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

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I simply disagree. Science and mystics often investigate the very same things.

Wonderful! Then between us both we can find the truth of things. If we agreed, why bother searching any more?

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.

Really? I can't answer for all mystics, but I seem to accept that which science proves. All they prove is parts of the whole and how it works, all while revealing much more to be answered. It is on the unaswerable that I meditate.

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.

And the mystic is the best tool to date to spur the scientist onward in his search. Prove me wrong, and we both advance.

I am sorry you found disagreement my Brother. In your statements, all I have found is agreement, spoken in different words.

Your Brother

[edit on 2-9-2010 by IAMIAM]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by IAMIAM]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by IAMIAM]

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I agree with you on the science bit. I don't mind people believing in god, but it's this arrogance and confidence they have that they know they know what god is. Any human has no business and no power in even beginning to understand something as big as 'god.'

What's worse is the obvious personification of god. It's a "HE" for some reason. How much should we bet a man came up with that idea? God is definitely a creation of man. If a godly figure wanted to be known (if that's even possible), then it would make itself known instead of leaving the world divided up and hating over each other over who has the right system in place. You know, get over yourselves!

I definitely won't be worshiping any man-made creation. If anything, THAT is what is to be avoided at all costs. I'll stick to "What do you mean by 'god'?" or "I don't know." if it comes down to it. My philosophy is that one should not worship for the sake of feeling better, and definitely do not hate others and breed violence in the name of a greater force.

reply to post by glitchinmymatrix

I agree with you on the science bit. I don't mind people believing in god, but it's this arrogance and confidence they have that they know they know what god is.

yeah but arrogance and confidence stinks no matter who its coming from and surprisingly its equally shared by both science and spirituality.

Any human has no business and no power in even beginning to understand something as big as 'god.'

but thats putting limits on God and if there is one, then there are certainly ways in which this God makes itself knowable to those who chose to want to know. I think its rather preposterous to put it all in such an unapproachable light.

God is definitely a creation of man. If a godly figure wanted to be known (if that's even possible), then it would make itself known instead of leaving the world divided up and hating over each other over who has the right system in place. You know, get over yourselves!

I mean that's just more assumptions. In the case of God being all of existence (hypothetically speaking) ......then you as a part of that would not see the obviousness of it just like an eye cannot see itself.

I once thought exactly the way you do now about this whole subject and got my arse handed to me upon further research that proved all of that doubt wrong. But hey thats the beauty of everyone being at different levels of growth spiritually

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Maybe, but firstly, I don't see why this guys opinion on God is more important than a homeless mans ramblings about God, or a Priest, or a typical Atheist.. He doesn't know any secret we don't.

Secondly I'd say it depends on what you call "God". If you think God is a man with a flowing white beard sitting in a castle made of clouds in some astral utopia behind golden gates..... then imo, he's right, that "God" was not and is not needed.

If you believe as I do that God is not a "Thing" or an "It" a "He, She, entity" etc.. you simply believe that God is the one source of order in the Universe.. ie, Gravity, is God, light, is God, the sun the moon the stars, is God. Every little thing from the smallest molecule to the largest solar systems act based on what Scientist call the Natural Order.. and that's what I think God is, the rules that define and regulate our chaotic universe. When we die we return to the source and manifest elsewhere as the Universe sees fit.

In other words... Science is proof of Gods existence.

[edit on 9/2/2010 by Rockpuck]

Hawking keeps talking but he still hasn't said anything of significance in 20 years. Next thing you know he will be telling us Kraft Mac and Cheese is tasty, but physics says it's bad for you.

Thanks Stephen! Didn't know Kraft mac and cheese could be bad for me.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Every little thing from the smallest molecule to the largest solar systems act based on what Scientist call the Natural Order.. and that's what I think God is, the rules that define and regulate our chaotic universe.

Yeah, but most people don't like to equate god with a natural force or structure to the universe. That's a little impersonal for most people, who prefer their gods to have a direct and sincere interest in their individual well-being and fate. God as gravity or light generally doesn't cut it. And that goes double for the people who actually believe that God looks like a human being and has the same basic emotional range and motivations.

If you want to define God as "everything," then that's fine, although there's a paradox in defining God as a separate thing and everything at the same time. A subset that encompasses an entirety. That just doesn't make any sense.

Because there is gravity???? Where did gravity come from??

Our own solar system proves that he is wrong with a little law of angular momentum.
We have planets with moons spinning in the opposite directions of everything else around it.

Linear motion from the supposed big bang turning into angular motion where does this energy come from??? In make believe land of coarse. Because any answer that will be posted will involve a statement of it could have it might have or we believe it to have.

That is not science, it is a faith based religious belief.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Yeah, but most people don't like to equate god with a natural force or structure to the universe. That's a little impersonal for most people, who prefer their gods to have a direct and sincere interest in their individual well-being and fate. God as gravity or light generally doesn't cut it. And that goes double for the people who actually believe that God looks like a human being and has the same basic emotional range and motivations.

No, it's not. As I posted earlier-- this view, as well as Hawkings' has an inherent bias towards classical mechanics. Quantum theory is the foundation for all future science, and it is this foundation where the idea of 'models' being able to fully explain the universe may very well be thrown away, which began with Heisenberg, and then, upon John Bell's work, the idea of 'separation' or 'things' existing in their own and 'apart' was eliminated through nonlocality.

