Is physicist Stephen Hawking right that physics, not God, created the universe?

Originally posted by crowdedskies

Totally agree with you here.

The Hawkins and the Dawkins always have a problem with the word God. The reason is that this word means different things to different people. This violates their notion that something is either black or white; there cannot be a grey area for these people. So they would rather dispense with the word God and remove it entirely from the dictionary.

I have intelligence and so does every human being. If there is no God it is only because we are , collectively, God. It is the old concept of eastern religions - the divine spark in all of us.

Now, man can maniputale the elements. The elements (physics) obey a universal law. We only have to tweak that law a little bit in order to achieve a magical feat. Poor physics can only obey the law; man can manipulate it. Thanks to the predictability of physics common man has empowered himself - from the early days of making fire to the modern day of Information technology.

Poor physics always obliges and always reacts in the same way. If you did the same laboratory experiment a million times , you would get the same results. That's physics for you. But if you change the variables and components you get a different result. Not that physics is capable of this, it is more a case that physics has to follow the blueprint and produce the only result the system will allow. And who created the system ?

Science has a lot to answer for and is responsible for the extremely slow pace of our development. Had we learned to use all our faculties, instead of using only the left side of the brain and boxing everything, we would probably be taking our spouse and kids around the galaxy every sunday by now. Science kills the god aspect in us. Luckily Quantum Mechanics is now emerging and may save us from the mad/blind and bad scientists.

I think the problem here is the EGO, the scientists don't like if there is something/someone smarter then they are, so they are making campaigns to make them very smart (science magazines, press releases, etc)...

there was a time when scientists thought the Earth was flat and they thought this was an ultimate truth... they ridicule (or burn alive) everyone that had proof they were wrong...

I think we are still in the flat Earth period, where science believe only in things that can be measured or be seen

this would mean that LOVE DO NOT EXIST BECAUSE YOU CANNOT MEASURE IT ON THE SCALE OR SEE IT IN ANY WAY (except the consequences of it)

as for the quantum physics, you are right, it shows us that universe is based on energy and the observer, where the observer is the most important influence, I dare to say co-creator of the universe itself...

without observer no universe would exist




[edit on 5-9-2010 by donhuangenaro]

Why should we care about what the honorable Stephen Hawking thinks......about WHO created the universe.

It is more interesting to hear him explain HOW the universe is created

Is he the man to ask when questions concern God?

Ask the same question to the pope....would he be right?

The whole article is of no importance other than, for some, the outcome of the number of believers in the UK.

Originally posted by juniperberry
There are instances when a particle is blasted in a bubble chamber, that the mass of the resulting particles is MORE than the mass of the original particle. This phenomenon lasts so briefly that it took scientists ages to figure it out. "Extra" particles that contribute to the mass increase very quickly fizzle out back into where-ever they came from. These are obviously on a very small scale so they don't last very long.

Which means you CAN get something from nothing, even if for a very brief amount of time.

That is not really ''something out of nothing'' though, is it ?

While the extra mass may appear to qualify it as that, ''something'' ie. the particle, had to exist for this phenomena to come to fruition.

It seems quite a leap, to me, to extrapolate from this observation, a claim that it can be used as any kind of meaningful explanation for existence.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I kind of agree with you.

What I'm saying is that with the lack of any knowledge, or empirical evidence, the supposition that ''God'' isn't necessary for existence, is just as much a guess as the supposition that God is necessary.

I don't see how Occam's Razor can be applied to such a fundamental and all-encompassing concept as the ''ultimate truth'' ( if there is one ), of existence.

A ''godless'' universe is just as much an unfounded concept, as a ''God created'' universe.

They are both based on personal guess-work or gut-instinct, and have no basis in science, due to there being no definitive evidence to support either proposition.





[edit on 5-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

Originally posted by Parallex
With the trend shown in the second link only deepening, it is CLEAR that religion and moronic 'faith-based' conviction is breathing its' last gasp with the general populace in the UK. Now, crazy religion and faith is the preserve of the power-addled elites and fundamentalists - who seek power over others using religion.

So, you saw a physicist change his mind on God, and you decided to open a thread to bash religion?

