LONDON (AP) — Physicist Stephen Hawking says God wasn’t necessary for the creation of the universe.
In his new book, “The Grand Design,” the British scientist says unraveling a complex series of theories will explain the universe. The book, written with American physicist and author Leonard Mlodinow, will be published Sept. 9.
In an extract published Thursday in The Times, Hawking wrote that it was “not necessary to invoke God.”
“The Universe can and will create itself from nothing,” Hawking wrote. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”
In “A Brief History of Time,” Hawking had appeared to accept the possibility of a creator, saying the discovery of a complete theory would allow humans to “know the mind of God.”
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (630)
Lloyd Drako
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:12pmHawking has not said there is no God, simply that the universe as known to physicists offers no clear proof of one, so that if you want to believe in God, you must find reasons other than the existence of galaxies, the properties of elementary particles, and the magnitudes of the fundamental constants.
Richardpgr
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 3:07pmHe also said “The Universe can and will create itself from nothing” So we are to think nothing can create something!
Report Post »Tractor
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:10pmThis guy’s ignorance really makes my day. If I had to guess, he is a liberal and or a atheist. Reason is he talks like a know it all; and knows nothing at all. God ( YAHVEH ) is the creator of all.
Report Post »GBJustice
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:28pmSorry, I’m not a believer either, but I am here because in every other sense I’m a conservative. Don‘t stoop to the left’s levels with name calling because someone disagrees with you.
Calling Stephen Hawking ignorant? Might as well call Einstein mentally deficient.
cford21
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:44pmHawking has described a vast, mysterious Universe in a mathematical language. He has achieved more in theoretical physics than any other man since Einstein. He is publishing mathematical evidence that shows the Universe did not need a divine creator. Where is your empirical evidence to counter his?
bdl901
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 5:32pmIs it possible for something to come from nothing?
Report Post »Melbee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 8:25pmHe actually is NOT an atheist. He actually detests being called that. Just because he said “God not needed” doesn‘t mean he doesn’t believe in God. Now I know it‘s a little far fetched because I don’t believe you cannot not believe in God and believe the universe started without God, but I’m just letting you know you are making assumptions and I DO know that Hawkings professes strongly that he is not an atheist.
Report Post »love4madsky
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 11:51pmGBJUSTICE….Stephen Hawkins is ignorant! Just because he has an IQ way above any of ours, does NOT make him right in saying that everything just is, and GOD is not needed! Sorry to say this, but it doesn’t take a genius to understand that GOD is everything, and without him there would be NOTHING! One day Hawkins will be sorry he was so ignorant, and couldn’t see something that was right in front of him the whole time, something that doesn’t need science to prove it exists!
Report Post »grickm
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:10pmBelief equals opinion and cannot be argued for or against without confirming facts.
Quantum Mechanics is mysterious because its processes are currently beyond our ability to observe directly. We must therefore resort to indirect measurements that result in statistical results that let us infer what is going on “under the covers.” There are confirming facts in this realm.
Regarding the invocation of God, there is no direct evidence that such an entity either exists or does not exist. As Jefferson said, “Question with boldness the very existence of God….” Since Hawking is a scientist driven by verifiable facts, it is straightforward to understand the basis of his opinion, whether you agree with it or not.
Report Post »KathyHolton
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:09pmThat is why they call the belief in GOD “Faith” Science rarely has faith.
Report Post »zolon5
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 8:37pmKathy, GOD is the great wisdom IN the universe. It is limitless and eternal as GOD is, waiting for man to discover it.
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 2:00amScience NEVER has faith. Science uses reason.
Report Post »Marc Jacobs
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:07pmStephen Hawking is a true genius. Even genius has its limitations. When I marvel at the physics of the universe, when I study the intricacies of how everything inter-relates, when I learn that just about everything that is, must be, or the life-sustaining earth could not exist as we know it…. I cannot help but have faith that the universe cannot have created itself. It is hard not to believer that God created the Universe. Once one believes that, all of physics makes more sense. I humbly believe Stephen Hawking to be in error in this case. (But I still admire him greatly!)
Report Post »Maybe the GEESE Know More than the BEES Know
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:49pmvery well said marc!
Report Post »NickyLouse
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 3:27pmThe thing that solidifies my belief with respect to creation is that not only does it take a multitude of finely tuned factors to sustain life, but that at this place in the universe where sentient beings exist it so happens that it is the perfect place for sentient beings to explore the cosmos.
