Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

[Aindriu]

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

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.
The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.
In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “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.”
He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

Read the full article here.

[farnaby]

Beliefs in Creation, souls and sacred texts have all been undermined by scientific thought. The only remaining justification for religion is in esoteric belief - that temporal beings like ourselves can directly perceive, understand and be part of the underlying divinity of all things, and have done so. Sounds like some 'Celtic wisdom' bollix but I believe this could take hold - humanity has religious needs even if there is in the end no metaphysical basis for it.

[johnfás]

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.

[Telemachus]

Think he previously was somewhat agnostic towards this subject. He may still be.

Physics can not explain why creation exists in any satisfactory manner either. Each 'Why' question explained in physics always poses another question. The latest big thing is finding the magical 'Higgs Boson'. Once that is found, they will be off looking for some other magic particle. All we can hope to gain from physics is to learn how to manipulate our surroundings more efficiently.

'inevitable laws of physics' ? how are they inevitable, hes just pushing back the question, reducing it from big-bangs to laws of nature. Pure physics denies I have a conciousness rather than a deterministic computer in my head and cannot explain why form exists. It is inadequate on its own.

[Thac0man]

a: There is no room for God in any scientific theory. How could there be? So well done to Hawkings for pointing out the bleed'in obvious.

b: "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing" - I'll take that one, on faith.

I like Hawkings, have read all of his leyman books. But what is said in them is not in itself proof, it is only what I am told is reality (and in large part is still theory). That 'proof' in the scienfitic sense involves math I do not understand, few people do. But does anyone not see the inherent paradox in accepting 'Scientific truth' without being able to validate (or understand) the proof of it? As an athiest I just thought I would throw that in to the mix before the usual 'comfort food' comments flood in.

[DeputyEdo]

All we can hope to gain from physics is to learn how to manipulate our surroundings more efficiently.

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

[Abacus]

Beliefs in Creation, souls and sacred texts have all been undermined by scientific thought. The only remaining justification for religion is in esoteric belief - that temporal beings like ourselves can directly perceive, understand and be part of the underlying divinity of all things, and have done so. Sounds like some 'Celtic wisdom' bollix but I believe this could take hold - humanity has religious needs even if there is in the end no metaphysical basis for it.

Been saying that for a long time. Religion is a social construct arising from innate fears and uncertainty and tending towards commercialism for sustainability.

[rubensni]

I find it interesting that the capital-G god is used in this article.

[DeputyEdo]

I find it interesting that the capital-G god is used in this article.

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

[typical]

“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.