Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

[Munnkeyman]

First off I don't believe in the Big Bang theory, there are many other models to describe the evolution of the universe over time.
Cosmological research has been tempered by a foolish and unscientific acceptance
of an unproven model over many others of equal merit.
The Big Bang theory in itself is a creationist theory developed by a Catholic Abbot, Georges Lemaître(along with Friedmann,Robertson and Walker), in the Catholic University of Leuven.
There are about nine other metric theories which I could name that I would hold in the same esteem.
Physicists have been disgracing physics with nonsense science and this is another example of it, developing metric theories of everything all while one of the fundamental forces is so little understood.
I'm an agnostic by the way, not a theist.

[Sailor]

Hawking's idea that the Big Bang kicked off from nothing is not a new one. But what needs to be understood is that in referring to "nothing" he is referring to a vacuum - but not a vacuum as defined by classical physics. His starting point is a vacuum as defined by quantum mechanics and this is not equivalent to "nothing" as we would normally define this term.

[The Field Marshal]

Hawking's idea that the Big Bang kicked off from nothing is not a new one. But what needs to be understood is that in referring to "nothing" he is referring to a vacuum - but not a vacuum as defined by classical physics. His starting point is a vacuum as defined by quantum mechanics and this is not equivalent to "nothing" as we would normally define this term.

Matter exists.
Where did it come from?

If Hawkings said the BIg Bang kicked off from nothing then he is right.

He thus adds scientific weight to the classical theological explanation that the universe was created or formed "ex nihilo"[literally out of nothing].

To try pretend that there was no prime mover or cause to this primal event is absurd.

[Sailor]

Matter exists.
Where did it come from?

If Hawkings said the BIg Bang kicked off from nothing then he is right.

He thus adds scientific weight to the classical theological explanation that the universe was created "ex nihilo"[literally out of nothing].

To try pretend that there was no prime mover or cause to this primal event is absurd.

Don't know - but I'm not in the business of inventing god, I would prefer to continue to pursue the matter scientifically. It takes more effort but then inventing a god when you have trouble explaining something is downright lazy - not to mention medieval.

[fluffykontbiscuits]

Matter exists.
Where did it come from?

If Hawkings said the BIg Bang kicked off from nothing then he is right.

He thus adds scientific weight to the classical theological explanation that the universe was created or formed "ex nihilo"[literally out of nothing].

To try pretend that there was no prime mover or cause to this primal event is absurd.

Sometimes things just happen, there could have been a world before us we dont even know about but I think what is important here is that physics doesnt understand the principles of the big bang while religion will just come up with any old tosh to fill the gaps. Its a bit like ad lib religion. God did _______ (fill in the blanks).

[badboy2]

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

This statement seems flawed at a really basic level. The first law of thermodynamics says "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms." The law of gravity describes how objects with mass interact with each other. No universe, no mass, no law of gravity?

"The god squad" have a fair amount of reason to squawk on this one, what he's suggesting seems to go against the fundamental laws of physics. You really need a lot of faith to just take his word for it.

I am a believer and I can take that one - negative energy and positive energy could sum to zero - leaving the laws of thermodynamics in place.

Biological systems appear to break the concept of the universe tending towards disorder (entropy) but we assume that we are just missing something as oppose to the laws of thermodynamics being wrong.

Its all theoretical and the idea that physics at this stage can prove the start of the universe is unhelpful and smacks of the arrogance that used to be confined to biology.

There is nothing in science that disproves the concept of a metaphysical being, however there is plenty of science that contradicts specific instances of dogma such as transubstansiation.

Maybe we should get less worked up about the specifics and focus on the message of being nice to each other.

Perhaps the bible is just a story designed to help us with our lives written in terms that both primitive and advanced civilisations can draw on as a resource. If the bible doesn't suit your belief system, read around the other religions and you will be amazed what you can learn.

[fluffykontbiscuits]

If the bible doesn't suit your belief system, read around the other religions and you will be amazed what you can learn.

Or alternitavely just have common sense and do good which any sane person would normally do with or without religion.

[The Field Marshal]

Don't know - but I'm not in the business of inventing god, I would prefer to continue to pursue the matter scientifically. It takes more effort but then inventing a god when you have trouble explaining something is downright lazy - not to mention medieval.

And your answer is not to explain anything

Not only that but you revel in your ignorence.
Its not a scientific issue at all.
Science is not even equipped to answer this philosophical question.

Account for the fact of existence itself if you can.
Twittering on about big bang,quantum theory,string theory and other scienctific theories is all just a waste of time.

The fundamental question as to why anything at all exists when it might as well not have existed is being conveniently ignored by you and the rest of the lazy brigade.

[Sailor]

I am a believer and I can take that one - negative energy and positive energy could sum to zero - leaving the laws of thermodynamics in place.

Biological systems appear to break the concept of the universe tending towards disorder (entropy) but we assume that we are just missing something as oppose to the laws of thermodynamics being wrong.
Its all theoretical and the idea that physics at this stage can prove the start of the universe is unhelpful and smacks of the arrogance that used to be confined to biology.

There is nothing in science that disproves the concept of a metaphysical being, however there is plenty of science that contradicts specific instances of dogma such as transubstansiation.

Maybe we should get less worked up about the specifics and focus on the message of being nice to each other.

Perhaps the bible is just a story designed to help us with our lives written in terms that both primitive and advanced civilisations can draw on as a resource. If the bible doesn't suit your belief system, read around the other religions and you will be amazed what you can learn.

If you take all inputs and outputs into account you will generally find that the formation of more complex systems do not breach the increasing entropy principle. Also the laws of physics do not actually require that entropy must always increase - temporary departures from this principle are permitted so long as the over-riding trend represents an increase - this is in line with the probabilistic nature of modern physics and Boltzman's work on entropy incorporated this.

[typical]

Don't know - but I'm not in the business of inventing god, I would prefer to continue to pursue the matter scientifically. It takes more effort but then inventing a god when you have trouble explaining something is downright lazy - not to mention medieval.

It's no more lazy than saying "it just happened spontaneously".
And you can't pursue the matter scientifically, science requires measurement, measurement requires substance, substance requires existence in this universe, which requires this universe.

I am a believer and I can take that one - negative energy and positive energy could sum to zero - leaving the laws of thermodynamics in place.

Sorry, I think you missed my point. If there is no universe, nothing, there is no energy, at all, negative or positive (?!?). To say the universe sprang out of nothing is to say that energy was created.