My atheist friend stated absurdly that sentient beings evolved here because it is the perfect place for sentient beings to explore the cosmos. I had to discount her intelligence a bit after hearing that illogical statement.
Report Post »freedom_gurl35
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 6:24pmWell said, Marc! I completely agree.
Report Post »Fetterman
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:06pmSo, if God doesn‘t exsist and didn’t create the Universe. Then why does every human, from the streets of America to the most remote islands of the world have a feeling that there’s more to life than just living? Why has every major civilization had a beleif in an afterlife? Coincedence? I think not.
Report Post »StupidWindmill
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:23pmBecause it was easier to control people.
Report Post »EZBurns
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:30pmControl who? We’re talking about individuals here…. what they come to believe in interacting with the world around them.
Report Post »IceyPants
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:06pmI guess Mr. Hawking doesn’t realize that God gave him the talents to be a top scientist, and to develop a way that he can communicate his scientific theories. Will be a sad day when Mr. Hawking meets God, I wonder if he’ll still deny HIS hand even then.
Report Post »Fetterman
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:11pmOne day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess God exsits and that Jesus is Lord. Even Mr. Hawking will, either here on Earth or at the foot of God’s throne.
Report Post »tommee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 2:02pmIt wasn’t God, but scientists that developed Mr. Hawking’s method of communication. If it were up to God’s people, the would still be seen as flat. Oops… some people still think that way.
Report Post »dhardy57
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:03pmRE: “the discovery of a complete theory would allow humans to “know the mind of God.”
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” – Isaiah 55:8-9 (NIV)
Report Post »joshua
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:35pmLike that DHARD
Report Post »EricOPKS
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:02pmGod doesn’t beleive in S Hawking either…
Report Post »EZBurns
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:01pmLOL! I find it interesting that Hawking, having lived as long as he has with a disease that kills rapidly, with his brilliant mind and near useless body can’t see bit of divine intervention in his behalf.
Report Post »tommee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:51pmMust be that horrible socialized medicare he‘s getting that’s keeping him alive.
Report Post »foxer
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 7:37pmWow, EZ there EZ… how is Hawking supposed to see divine intervention? It’s not like god intervened and saved him from some horrible accident. Are you saying that he should thank god that he‘s not in worse shape than he’s already in?
The man IS brilliant, btw. Sure, maybe a little cuckoo, but not laughable. Shame on you for the LOL.
Report Post »tkm2009
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:00pmSpontaneous Creation– really? That’s the same belief they held long ago when people thought rats sprang from dirty rags — they called it Spontaneous Generation, though. Pasteur disproved that one, so it’s back to the drawing board for Hawking….
Report Post »It’s just like the Liberal/Progressive equivocation– slap on a new label and you’ve got a new theory!
StupidWindmill
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:37pmMaybe the evidence should be looked at before judgement.
Redhawke
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 6:33pmI am not sure you can have scientific evidence for the existence of nothingness.
Report Post »fertlmind
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:00pmWhat’s the difference?….If the universe something was created from nothing, or if the Lord created the heaven and the earth something from nothing?… Maybe the difference is HOPE!
NickyLouse
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:23pmIt would actually eliminate hope in any form for the eternal life of our souls.
Additionally, if there is no God, why should we live moral lives except when it might benefit us in return?
That proposition is evil since if I think I can get away with doing wrong without retribution, I should do so to maximize the quality of my life experience. And if I live only for my own benefit, then where is love? There would be absolutely no good and everything would be evil – if evil even existed at all.
Anyone who says that absolute altruism exists has an ulterior motive.
Report Post »w4jle
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:00pmOh the folly of man who shakes his fist at God…
Report Post »philip parker
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 3:57pmI don’t believe Hawking is shaking his fist at God. He has little to no concept of God. He is ignorant and foolish. For him to shake his fist at God, he would be Satan’s offspring.
Report Post »LesterWillox
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:59pmWell, the man isn‘t saying God doesn’t exist. He says he can explain things with theories. And as long as those theories bring us cures to illnesses and things that make our lives easier I don’t see anything wrong with that. Let them do their thing, I’m sure none of them will try to force us out of church.
Report Post »Iphelix
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:30pmRemoving God from the thought process, places the burden of arbitrary morality on the resulting theories. These are then used to make “advancements” in medicine for instance…the results can be and frequently have proven to be disastrous.
