Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

[Telemachus]

Physics is also used to explain how stars formed etc..it's not just there to help us 2manipulate our surroundings".

That physics has practical applications; for one example helping us build a prototype Fusion reactor. Even rubbish physics like String Theory may help us come up with some new maths for problem solving.

[rubensni]

That's his name...you capitalize peoples/fictitious characters names

No, capital G god means the Abrahamic concept of god, as in that guy called God from the new testament. Lower case god means god generally, as in a creator who may exist but we will never understand - i.e. the god that atheists can't discount.

The fact that Hawking is discussing this issue in relation to the composition of the universe would indicate that he's talking about lower case god.

[The Field Marshal]

Oh boy, watch the assorted God Squads get their sticky little fingers on their keyboards over this one!

Read the full article here.

In usual fashion whiner Hawkings fails to answer the question as to why either existence itself or matter exists.

Neither idiot :S.Hawkings nor bitter clown R.Dawkins explain how mathematical order emerged from chaos to pervade the universe

[typical]

The fact that Hawking is discussing this issue in relation to the composition of the universe would indicate that he's talking about lower case god.

The linked article makes it clear that he's talking about God, as in an actual being, rather than just the general concept of a god.

[edifice.]

explain how mathematical order emerged from chaos to pervade the universe

I often wondered did we discover mathematics or did we invent it?

[darkknight]

I can't comment on Hawking's argument before reading his book.

But, as relayed in the article, it appears to beg the principal question.

The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.

This simply pushes the question back a step, from 'What caused the Big Bang?' to 'What caused the Laws of Physics?'.

Whatever the answer ('God', 'Barney the Dinosaur', or whatever), there is no escaping the need to identify some kind of Primary Cause that was itself uncaused. Or, alternatively, to accept the inevitability of some type of infinite causal regression.

To assert that the Laws of Physics constitute an uncaused primary cause, without explaining why or how, is just as arbitrary as asserting that 'God' or 'Barney' provides the key to grasping why there is something rather than nothing.

[The Field Marshal]

I often wondered did we discover mathematics or did we invent it?

The roots of mathematics are found in the observation/measurement of matter.

It can only have occured through the senses and therefor it must have been initially discovered.

Mathematical concepts were subsequently invented by the mind of man to explain phenomena in the world of matter.

It makes little difference either way since mathematical order pervades the universe.


To claim that this order emerged from chaos all by itself is the stuff of fools.

[Aindriu]

Just in case you misread the article, Aindriu, what he said is that he has theorised, rather than proved, a means by which the universe could theoretically have come into existence without a creator. He has not proved (nor is it actually suggested in that article) to any degree that this is what in fact happened rather how theoretically it is possible that another course of events happened. Also it has not actually been spelt out what his theory is as to how the universe might have come into existence spontaneously. It is thus impossible to test his theory at this point. But don't let that stop you getting yourself in a twist.

I fully read the article so you can stop with the patronising attitude a chara.

Getting in a twist? No. Just laughing at the reacation that will doubtless come from the followers of the various God cults over Hawkins' theory.

[Aindriu]

Religion is a social construct arising from innate fears and uncertainty and tending towards commercialism for sustainability.

Spot on!

[The Field Marshal]

I can't comment on Hawking's argument before reading his book.

But, as relayed in the article, it appears to beg the principal question.



This simply pushes the question back a step, from 'What caused the Big Bang?' to 'What caused the Laws of Physics?'.

Whatever the answer ('God', 'Barney the Dinosaur', or whatever), there is no escaping the need to identify some kind of Primary Cause that was itself uncaused. Or, alternatively, to accept the inevitability of some type of infinite causal regression.

To assert that the Laws of Physics constitute an uncaused primary cause, without explaining why or how, is just as arbitrary as asserting that 'God' or 'Barney' provides the key to grasping why there is something rather than nothing.

Exactly.
We are all receivers of existence.
All matter and beings in the universe are historical receivers of existence.

If it started with a big bang then any material involved in that received its existence from something or somewhere.

The only solution to this question is that something gave existence which itself was not a receiver of existence.


Such an entity did not have existence conferred upon it.

Now to my mind an entity such as that would have to be pretty powerful,big and awesome.

There you go.