Steven Hawking has a right to express his opinion, and I have a right to accept or reject his perspective. I think he is wrong.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Section31]

I'm often stunned at the fierce hatred that atheists have for the notion of "God". Why so angry? Religion has clearly been a poisonous affair for mankind but it's because people made it that way. Leave God out of it. Also that website link Romantic Rebel posted is ill informed at best, purposely deceptive at worst.

We can philosophize the intricacies of the universe for weeks (it's God! No, it's Science!) but we will still arrive back to the same problem: If there was always nothing, there would still be nothing. Forgive religion for all it's obvious shortcomings, I don't believe there is a man in the sky judging our every move yet ready to send us into eternal torment and hellfire for all eternity if we're bad...but don't forget he loves you lol!!1. I don't think that is the case, and anyone peddling that nonsense as fact really needs to sit and think by themselves for a moment.

In my opinion, it's intellectually irresponsible to label yourself anything but an Agnostic because ultimately that's all we are..."without knowledge". Remember, Aristotle once said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I guess my long winded point is to not be so certain about anything to the point where it is dismissed without investigation. Don't completely dismiss the idea of a Creator or "Force" whatever you wish to call it, because you hate religion or religious people. That's all. Onwards and upwards.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by Mr Poopra]

I think the hate stems from actually being responsible to a higher power for your actions. I find most atheists in biblical terms, sin more then a religious person who is a god seeking individual. So for an atheists own protection, its much easier for them to disbelieve God so they remain unnaccountable..

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Raphael]

reply to post by Raphael


i think most religious people are pedophiles, do you want to make any other statements that are completely irrational and false.

Its just another "Stalin was an atheist" argument. Don't buy religious fanatics words when they say atheists are incabable of understanding morality and using compassion and love to guide their actions, and intelligence to think of the consequences.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

 

In the modern era it's the science enthusiasts that persecute heretics. If you don't shut up and listen to what the scientists say you're ignorant.

It really depends on the nature of time really. Did time ever begin?

Science works of theories until they can be proven.

Religion works of faith which has not been proven for centuries.

Dawkins covers how religion is just a giant hoax.

I do not persecute anyone, but without some kind of proof it
sounds like a friggin fairytale.

I like good fiction as much as the next person, but when your fiction
starts trying to tell me how I have to live that is where I will might
decide to fight for freedom from tyranny.

Zealots of religion or science are not acceptable.

Tolerance is the order of the day as I have stated in many posts
in other threads on here.

But that tolerance goes to the point where you cannot apply your
religious laws to me be they christian or islam.

The Abrahamic religions are fine for those who believe in them,
but cramming them down my throat is not part of the deal.

What is GOD? There are no humans on this planet who knows what GOD is- only your imagination can come up with certain ideas,what it could be.
Stephen is very right that GOD did NOT create the universe.

But still all intelligent beings out in the galaxy believes in general that there is a "GOD", Cause the galaxy and the planets, thats something we can both touch,see, and experience with our "BODY", now what about our realms? How does this work compared to our galaxy? Our race is not sure 100% on how the realms and the power around us works, we know its there, but not how it works fully. So we assume there might be a "GOD".

Lets say GOD didnt create our universe, that does not tell us that GOD doesnt exist. You just have to wait and see.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


I believe ignorance has been a blizz= for way too long-

www.ufo-blogger.com... 8UFO-Blogger+Uncover+The+UFO+Truth%29

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


I'm sorry if you think it's fiction, but can you prove it's fiction? People just argue against it from incredulity. If you tested the scriptures, you too will know there is a God, like the literal millions who have had religious experiences. It sounds like fiction because you believe most are liars or delusional.

Suppose you really did see a teapot in outer space, but have no clue how it got there. You tell people there really is a teapot out there, but all they say is prove it, but you can't. Does it mean, because you can't prove it, and many people say so, there is no teapot in outer space? All they can do is ridicule the idea, but if they only saw for themselves, they would know.

If science says X, doesn't mean it's X, and people don't have to believe X. They're not ignorant because they don't believe in X. Soon science will say Y instead, and still it's the "ignorant" people who are wrong, until science says Z.