Report Post »LesterWillox
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:50pmYes, no doubt about it. But there is not only a bad side to it. Nowadays we live almost thrice as long as just a few hundred years ago, we do not succumb to simple infections and common illnesses as often, we can communicate with people all over the globe (I’m a service technician living on a military base in Germany for instance and appreciate the ability to talk to my family at home). I dislike the things you named, primarily the crumbling of good Christian morals, but I can see all the advantages modern science brings, too.
Report Post »mruckdaschel
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:59pmAnd this guy is supposed to be one of the smartest people on the planet? Sounds like a moron to me. It takes more Faith to believe that the Universe created itself (through whatever means), when otherwise it is continually degrading. The Fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” God created the Universe. Just face the facts. Intelligent Design is the only explanation that makes sense.
Report Post »StupidWindmill
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:27pmThen why does intelligent design make no sense to me?
Prospero
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 5:02pmAt the risk of being thoroughly insensitive, one must consider the possibility that Mr. Hawking might bear animosity towards God….
Report Post »sonofoursigners
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:57pmIs that why Obama gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009!!!
Report Post »StupidWindmill
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:02pmGood thing too, we need more recognition of scientists.
Report Post »dcarrick
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:57pmMr. Hawking may wish to consider the watch he wears on his wrist. I’m sure he would agree that it is a complicated mechanism and could not have come into being simply by happenstance.
Consider the wrist that the watch resides on. It is immensely more complex than the watch. Does he really believe that it just happened?
Report Post »Huey
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:10pmGod, being even more complex than the Man he created…
Thus, who created God?
If that’s the argument, that is…
Report Post »StupidWindmill
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:17pmThats an unfair comparison, a watch is in no way a man as a man is in no way a watch.
mrstentrekin
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:30pmGood thought-provoking comment!
Report Post »tommee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:45pmAccording to your argument, God must have a Creator too. His Creator must be Super God!… and Super God’s Creator?… Super Duper God!.. etc. etc.
Rocketeer
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:50pmGod exists outside of our time/space continuum (in the metaphysical). God isn’t inside of time (He isn’t confined to time like we are… therefore He has always been… therefore no one had to create God in the first place.)
Our Universe has not always existed (according to the Big Bang theory and Genesis: “In the Beginning”) therefore it needed a Creator to get it started.
Report Post »Huey
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:56pmThe “comparison” is to the argument. The argument is that “complexity”, i.e., the complexity of the watch necessarily implies a “watchmaker.“ The ”watchmaker” being even more complex than the created watch, necessarily implies a “watchmaker maker,” i.e., God.
The creator being more complex than the created (the watchmaker more complex than the watch, God being more complex than the watchmaker) necessarily implies that God is more complex than than Man as Man is more complex than the watch, requiring (under the syllogism of this argument) that God, too, is created.
It’s a stupid logic syllogism. Always has been. Always will be.
It comes down to “first cause.” Can’t get past “first cause.”
EITHER the universe has always been here OR it was created. This is necessary from one of the most elemental laws of physics, i.e., the law of conservation of matter and energy — no matter can be created or destroyed. You CANNOT get something from nothing or nothing from something.
The very existence of the universe calls this law into question. If it “spontaneously generated” then you CAN get something from nothing. If it didn’t spontaneously generate, then it can’t exist unless it was created (somehow) and whatever (or whomever) created it had to have matter (or energy) from which to create it. (Which, of course, brings us back to “first cause” as to where THAT matter or energy came from).
This new notion from Hawkings, like the “we live in a black hole” or whatever new metaphysical “theory” of the universe purporting to explain the unexplainable is what my brother likes to call the “Purple unicorns flying out of my butt” theories put out there by today’s “scientists.” They can no more prove or disprove these theories than can someone disprove that purple unicorns do, indeed, fly out of my butt.
Report Post »Huey
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:57pmTomee: Yeah. That’s kinda the point, and the fault with the syllogism.
Report Post »Melbee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 8:29pmYeah, kind of like the “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” thing….
Report Post »geno9238
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:56pm…so let me see if I got this straight: something=nothing? hmmm, doesn‘t sound ’scientific to me..
Report Post »lovefreedom
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:24pmBased on what scientist call “scientific” these days, I guess that would sound scientific!?!? I thought they were suppose to be “smart” and everyone else “dumb”!
Report Post »tommee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:40pmIf God is something, did he come from nothing? Who mad him?
StupidWindmill
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:40pmScience is a universal, make an observation about your environment, congratulations, you are a scientist.