This asserts two things: 1. the 'is' or whatever you wish to call it, 'implicit order' as I prefer the term, is God, which all things are fully one, but this must be viewed from a position of totality; this implies a personal 'direct, sincere' interest in their 'individual well-being' as all is one, and one is all, and 2. things that 'appear' as separate and individual are merely from a relative view-point, and this view-point or perception is filtered through a limited dimension, therefore all 'things' appear as individual objects but are really an incomplete perception-- this may appear 'impersonal' or a 'natural force', this is the explicit order.

If you want to define God as "everything," then that's fine, although there's a paradox in defining God as a separate thing and everything at the same time. A subset that encompasses an entirety. That just doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it does. Viewing the implicit order or trying to view the implicit order from the view-point of the explicit, while ignorant of distinctions, will always wind up not making sense, but the idea that people will never understand God or the 'implicit order' is nonsense-- we may be limited based on our vantage point, but we can certainly crawl closer to a larger body of knowledge through the study of particulars, with proper context in mind.

Oh, there is evidence for God, as well as testimonies about Him, but most of you call it lies or delusions. God won't prove himself to you, but you must prove to yourself He's there, by seeking Him first, and then He'll help you. Seek and you will find. Don't seek and you won't. God eludes the proud, but those who seek him are rewarded with knowledge of Him that strengthens their faith.

All forms of physics, all forms of science for that matter are a by-product of creation.
When the universe was formed certain laws had to be used to keep order in the mist of all the chaos.
Scientist are working on these questions, these theories and hypothesis from the outside in.
Kinda like working a math problem in reverse, trying to find the sum of "A".
The biggest problem they have is that all they think they know does not amount to anything in the really big picture.
We still do not know for 100% positive anything about our universe.
We may have theories about how things work and these theories might fit perfectly but are they right? Are there also other theories that might fit?
Science can not say for certain that there was a big bang.
It can not say for certain that evolution is real.
It can not even say with out a doubt that there is no God. To do so would be VERY closed minded and we know that spiritual people are the only ones with closed minds; now don't we?
So many times I hear this from those that feel they are intellectually superior to others, especially regarding faith.
They claim that spiritual people are closed minded and just refuse to acknowledge the truth.
What many of them refuse to see is that they really have no idea what the truth is because they are the ones with the closed hearts.
Open your heart and your mind will follow.
Do not claim someone else has a closed mind all because you think that your way of thinking is the only way. In the end your truth and all of your so called knowledge boils down to an opinion, yours or that of another that you claim as yours.
I am a Christian. I believe that the Son of God came to this earth, lived, taught, died on the cross for my sins and rose again on the third day.
I do not know exactly how God created this universe. He could of used a big bang if he wanted.
I do not know how old the earth or the universe is because the bible does not clearly come out and give us an age. We may be able to speculate from what is written but we do not know for sure.
I do not know if there is life on other planets. There is nothing to say there is not.
I do not know many things, just like every one else in this world.
BUT my heart is open.
I DO know that my Father in heaven loves me.
I DO know that if I try to live my life by His word and repent of my sins that I will meet Him one day.
I DO know that with out faith there is a whole lot in life that we would miss out on.
A few of you seem to feel that there will come a day when science proves once and for all that there is NO GOD
What will happen when you find that the sum of "A" is GOD?

reply to post by Unity_99


Its a fun theory, the holographic universe that is.

pity radioactive particles debunks it completely...why create a imaginary virtual world with it falling apart the whole time.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


what about the deity of pattern?

Deity doesn't have to imply a humanesque figure with "powers".

I see past the division that science and religion uphold.

To me this is all very easy. All you have to know is that the infinite must exist. If not...... nothing would exist

If the infinite always existed and always will exist. We know that it must be a constant. But since the infinite is a constant we have a problem. And that problem is the existence of finite energy and matter.

It should be perfectly clear that only the infinite could create finite. But the problem is! If the infinite is a constant how did it form finite?

Mr Hawking is dead wrong. Something that is a constant can't change or form finite randomly. There must be a will to do so. A awareness that wants to form a change.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Its a fun theory, the holographic universe that is.

pity radioactive particles debunks it completely...why create a imaginary virtual world with it falling apart the whole time.

I beg to differ Mr. SaturnFX; radioactivity simply means quantum inequality from a relative vantage point, and this process is naturally guided by thermodynamics. A nucleus will merely decay into a more stable configuration, which is what all forms of energy tend to do in the thermodynamic arrow of time, but the total energy in the particular system always remains relatively indifferent.

Nonlocality is as solid evidence as there is for a possible holographic model of the universe. Personally, i'm undecided at the moment concerning it because it produces plenty of questions as to what it means. It would not be wise to rule it out though; the body of evidence for it and similar models have vastly matured within the last 40-50 years.

Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.

How can Mr Hawking say this?

Has he been able to study a dimension of nothing to observe what it can do?

How did he find the dimension of nothing?

Putting the ball back into Hawking`s court, why not wait until someone sees a black-hole or dark matter before confirming his theories are actually true or false?


Hamlet:
"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

"Horatio, a model of rationality, is still having a hard time swallowing the whole business. Ghosts are not the sort of beings his "philosophy" easily takes into account. We know that Horatio is, like Hamlet, a student at the University of Wittenberg, a notable outpost of Protestant humanism. The philosophy he studies there is probably classical—a compound of ethics, logic, and natural science. The emphasis on everyday phenomena pretty much excludes speculation about talking ghosts."
www.enotes.com...
Hawking may be a modern-day Horatio.

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
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]

Maybe I'm just a person who would rather have plausible or tangible evidence and not being brainwashed by a book written and edited by man supposedly the word from someone who was forced down your throat since childhood