amuse him...so I think even the Christian faith accepts that before creation there was nothing, well nothing and God.

I never understood why Christians have such a hard time with ideas like the big bang. If you believe in God why can't that just be explained away by God saying "Let there be light"? And I guess the same would apply here, somebody had to get the ball rolling right?

Anyway, if you can explain everything away by saying "God is testing our faith" (Still believe in me now bitches?) or "God knew this from the beginning and is just now choosing to show us" or my favorite (I heard a baptist pastor say this to me years ago) "Its the work of Satan" then why would the work of Stephen Hawking or anybody else have any meaningful impact on that kind of faith? People will just continue finding ways to excuse the growing discrepancies between biblical history and science...and then you'll wind up with wax statues of people riding dinosaurs at a museum in Kentucky.

I don't think he even contradicted himself - knowing the mind of God strikes me as a physicist's poetry. The force that created God, BG, you know my opinion of. I think this is all a chicken or the egg question. Then, too, if he contradicted himself, it's possible he just changed his mind, isn't it, or chose different words? The criticism leveled seems unjustified, & probably kneejerk.

I'm neither a physicist nor a religionist, though, so I should probably shut up.

What do you think? Can you wrap your mind around something being created from nothing?

Sure. It's actually easier to grasp than any of the current theories about the origin of the universe. I think I intuitively understand something from nothing better than the ins and outs of the big bang.

Do you think the bulk of Hawking's work will mark science's final rejection of God?

No. Science should reject God as a matter of principle. Hawking's input is irrelevant.

Do you think science and religion will continue to coexist?

Yes. And, I think there will always be people who treat science as a religion.

Do you think they should?

I don't think it's a question of should. I think it's inevitable.

Do you think they can, adequately?

I have no idea. Enlightened ages come and go. We certainly seem to be heading in an unenlightened direction in the US and I think religion is only a small cause.

Our mainstream media outlets choose their headlines carefully. The "us versus them" mentality is important as it polarizes the viewers. There is a large segment of our population that seeks to promote this mentality as they sincerely believe that science is a force of evil that seeks to disprove God and religion, that the earth is 6000 years old, and that man was created by God in his current form. When 90% of the population believes in some sort of God, portraying science and scientists as the enemy are vital to their goals.

MSD, I was interested in the number you posted about religion in the U.S. I was a bit confused when I looked into it, as there is a distinction between "irreligious" and "atheist." However, what was interesting is that the Wikipedia article on irreligion in the United states suggested that not even 45% of Americans would be willing to vote for an atheist, which apparently is a figure lower than homosexuals and Muslims.

That's astounding if it's true. I've never really thought about how conservative Christians (well, and other religious groups) view atheists. Lately, I seem to only see what they think about homosexuals and Muslims, and let that churn around in my mind. But I guess it makes sense that they'd be the least respectful of those who have no faith at all.

Reminds me of that show 30 Days. A super-Christian had an atheist live in his house for 30 days. He couldn't wrap his head around the fact that she didn't look up to any supreme being. I'm not a conservative Christian, so I view atheists as I view anyone else. If an atheist ran for president and had some good policies and ideas, I'd vote for him without hesitation.

I guess I just take it for granted that I live in one of the most liberal cities in the world.

I never really consider what conservative Christians think about me.

Being religious does not automatically make one "anti-science." THAT'S an assumption perpetrated by the anti-religion contingent, in an effort to paint all religious people as backwards, ignorant fundamentalists.

Louis Pasteur was an important scientist and an ardent Christian. He's just one example. Isaac Newton was a theologian.

Faith and science have co-existed for centuries. However, the further along the path of knowledge we go, the more the idea of God becomes obsolete.

I always viewed the history of science as "understanding God's universe." Science has now become more simply "understanding the universe."

It's funny, nobody makes a big deal about it when someone famous or high up in academia says god created the universe.

I imagine that's reassuring to those who consider it an issue. It isn't threatening to those who don't. I think it's funny, too.

Those fundamentalists who promote an anti-science agenda use the fact that they're on the same side of the us/them line between religious people and atheists to their advantage. It's using propaganda to try to drive a wedge between rational believers and atheists.

* What do you think? Can you wrap your mind around something being created from nothing?
Not quite. I don't suffer from the need to have a God. I am God as far as I am concerned. The something from nothing bit is sure hard to explain though.
* Do you think the bulk of Hawking's work will mark science's final rejection of God?
I think his work will be nothing more than his work. Science as a whole can't accept or reject a God. Science is a collection of facts and observations. Only people themselves could reject a God and that is already happening. I think there is a point when all the scientists will accept that there is no God.
* Do you think science and religion will continue to coexist?
Yes. Science is not picking a fight, fundamentally it is impersonal. Religion, fundamentally, is personal so it has a fight everywhere it looks. As long as people are people and not robots there will be religion. As long as people enjoy luxuries there will be science.
* Do you think they should?
It is never a matter of should. People cannot be forced to abandon religion or accept science. They will continue or not I have no choice.
* Do you think they can, adequately?
They are now. People have always flocked to religion to get what they want. Now there is a new sugar daddy in town called technology handing out cars and iPads and rocket ships, only what science has to say about life isn't what people want to hear. So as long as people can have the best of both worlds religion and science, I think they will. :thumbsup:Hitler was right about everything. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Aw, man! That was a reasonable post up until the last line.

Please go on, I'm all ears.

why is the question 'something from nothing" how dose anyone know if there was ever nothing ?
SH's work will mark the final rejection of God for some people.
others will continue to believe in nothing but God, or believe in some grey area that they like.
should they ? whatever makes you happy.
can they adequately ? sure, they do now and I don't see SH's statements changing that demographics opinion/commitment of faith. if anything he may be demonised by the religious communities. I'm sure for some it will fire the dislike for intellectual.