Report Post »Melbee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 8:16pmI know, I don’t get it. It’s the law of conservation of mass teaches us nothing can be created nor destroyed, which is true; the bible already tells us about that law long before it was written out.
Conservation of mass-energy is exactly what we would expect on the basis of Scripture.
First, the Bible indicates that no new material can come into existence. This is indicated in John 1:3 and Genesis 2:2. John 1:3 states that all things were made by God, and nothing has come into existence apart from Him. Furthermore, God ended His work of creation by the seventh day of the creation week, according to Genesis 2:2. Since only God can bring new things into existence from nothing, and since God ended His work of creation by the seventh day, no new material will come into existence today.
Second, the Bible suggests that nothing will cease to exist. This is because God is upholding all things by His sustaining power (Hebrews 1:3) and by Him all things consist (Colossians 1:17). Neither matter nor energy will cease to exist, because God is sustaining them, and since nothing new will come into existence, we can conclude that the amount of material in the universe is constant. Of course, the Bible makes room for miracles—supernatural interventions by God, but miracles (by definition) do not conform to the laws of physics; they are exceptions by their very nature. The universe itself obeys the law of conservation of mass-energy.
Report Post »Mixtli
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 8:35pmnot nothing…billions of years of collision with debris…amino acids, water from comets…the proverbial primordial soup…we have duplicated this in labs…no scientist EVER said something from nothing…creationism is the side without a shread of evidence…truly something from nothing
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 1:57amYeah, a wizard did it. Duh!
Report Post »dhardy57
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:56pm“…IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR HIM TO HAVE A LARGE MILLSTONE HUNG AROUND HIS NECK AND TO BE DROWNED IN THE DEPTHS OF THE SEA…. WOE TO THE WORLD BECAUSE OF THE THINGS THAT CAUSE PEOPLE TO SIN! SUCH THINGS MUST COME, BUT WOE TO THE MAN THROUGH WHOM THEY COME!” – Matt 18:6-7 (NIV)
Report Post »UnswoleLilDude
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:53pmAmen!
Report Post »hagar
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 2:27pmSeems everyone is entitled to there opinion including Hawkins. I dont believe we should advocate a new inquisition
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 1:54amI thought the Muslim’s were the violent religion?
Report Post »patriot1948
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:56pmIn his book, “Quantum Enigma”, Bruce Rosenblum does an excellent job of explaining that quantum physics is the mysterious and paradoxical paradigm where physics and metaphysics meet. As Rosenblum points out, once we enter the realm of metaphysics the opinions of great physicists are no more profound than the opinions of the man on the street. My opinion, after reading Rosenblum’s book is that it could all be explained by a super consciousness which I believe to be God. I think Hawking‘s theories are as interesting as any other man’s but no more profound.
Report Post »VERACIOUS
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:55pmIn an extract published Thursday in The Times, Hawking wrote that it was “not necessary to invoke God.”
He’s correct, it wasn’t necessary to invoke God. God did it all on His own!
Report Post »jillyb123
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:16pmLove your response, Veracious! God DID do it on His own!
Report Post »mrstentrekin
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:26pmAmen!
Report Post »dhardy57
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:39pm“In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth– the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters and God saith, ‘let light be;’ and light is.” – Genesis 1:1-3 – (YLT)
GrumpyCat
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 4:29pmI agree, there is no need to invoke God. God did such a good job laying the foundation the Universe could create itself without the process being micromanaged by God.
Might notice God is continuing the no-micromananagement policy to this day.
Report Post »ecnghm
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 4:34pmdhardy57: I was waiting for someone to quote scripture. Who wrote the scriptures? How did they know? Was their hand guided by God? All these writers? Did they actually hear what God said so they could write “let there be light?” If man can’t know the answers, how did these men know what to write? Why did God write a Bible with an Old Testament and than a new Bible with both Old and New. Why did God have some men write the Koran? How did the writers of the Bible know that the creation of the earth occure 5 or 6000 years before it was written? Right, they were told by God. Get it.
Report Post »JClem17
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 7:23pmPlease provide some evidence that “God did it” and no quoting bible verses and apologetics will not cut it.
The bottom line is there is ZERO evidence that any god exists. Until then, I will hold the only rational position, atheism.
I eagerly await your evidence….
Report Post »Melbee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 7:57pmAmen!
Report Post »JClem17 – What have you got to lose? If I am wrong then nothing happens to you in the end like you probably believe. If you are wrong, then you spend eternity in hell. Why NOT take a chance to know God by opening your heart to him. You have nothing to lose, according to you.
