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

Originally posted by depth om

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by depth om
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Yea it's like he's floating in some lofty realm where he sees the absolutes of all notions, and by peering into the void of mind he "knows" "god" "was not needed" for creation of the universe.

Cmon steve, let's come back down to earth buddy.

What exactly is wrong with his concept? Everything in the observable universe is explainable without the need to invoke deities. Why would we need one to explain the beginning of the universe? If we do, where is the evidence for this deity, how is it defined and how can we test it?

What is god, you can't use a term that there is no definition for.

That much I agree with.

Still though, what was wrong with his concept?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I guess there isn't anything wrong, it just seems a bit debased, almost threatening. To sweep away such an encompassing abstraction as "god" in such an insubstantial self referential way is naive and juvenile.

Derisive mental ambling designed only to bolster or infuriate people. Not truth, just abrasive opinion. More a philosopher than scientist when it comes to his quote, in my opinion.

Originally posted by depth om
I guess there isn't anything wrong, it just seems a bit debased, almost threatening. To sweep away such an encompassing abstraction as "god" in such an insubstantial self referential way is naive and juvenile.

How so though? Stating that a deity is not required to create the universe shouldn't have to be said. Those who claim otherwise need to provide the proof that an invisible intelligent being first exists, then has the power and ability to create a universe. If we don't rule out implausibilities then we're faced with having to accept any notion, no matter how seemingly absurd, as potential causative creators. A herd of pink, flaming dragons perhaps is just as reasonable as our notion of a deity.

i don't think somebody like Hawking is qualified to say anything about God ....being a theoretical physicist with the roots and foundations of his version of physics being primarily rooted in materialism.

I'd rather put all my stakes and odds in seeing what a seeker of God has to say about God. Find me a person who spent the last 40 years looking for God and I'll listen.

Hawking talking about God to me is like a a 5 year old discussing quantum physics.

Originally posted by dominicus
I'd rather put all my stakes and odds in seeing what a seeker of God has to say about God. Find me a person who spent the last 40 years looking for God and I'll listen.

Then why not give Hawking the same license since he's spent the last 40 years seeking the answers to the origins of the universe? Certainly he knows as much or more about it than does the long time seeker of god(s).

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Any post with Stephen Hawkings is wasted on ATS because he will be attacked for relying on evidence instead of speculation and faith.

There are many posts here on ATS with Stephen Hawking’s that are sorely not wasted, but there are of course ATS members who have different views and opinions about his sayings.

And there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

May I ask you on what evidence he is relying in this case saying:

God was not needed for the creation of the Universe.

[edit on 2/9/10 by spacevisitor]

Did you read the article?
People just plain insult the man for stating his opinion based on what he sees in his work, and instead try to inject their own speculation of what god is, which is usually based on zero evidence, and yet Hawking is the one who is "stupid"

I have never seen a Hawking thread on ATS where someone hasn't insulted him.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by hippomchippo]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Why not Replace God with the plural God's?

What gives more leverage and credibility to the theory of there existing one God as the theory that there are Multiple God's?

If One God can exist that means the odds are JUST as good as there existing MULTIPLE God's (And Goddesses).

Both have the same EQUAL chance of being true. Hater's Gonna Hate.

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Why not Replace God with the plural God's?

I agree and actually in a post above I did. Also, why not replace god(s) with anything else we dream up? Time traveling pterodactyls with silk skin who breathe fire? Just as plausible as god(s) if we allow implausibilities into the equation.

And especially for those who are bible believers... their god mentions other gods so presumably there are more than one. Even the "one true god" of the bible is triune and therefore polytheistic by its very nature. No matter how you call it, the least likely explanation for universe origins involves invisible, unprovable deities that all source to human imagination.

Originally posted by dominicus
I'd rather put all my stakes and odds in seeing what a seeker of God has to say about God. Find me a person who spent the last 40 years looking for God and I'll listen.

My Brother, will you accept the word of someone who has sought God for but 35 years?

If so, here I am and here are my thoughts. God is beyond human comprehension. He is all. Mr Hawkins opinion of God is as valid as any others for it is the best he could do with his inherent limitations. Even the Atheists view of God is valid for without it we would still be worshipping rocks. Through their efforts to disprove God, we see that the wonder of God is greater than anyone ever believed possible. The atheist is as much part of God, this existence, this creation, as the Catholic priest, the Imam, the Buddhist, etc. All explaining the best they can what they perceive.

If we would just understand that ALL have a divine claim to express what they perceive, we could learn so much more. We all are the center of the universe, as we perceive it.

With love,

Your Brother

[edit on 2-9-2010 by IAMIAM]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by IAMIAM]

Stephen Hawking, I respect for his intelligence, but is not making any sense with this statement...

reply to post by IAMIAM


Very true, But personally i think Mr Hawking is lost in all his knowledge.

This guy has seen more scientific evidence than we will ever see. It has become so wast that he has lost track of where it all fits in.

Mr Hawking was on the right track when he talked about how the universe is expanding. And mentioned, that before the universe must have been compressed. But then he stopped and changed the subject.

Maybe he didn't want to admit how the infinite could have created the expanding universe. Imagine what that would do the the system of faith if that got out.

God was needed - because God is Consciousness. Without Consciousness creating the Now, the Now could not exist. Soon... We will all consciously co-create.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Then why not give Hawking the same license since he's spent the last 40 years seeking the answers to the origins of the universe? Certainly he knows as much or more about it than does the long time seeker of god(s).

because dealing with the origins of the Universe means also dealing with God but dealing with God from my perspective includes meditations, contemplations, and mystical experiences of realms that are more subtle than an insects breath. Blink Once and you miss it.

