Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

[Sailor]

I find it odd that Hawking says the laws of physics would inevitably bring about the universe. Physicists keep telling us there were no laws before the big bang because there was nothing at all before it. Not even time. How could the laws suddenly develop to make the whole thing kick off. I'm beginningh to think that physicsts are like Irish bank economists - they know nothing and perpetually chance their arms.

Part of the problem you note can be attributed to the over-simplification for popular consumption of what are very complex concepts in mathematical physics - the ideas don't always translate very well. I can also understand your reservations about some esoteric ideas found in areas like String Theory - but always remember nothing is accepted as scientific fact until proven by experiment.

[Sailor]

Basically it all comes down to the fact that anything science has yet to explain ends up with a "god did it" explanation.- And as we all know that is shrinking all the time. We also know that it is a theory which ultimately fails the question it purports to answer because always when you state that the universe could not have come from nothing one has to face the same problem in relation to God itself.
Whatever about calling that which we still fail to understand "God" and continuing to believe in a deistic entity, essence, energy - call it what you will would posters not agree that believing in a theistic god figure is truly ridiculous at this stage of human existence. The idea of a personal god who requires us to worship him and who watches our every act and thought is so off the wall, not to mention arrogant that it's impossible to understand how anyone with a good standard of education in say biology and cosmology could possibly give it credence.

But they get over this one by designing their God to be eternal. Like I said it's very easy when you can make it up as you go along - science is much tougher!!

[Ciarán Mac Mathghamhna]

The Big Bang is the best theory around at the moment and there is also good observational evidence to support it. However nobody is saying it's perfect and that it won't be modified or completely replaced. That is what science is all about.

I'm a bit surprisied that Hawking is talking about the Big Bang at all - a recent review of the evidence concludes that there is little evidence for such an event.

From a recent issue of the Journal of Cosmology, Lal (2010):

There is a growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. Indeed, the day may come when it is determined there never was a "Big Bang" and cosmologists of the future will only gaze back in wonder at how anyone could have believed in a creation event which was refuted by so much contradictory evidence.

Lal, A.K. (2010). Big Bang? A critical review. Journal of Cosmology, 6, 1533-1547.

[typical]

I'm not saying it just happened spontaneously

No, Hawking said it just happened spontaneously.

I saw you saying that nothing doesn't actually mean nothing, absurd an explanation as that is, again, you're missing the point. If there's no universe there is nothing. No quantum vacuum, no ordinary vacuum, just nothing. No universe = nothing. A quantum vacuum cannot exist because there is no existence.

So you know more about the fundamental laws of physics than Stephen Hawking?

It seems so, although I'll be interested to hear his explanation.

If you are just basing your objection on what it seems like to you, i'm assuming someone with no expertise on the subject, then you are not in a position to just declare that one of the greatest scientific thinkers of modern times is wrong about the basiscs of his science.

Someone who is totally ignorant of physics might just take his word for it but what Hawkings is quoted as saying is as radical as 2+2=84378938989. He's suggested the spontaneous creation of energy. Saying "there is a god" would be more scientific. Incredible claims require incredible proof, until I see it, I'll be incredibly skeptical.

[Libero]

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.

All hail, The Field Marshall, holder of the Lucasian Chair of Hippy Physics.

There is nothing in science that disproves the concept of a metaphysical being

But there's lots in science to prove that any "metaphysical being" has hidden itself very, very well.

[Q-Tours]

I'm a bit surprisied that Hawking is talking about the Big Bang at all - a recent review of the evidence concludes that there is little evidence for such an event.

From a recent issue of the Journal of Cosmology, Lal (2010):



Lal, A.K. (2010). Big Bang? A critical review. Journal of Cosmology, 6, 1533-1547.

The kindest description of the Journal of Cosmology is that it is a very recent (est. 2009) and ahem alternative forum for these ideas. Its personnel would not be considered prominent in the field of cosmology (Wickramasinghe was Hoyle's collaborator on the botched paper suggesting that viruses came from outer space). And it publishes (for payment by the author!) only on the Web.

Nature it certainly ain't.

[imokyrok]

I'm a bit surprisied that Hawking is talking about the Big Bang at all - a recent review of the evidence concludes that there is little evidence for such an event.

From a recent issue of the Journal of Cosmology, Lal (2010):



Lal, A.K. (2010). Big Bang? A critical review. Journal of Cosmology, 6, 1533-1547.

I haven't heard of him before and after googling I'm not much clearer - so I think you are rather overstating the case. One relatively unknown scientist opinion is not equivalent to dismissing a well supported theory. He himself points out that "Most, but not all cosmologists favor the inflationary Big Bang model as a viable explanation for the origin and nature of the universe."

[imokyrok]

The kindest description of the Journal of Cosmology is that it is a very recent (est. 2009) and ahem alternative forum for these ideas. Its personnel would not be considered prominent in the field of cosmology (Wickramasinghe was Hoyle's collaborator on the botched paper suggesting that viruses came from outer space). And it publishes (for payment by the author!) only on the Web.

Nature it certainly ain't.

I note that the paper subsequent to the Ahwini one is by Rhawn Joseph! Doesn't say much for their standards of scientific endevour if a well known purveyor of ID and" new age" pseudoscience can get through their peer review process - Rhawns twist on ID is that instead of God , aliens done it.

[typical]

I note that the paper subsequent to the Ahwini one is by Joseph Rhawnd! Doesn't say much for their standards of scientific endevour if a well known purveyor of ID and" new age" pseudoscience can get through their peer review process - Rhawnds twist on ID is that instead of God , aliens done it.

God bless scientific conformity eh, where would we be if we ever entertained theories that were outside the norm.....

[Q-Tours]

God bless scientific conformity eh, where would we be if we ever entertained theories that were outside the norm.....

On our way to a Nobel Prize, usually.

(Assuming you've got that pesky evidence stuff, that is.)