Melbee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 8:01pm@JClem17 – Asking someone to “prove” God exists without using the bible is like asking you to prove the science without any mathematical equations or theories.
Report Post »JClem17
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 3:50pmMelbee, the burden of proof is on you, as you are making the claim. I am simply asking for physical evidence for your god’s existence. You cannot use the bible to prove god or the bible, that is circular logic, which is fallacious. Sorry…
I’m sure you are atheist with respect to Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Odin, Baal, etc. There is just as much evidence for those gods as your god.
What have I got to lose? The only life I am guaranteed, which is this one, that is what I have to lose.
One last thing, I was brought up in a christian home but never truly believed it because it did not make sense. A couple a years ago, I set down and read the bible and was horrified by the malevolent bully that is the god of the old testament and I realized that I was much more moral than this god.
I am now much happier and enjoy life more and have an even greater purpose now because this is my one chance at life and I want to make the best of it.
Report Post »StupidWindmill
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:53pmThis is an interesting development upon creation, as all the elements exist within stars its understandable that the universe has the ability to create itself.
Report Post »mruckdaschel
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:01pmSo where’d the Stars, which contain all of the elements, come from?
Report Post »StupidWindmill
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:25pmFrom other stars.
I can’t give a long winded explanation as I do not have the prior mental facilities to give a completely satisfactory answer.
jblazak
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 2:46pmYou may try thinking about it this way: Did a watch just create itself? Did all the elements, gogs and wheels just come together and presto there you have it “a watch”. No someone created it. Look at the human being…so awesomely made! Male and female, physically and emotionally made to become one unit and create other little God beings. How do you even begin to explain everything around you which testify there is a “Creator”. The seeds, the birds, the flowers, the trees etc., etc., etc…..of which NO MAN can create by fiat.
Report Post »zolon5
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 8:25pmDid it create other universes too? You are allocating divine attributes to physical matter with no intelligence. The mystery is not in an infinite universe, but in an infinite God. God was, is and ever shall be. Man’s foolishness begins when his finite mind tries to understand an infinite source or God.This is where faith begins. For those of us who have experienced miracles through prayer and faith, there is no doubt. Accept man’s humaness which is imperfect. Quit gambling with eternity because of pride (a human weakness.) I would put St. Thomas Aquina’s mind up against Hawkings any day. No contest here as far as human brilliance goes.
Report Post »BQI
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:52pmI am always amazed how man adorns himself with such massive self-aggrandizement. In our search for answers to complicated and intricate issues we fail to ask the simple question “why do we have to find the answer”. God places in all of us a spirit to search for and know truth. This yearning can be fulfilled once we know God, who is TRUTH.
Report Post »StupidWindmill
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:59pmWhy do we have to find the answer?
Because there are many answers.
HDSINOK
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:31pmThere may be many answers, but there is only ONE absolutely correct answer. Some things are too big and too complex for man to totally comprehend,, but answer for yourself one question. If the Universe is in fact Godless and random, where did intelligence come from? If we are just biological machines that evolved by random events why should we be concerned with anything beyond our basic existence?
Report Post »StupidWindmill
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:49pmAbsolutely correct answer?
Also, nothing is never too complex to be understood.
Rather, its the lack of understanding that makes things complex.
Report Post »buckscounty912
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 3:03pmAnswers only lead to more questions.
Report Post »LJ_4_JESUS
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 5:08pmJohn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. I find it truly amazing if this guy only knew about the God he denies exists he would find out that he not only love him and wants to save his soul. This Great God wants to heal him also, I know this first hand because I suffered a closed head injury and let me tell you it’s life changing. I fell in love with Jesus and He healed me. If he were to read Mark chapter 16 vs. 15-18 and believe he might not be in the shape he is in. (LOST)
Report Post »tromso
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:51pmRegarding organized religion, I’m agnostic at best, but until someone can explain to me just what caused the very first thing, in the very first universe, to happen, then the possibility of a creator can’t be dismissed.
jcmcdonald
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:03pmI was agnostic, im not now. I accepted that God does exist because of the order of the universe. If it were random, The human body would not function with such orderly perfectness. Also, though this same acceptance, I can accept Jesus Christ as my saviour because if i’m crazy enough to believe in a invisible sky god, i’m crazy enough to believe that he sent someone to give us a message, maybe even sent more than one person but my saviour is Jesus Christ.
russelpolk
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:23pmThere is a wonderful series called “The Truth Project” that explores all of this. An awful lot of discussions of this nature remind me of a Bloom County cartoon I saw that basically boils down to a pudgy, flightless seabird being given advice to exercise more and eat less if he wants to lose weight. The penguin rejects that and decides to eat only cabbages, or grapefruit, or 12 day old avacados, because it just can’t be that simple.