And no one is cramming religion down your throat: I simply said science enthusiasts are zealous about the popular ideas of their times, which, as history clearly tells, may not be factual. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm telling you how to live.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by 547000]

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

 

I'm sorry if you think it's fiction, but can you prove it's fiction? People just argue against it from incredulity. If you tested the scriptures, you too will know there is a God, like the literal millions who have had religious experiences. It sounds like fiction because you believe most are liars or delusional.

Suppose you really did see a teapot in outer space, but have no clue how it got there. You tell people there really is a teapot out there, but all they say is prove it, but you can't. Does it mean, because you can't prove it, and many people say so, there is no teapot in outer space? All they can do is ridicule the idea, but if they only saw for themselves, they would know.

If science says X, doesn't mean it's X, and people don't have to believe X. They're not ignorant because they don't believe in X. Soon science will say Y instead, and still it's the "ignorant" people who are wrong, until science says Z.

The scriptures contain numerous contradictions. Am I going to have to look over those various contradictions to have faith in what ever religious figure? No!
www.infidels.org...

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Second-that

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

 

Second-that

Just keeping the truth of life alive. Long live real humans who follow their own nature! Thanks!

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

 

I'm sorry if you think it's fiction, but can you prove it's fiction? People just argue against it from incredulity. If you tested the scriptures, you too will know there is a God, like the literal millions who have had religious experiences. It sounds like fiction because you believe most are liars or delusional.

Suppose you really did see a teapot in outer space, but have no clue how it got there. You tell people there really is a teapot out there, but all they say is prove it, but you can't. Does it mean, because you can't prove it, and many people say so, there is no teapot in outer space? All they can do is ridicule the idea, but if they only saw for themselves, they would know.

If science says X, doesn't mean it's X, and people don't have to believe X. They're not ignorant because they don't believe in X. Soon science will say Y instead, and still it's the "ignorant" people who are wrong, until science says Z.

The scriptures contain numerous contradictions. Am I going to have to look over those various contradictions to have faith in what ever religious figure? No!
www.infidels.org...

You would if you had an experience that pointed you towards one. You can cry till your lungs go blue about contradiction, but personal experience trumps all.

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

 

I'm sorry if you think it's fiction, but can you prove it's fiction? People just argue against it from incredulity. If you tested the scriptures, you too will know there is a God, like the literal millions who have had religious experiences. It sounds like fiction because you believe most are liars or delusional.

Suppose you really did see a teapot in outer space, but have no clue how it got there. You tell people there really is a teapot out there, but all they say is prove it, but you can't. Does it mean, because you can't prove it, and many people say so, there is no teapot in outer space? All they can do is ridicule the idea, but if they only saw for themselves, they would know.

If science says X, doesn't mean it's X, and people don't have to believe X. They're not ignorant because they don't believe in X. Soon science will say Y instead, and still it's the "ignorant" people who are wrong, until science says Z.

The scriptures contain numerous contradictions. Am I going to have to look over those various contradictions to have faith in what ever religious figure? No!
www.infidels.org...

You would if you had an experience that pointed you towards one. You can cry till your lungs go blue about contradiction, but personal experience trumps all.

Well I was a Christian. You can keep saying I was never a true Christian. But I was. Personal experience means nothing! What does that have to prove? That's saying you seen a ghost and then worship it to make it happy. Telling everyone various stories yet their all wrong and yet you proclaim personal experience.
www.messiahtruth.com...

reply to post by 547000


Personal experience is not proof of God nor does it hold up in any debate.

"I believe invisible people exist but you can't prove me wrong because it's down to personal experience" Yeh? Great.

I never said you weren't a true Christian. But you've probably never had a personal experience that proved without doubt that there is something about the faith that rings true. Personal experience proves to only yourself it's true; it has nothing to prove to others it's true. Why are you people basing what's true on what others agree is true? And just because you can't. prove it doesn't mean it isn't true. You completely missed the point of the teapot story.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by 547000]

Originally posted by 547000
I never said you weren't a true Christian. But you've probably never had a personal experience that proved without doubt that there is something about the faith that rings true. Personal experience proves to only yourself it's true; it has nothing to prove to others it's true. And just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Yes I was a Christian who believed in several personal experiences. Still I was wrong. If people who followed faith blindly then I would not want to be apart of that. What does it prove to someone wanting to understand my religion fully?