He would have to go into cultures and topics not respected by science to find God and in the process would lose all credibility and respect. Science ignores the mystics, the same group they should be studying.
_____________________________________________________
In reply to IAMIAM

My Brother, will you accept the word of someone who has sought God for but 35 years? If so, here I am and here are my thoughts. God is beyond human comprehension. He is all. Mr Hawkins opinion of God is as valid as any others for it is the best he could do with his inherent limitations. Even the Atheists view of God is valid for without it we would still be worshipping rocks. Through their efforts to disprove God, we see that the wonder of God is greater than anyone ever believed possible. The atheist is as much part of God, this existence, this creation, as the Catholic priest, the Imam, the Buddhist, etc. All explaining the best they can what they perceive. If we would just understand that ALL have a divine claim to express what they perceive, we could learn so much more. We all are the center of the universe, as we perceive it.

check mate!!!! you got me. I completely agree in so far as much of what you said, if not all is true ...but since everything is dissected into parts instead of the whole .....in that glance, Hawking is chasing the wind when making an absolute statement such as dismissing God from the origins of creation.

My interpretation of God, which probably equally matches your own, is this presence that is everywhere and the source origin of all things. So obviously everywhere, but since the eye cannot see itself, most have missed it ...and so science has yet to catch up.

Take for example a historic Mystic named Kanada from India the first to propose Atoms back in 300 B.C. and it took science how many thousands of years to finally realize this truth, something Kanada realized in daily meditations?

Just saying..... Hawking is incomplete.

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Just saying..... Hawking is incomplete.

Yes he is. He is as incomplete as I am without you. He is as incomplete as you are without me. We are incomplete without each other.


Your Brother

Originally posted by dominicus
because dealing with the origins of the Universe means also dealing with God but dealing with God from my perspective includes meditations, contemplations, and mystical experiences of realms that are more subtle than an insects breath. Blink Once and you miss it.

He would have to go into cultures and topics not respected by science to find God and in the process would lose all credibility and respect. Science ignores the mystics, the same group they should be studying.

Science investigates the mystics persistently and consistently finds nothing in support of them.

I don't see how any of your perspective applies to the science of astrophysics nor the origins of the universe. How does meditation, contemplation and mystical experiences - all events occurring within the human brain - get to be considered as valid causes for universe origin?

Also, those subjective human experiences have not only been investigated but have been explained by science and having nothing to do with any kind of deity. There doesn't appear to be anything scientifically or logically wrong with Hawking's statements other than it seems to be something that you simply dislike.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Science investigates the mystics persistently and consistently finds nothing in support of them.

I don't see how any of your perspective applies to the science of astrophysics nor the origins of the universe. How does meditation, contemplation and mystical experiences - all events occurring within the human brain - get to be considered as valid causes for universe origin?

Also, those subjective human experiences have not only been investigated but have been explained by science and having nothing to do with any kind of deity. There doesn't appear to be anything scientifically or logically wrong with Hawking's statements other than it seems to be something that you simply dislike.

My Brother, you simply fail to see that the mystic examines that which science cannot. It is the unaswerable, that one pursues, and calls mystic. That which is answerable is called science. One finds questions within, the other finds answers without. They are both part of the whole. There is only division if we choose it.

Has science the answers to everything?

Nope, and neither does the mystic.

Your Brother



[edit on 2-9-2010 by IAMIAM]

Originally posted by IAMIAM
My Brother, you simply fail to see that the mystic examines that which science cannot.

I simply disagree. Science and mystics often investigate the very same things.

It is the unaswerable, that one pursues, and calls mystic. That which is answerable is called science. One finds questions within, the other finds answers without. They are both part of the whole. There is only division if we choose it.

The mystics simply tends to provide different answers for various phenomena than science. The fact that mystics still exist is that many humans either don't know or don't care for the rather routine, unexciting scientific explanations for human transcendental experiences. Mysticism is easy: it hasn't the lab to test its hypotheses like that which scientists use.

Has science the answers to everything?

Nope, and neither does the mystic.

Of course science or mystics don't have all the answers. But science is the best known tool to date for determining the truth as best as we can approximate it.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Science is merely catching up to spirituality ....when science invents instruments sensitive enough to measure a soul, then we will advance by leaps and bounds.

The brain is just an instrument that measures, reflects, analyzes an event after the fact ....whereas scientists think it is the cause ....

Don't get me wrong ...I love science and think its an awesome branch of knowledge, unfortunately ...just like religion has been bastardized and raped ..the same thing has happened in science where studies and published articles are owned by the corporations and interests that fund them all. Try making through school in and in an industry being a theist.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Once science tackles that largest gap in knowledge - the gap where god is supposed to have left his evidence -

You may be interested in a thread that appeared not too long ago titled God's Fingerprint On Creation Found!

[edit on 2-9-2010 by type0civ]

Originally posted by hippomchippo
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Did you read the article?

Yes.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

People just plain insult the man for stating his opinion based on what he sees in his work, and instead try to inject their own speculation of what god is, which is usually based on zero evidence, and yet Hawking is the one who is "stupid"

Posting that you are not agreeing with him or not believing or accepting his views is not the same as really insulting him.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

I have never seen a Hawking thread on ATS where someone hasn't insulted him.

What are for instances in your opinion the real insults then that are posted in this thread?