It is that simple. You see order, you think Maker. God made it. Nowhere else in all creation do we see an explosion causing order. It makes no sense to think this was the one exception.
Report Post »tommee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:38pmWho or what made God?
tromso
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:59pmtommee, that’s used as a “gotcha” by atheists, but it makes no more sense than asking “who or what created the universe”. I can’t answer either one, neither can you, nor can the brightest scientific minds in the world. Guys like Dawkins openly mock the notion of a creator, but to be an atheist, one must have faith that there is no creator, sort of a catch-22, since they can no more “prove” that there is no creator than a religious person can prove that there is. Often, atheists will fall back on the notion that to prove a negative is simply a trap they refuse to go to, but I’ll ask again, what caused the very first thing to happen? Hawking can say anything he’d like, but has zero math to back that explains my question. His theories depend on a never ending series of births and deaths, without beginning or end. This explains nothing regarding the _very first thing_ in the _very first birth_. Without an explanation, anything he says is as relevant as a Druid dancing around a fire.
tommee
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 2:44pmtromso: “until someone can explain to me just what caused the very first thing, in the very first universe, to happen…” that’s a bad question that assumes there was a first cause. Just because everything we are familiar with seems to have a cause doesn’t mean the universe must have a cause too. It’s more correct to see that the universe just is, always was, and always will be. In fact, we get ourselves into trouble when we try to interpret the universal through our finite realities. The danger is that we attribute human qualities to a external God that requires our attention and devotion. The focus thus shifts from what we should be concerned with, the betterment of mankind, to a blind worship of a truly alien being, who may or may not exist. Truth is, God’s existence is irrelevant.
everythingafter
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 4:40pmHawking can say anything he’d like, but has zero math to back that explains my question. His theories depend on a never ending series of births and deaths, without beginning or end. This explains nothing regarding the _very first thing_ in the _very first birth_. Without an explanation, anything he says is as relevant as a Druid dancing around a fire.
Yes, but to introduce a god to explain everything is a) lazy and b) complicating matters. The simplest explanation will do, and that’s the explanation from science. Hawking may not be relevant to you, but he’s infinitely more qualified than any priest to speak on the universe and its origins.
Zukzuk
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 5:44pmTromso, you ask the atheist to answer the question you yourself cannot touch:
“…but I’ll ask again, what caused the very first thing to happen?”.
The Atheist would say that anything before the big bang is outside our comprehension, because it happened outside of time. Time is a function of space and space wasn’t there before the big bang. Without time any question of causation is silly, because there is no causation without time. Other natural phenomena were at work. To say “God did it” is to say that you don’t know, in slightly disingenuous language.
Mixtli
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 8:30pmHave you not heard it in the news…its called the BIG BANG and it happened about 15 billion years ago…the evidence is in…agnostic 1- christians 0…final score
Report Post »tromso
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 10:21pmtommee and zuk, actually, if you’d read the original comment, you would know that I’d said that in the best case scenario, I’m agnostic, I‘m simply saying that all the math in the world can’t rule out a creator. I see the the debate points that you pose as simply cop outs and intellectual laziness. By saying that because we can‘t contemplate in our four dimensional world with these particular physical bodies the wonders of the universe and creation with no math to back you up is no less faithful to something you’ll never prove than any religious kook you can think of.
Report Post »tromso
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 10:29pmmixti, how do you know that the big bang happened about fifteen billion years ago? The laws of physics weren’t written, according to some very smart cosmologists, until a few billionth of a second _after_ the big bang, and this leaves us in a quandary. Since “time” is intertwined with the laws of physics, there wasn’t any time before a few billionth of a second before the big bang. So, if the scientists are correct, and there really was a big bang that happened about thirteen and a half billion years ago, we have no idea how old the universe is.
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 1:50amWho or what created this creator? Now apply your ridiculous answer or to the universe itself. god = not needed.
Report Post »tenchiro
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 8:46amIf the universe is so complex/vast/etc to exist without a creator, then the same rule would apply to that creator. After all any being powerful enough to create the existence certainly didn’t come from nowhere.
It is like they say, “turtles all the way down”.
Report Post »Ricky5
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 2:59pmReally..just think about what you just said
Report Post »Belle Hyde
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 12:47pmThat figures. Science rarely believes in the divine Creation.
Ya
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:21pmThis sounds like an immaculate conception. At least God’s mo is consistent.
deanbob
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:34pmHawking is obviously well educated. However, it is also obvious that having a significant education in no way equates to having significant amounts of wisdom.
jazzyjean
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:55pmNothing plus Nobody equals everything? Hawking is too smart to accept God. :-(
ME
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 1:59pmIt may work in Science??? But math on the other hand 0 + 0 = planet and universe, not with out an x variable. I know x = God then the math works otherwise it is just a mathematical improbability.
Freelancer
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 2:01pmFunny…. Man can put the human in space, send a MAN made probe out into the cosmos and build computers that can out think a man but scientists STILL do not fully comprehend the human mind nor exactly how it operates. Science can not explain EVERYTHING PERIOD! These people that think they have all of the answers have NONE! The human is such a fine tuned biological machine with a super computer for a brain yet they want to say that this is just chance? RRrrriiiggghhhtttt….
Report Post »DanB
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 2:13pm“Science rarely believes in the divine Creation.”
There are scientists who are bold enough to believe in divine Creation, but they are not the ones who get published or make it into our text books. They are like Galileo of old, oppressed. And, yes, they have the “science” to prove it too.
What you will find is that science is like a lot of things. You get what you expect. If you go in with the assumption that things happen without God, then you get results that prove things happen without God. If you go in with the assumption that things happen with God, then you get results accordingly as well. For example, Creationists can prove that rocks not can form faster than science tells, but that rocks do form faster than millions of years.
The biggest thing I have learned from reading Creationist science is that science is interpreted according to your point of view. We see a study funded by a dairy association and we expect to see results that prove we need more milk in our diets, but we don’t ask ourselves what assumptions go into the studies of common science. Even the assumption that there is no God.
As I understand it, even the theory of evolution follows the law of entropy. In other words, there must be energy exerted to get something from an inanimate state to something as complex as a human body because the tendency is to go the opposite direction. As for the details, whether there is naturally enough energy in the universe to do this, whether a deity pushed evolution, or whether it was a matter of divine Creation is highly debated. As for myself, I at one time believed all three of these during my life and I chose to believe divine Creation is the answer. However, I would have never truly believed the claims of the Creationist science until I accepted this. It would have conflicted with my world view.
It seems that no matter who is in power, pride always demands we oppress the viewpoints that oppose our own. Whether government sponsored religions oppressing freedom of religion, or man-caused global warming advocates suppressing conflicting science, or even a science based on the premise of atheism oppressing science that shows they might be getting a few details wrong–like the ages of rocks.
roytoy
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 2:31pmIn the larger article http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/09/02/2010-09-02_stephen_hawking_in_the_grand_design_god_create_the_universe_it_would_have_happen.html?r=news
Hawking says “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing,” Hmmm. Hey Steve buddy, who created gravity?
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/09/02/2010-09-02_stephen_hawking_in_the_grand_design_god_create_the_universe_it_would_have_happen.html?r=news#ixzz0yOksVsZj
SPKnarr
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 3:05pm…the mad genius…
Report Post »NoStar
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 3:18pmYeah, scientists today don’t want to acknowledge that Isaac Newton wrote more on the Bible than he did about physics.
mudflat194
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 3:37pmAll the education in the world and no faith still equals ignorance. Those of us with faith know that God created everything, those without faith I fear will never comprehend the truth.
BubbaCoop
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 4:12pmScience doesn’t “believe” anything. Science is nothing more than a process by which to determine facts about nature through repeated observation. Scientists draw conclusions from facts and they certainly have their beliefs, but the origin of the universe is neither observable nor repeatable. Here are a few scientists who believe God created the universe in 6 solar days less than 10,000 years ago.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
MadAsHell
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 4:59pmSo sad for someone with so much intelligence to turn his face from God when he is in so much need of him…
Report Post »vtconsv
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 5:41pmI find it truly disturbing that a man that has been given grace in such an abundance of God’s Grace would not be able to see the intervention that he has received?
Report Post »Zukzuk
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 6:00pm“Those of us with faith know that God created everything.”
To have faith is by definition to NOT know.
HuckabeeGingrich12
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 7:54pmScience is basically our investigation and discovery of God’s amazing Creation.
Psalm 40:5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.
Secular communist humanist evolutionist progressives, i.e., SCHLEPs, will accept anything that government sanctioned “scientists” dream up, and if a goverment funded scientist’s philosophy and/or research doesn’t line up with the SCHLEP agenda, he/she ceases to be funded/employed. Ben Stein demonstrates this in his movie “Expelled”, though I have a feeling most of the people that would be reading this have likely already seen it.
Dr. James Enstrom of UCLA is the latest example:
Report Post »http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/31/pc-professors-firing-fueling-exhaustive-debate/
Mixtli
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 8:36pmScience doesnt believe in anything; it gathers fact and see where they take it…
Report Post »Croaker
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 9:11pmScientists only deal with the empirical, that which can be measured or known. God does not fit this category. Call god the prime motivation if that is what you wish. What is the motivation behind this “spontaneous” creation. Perhaps it is possible, but what is the motivation which causes it to actually happen. Therin lies God. Hawking is trying to define a spontaneous event. I believe this lies well outside the scope of mere science.
Report Post »Jaren
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 10:20pmya the nothing + nothing story is soooo logical….. wait….. no its not. Its strange that his timing lines up so well with Glenn Becks push for us to return to God….. im sure its just by chance.
Report Post »mommy2many
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 10:42pmI’ve seen that intellectuals tend to believe they are smarter than God. The ultimate sense of pride. The more degrees they earn, the deeper it becomes.
Report Post »JohnnyF
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 9:44amHawkins thoughts should best be discussed in the Christian’s tradition. But let me add another possible idea. There is the Buddhist rhetorical question (I personally do not know if it actually belongs in the Buddhist tradition, or was someone else’s invention) “What would you do if you were to meet the Buddha on the road?” Answer: “kill him”. The thought being that one must find the Buddha in their heart, not among worldly things. I suspect that we are not to find God in a scientific study, and that is because that is part of the way that God has designed the world.
Report Post »AmericanAtheist
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 1:10pmBelle, why should science (or rational people for that matter) believe in divine creation? There is no empirical evidence to support this view, and those who have blind faith, instead of healthy skepticism, are suffering from some sort of mass delusion. Hawking is correct that God is not needed for the creation of the universe.
Now, I certainly think that everyone is entitled to their own world view, and those who insist on the need for a “higher power” certainly have a right to live in their own fantasy world. Personally, I don’t need a higher power to make my life better. I control me, and my self control is much more stable and powerful than an invisible power in the sky.
Once, humans depended on many gods to explain their world, then they evolved and narrowed it down to one god. Eventually, the species will evolve past the need of any god to explain that which is.
Ricky5
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 1:36pmI’ll I can say is OH MY GOD!
Report Post »SheriS
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 2:20pmJust because you are brilliant doesn’t mean you have common sense or based in reality! I’ve know some brilliant people who were very stupid!
Report Post »BNSFPD
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 4:44pmWe’ll see what Hawking believes when on his death bed. More than one Atheist has called out to God when that time comes.
Report Post »phaysmn
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 4:46pmThe people that are anti-creationism will also never mention the fact that even Darwin himself viewed evolution as only a theory. So, it would make sense that the unwise that do not believe that God created all and dismiss it is a theory also make the case the evolution should be taught as fact in schools.
Report Post »Micki
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 11:15pmscience is not tool of beliefs , it is a tool of proof .
Report Post »RN_Politician
Posted on September 4, 2010 at 12:11amThis, along with many other great “thinkers”, as I shall categorize them, have no real evidence of any of this so called, ‘creation from nothing’.
Report Post »The Bible seems to have the most relevant and consistent data relating to this problem; creation of the universe.
All of this to say that science is based on, and always points to, the solution with the most clear, precise, relational, and positive evidence!
Never do, or should, scientist base a theory on no known evidence, or at least a ‘smidgin’ of some kind of data! Really, produce some kind of positive data that points that creation from nothing is even plausible.
Ellen01
Posted on September 4, 2010 at 1:37amBrilliant scientists? They cannot even cure the common cold or tell us why aspirin works. Yet we are to believe they can tell us how the universe came to be?
Report Post »OHTAY
Posted on September 4, 2010 at 4:33amSince Hawkings speaks through his computer, no one really knows what he really said. For all we know Christopher Hitchins got a hold of his computer and had it spit out Hawkings book. My weak attempt at humor.
Report Post »