Stephen Hawking Says There's No God

[Fin D]

The Discovery Channel has a new show called Curiosity. It is going to cover numerous topics throughout its run.

The first episode premiered last night, and it was specifically about "Did God create the universe?"

There were two conclusions that Dr. Hawking came to:

1. The spontaneous creation of the universe, can be explained without the need of a Creator.
2. There is no God.

As an Atheist, this may surprise some, though I agree with #1, I disagree with #2. Let me explain.

I, of course, do not think there's a God, and #1 is basically accepted throughout the science community. However, I disagree that he PROVED there was no God. In fact, I find that conclusion and the "evidence" behind it, to be a leap in logic and counter to the scientific method. I'll go even further and say in reaching #2, Dr. Hawking has made the same mistake that others make when they argue against evolution, or psychiatric drugs, or the age of the Earth....and that is essentially, he's left with an open ended question, and uses that question as proof of his belief/hypothesis.

I encourage believers and non-believers to watch the episode which will be re-aired a few times throughout the week.

[Ohiophinphan]

While you and I have often disagreed about God, I fully agree with your interpretation of the "logic" of Hawking's argument. You are correct, the show is interesting.

[Fin D]

While you and I have often disagreed about God, I fully agree with your interpretation of the "logic" of Hawking's argument. You are correct, the show is interesting.

In a criminal oversimplification of what Dr. Hawking said, there are two classifications to the parts of "everything".....there's Something (matter, anti matter, energy, time, etc.) and there's Nothing (0, zip, zilch, nada, etc.). Before the creation of the universe (ie Something) there was Nothing. Since there was Nothing, there could not have been a god.

Now, I'll restate, I don't believe there's a god, but Dr. Hawking is not accounting for the basic premise of a god. Believers will tell you that god, can follow or not follow any rule, law, theory or anything as he chooses. If science is going to emphatically say, "There is no god" or "There is a god" then they must be able to disprove or prove that specific premise. So basically, it would not be difficult for Believers to say, there are 3 classifications to the parts of "everything"...Something, Nothing and God since god doesn't have to follow the rules of Something or Nothing.

As for the show, there was an excellent round table discussion on after the first airing, that I hope you got to see.

[Sethdaddy8]

There was never nothing. Not everything has a beginning. It's a point our feeble minds can't grasp.






I just blew my mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fin D]

There was never nothing. Not everything has a beginning. It's a point our feeble minds can't grasp.
I just blew my mind.

Actually no.

By everything we know of science and math, there was a beginning, before which there was Nothing. Its been proven, reviewed and agreed upon. What hasn't been proven or disproved is, can God & Nothing exist at the same time.

Blowing your mind isn't hard, the concept of the zipper has done that, for example.

[Sethdaddy8]

Actually no.

By everything we know of science and math, there was a beginning, before which there was Nothing. Its been proven, reviewed and agreed upon. What hasn't been proven or disproved is, can God & Nothing exist at the same time.

Blowing your mind isn't hard, the concept of the zipper has done that, for example.

Actually no??? Don't tell me no like some emo message board dweeb. How dare you.

And don't tell me "everything we know". So we know everything were gonna know? We can stop researching? We have all the answers? It's been "agreed" upon so I guess so.

The truth on many of these debates will never be realized...probably ever. The truth behind our existince and universal history most likely has concepts beyond our capacity.

Zealots, be they religious, scientific, or atheist...all share in common, their close mindedness and consequent innate ability to retard their own growth.

And screw that...you show me the principles of the zipper genius?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fin D]

Actually no??? Don't tell me no like some emo message board dweeb. How dare you.

And don't tell me "everything we know". So we know everything were gonna know? We can stop researching? We have all the answers? It's been "agreed" upon so I guess so.

The truth on many of these debates will never be realized...probably ever. The truth behind our existince and universal history most likely has concepts beyond our capacity.

Zealots, be they religious, scientific, or atheist...all share in common, their close mindedness and consequent innate ability to retard their own growth.

And screw that...you show me the principles of the zipper genius?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, "actually no". As in, you're wrong. Incorrect. Off base. Misinformed.

Of course we can research and learn more. Of course we can find out we're wrong. But based on the info we have and the math we have and laws we have, there was Nothing. Now, if you really want to make the argument that we can't call something a fact regardless of our current knowledge, because you never know what we'll find out in the future....well, then we can't call anything a fact...ever.

Your original statement was that, "there was nothing", as if that was a fact. How can that be, since you've basically negated any and all concepts of facts?

I would explain the zipper to you, but you may drive later day, and I wouldn't want you on the road with a blown mind. That would be dangerous. I just saved your life. You're welcome.

[Dol-Fan Dupree]

Actually no.

By everything we know of science and math, there was a beginning, before which there was Nothing. Its been proven, reviewed and agreed upon. What hasn't been proven or disproved is, can God & Nothing exist at the same time.

Blowing your mind isn't hard, the concept of the zipper has done that, for example.

It doesn't seem you understood what he wrote.

[Fin D]

It doesn't seem you understood what he wrote.

Its true he may have had some meta point that blew over my head. But taking what he wrote at face value, he is wrong based on our knowledge.

If you knew what his other point was, by all means share.

[Dol-Fan Dupree]

Its true he may have had some meta point that blew over my head. But taking what he wrote at face value, he is wrong based on our knowledge.

If you knew what his other point was, by all means share.

I do have a question, where did they prove for certain there was nothing before the big bang? All of my nature of existence shows state we will never be able to record what was there before the big bang.

[Fin D]

I do have a question, where did they prove for certain there was nothing before the big bang? All of my nature of existence shows state we will never be able to record what was there before the big bang.

By showing that the sum total of everything in the universe is 0, like matter and anti matter for example.

[unluckyluciano]

I do have a question, where did they prove for certain there was nothing before the big bang? All of my nature of existence shows state we will never be able to record what was there before the big bang.

No they have not proven it for certain "scientifically". This is part of what the new super collider is supposed to help scientists discover. At least some of the elementary particles. The theory is that you can in fact create energy I forget what the condition is though for this to occur.

[Sethdaddy8]

Yes, "actually no". As in, you're wrong. Incorrect. Off base. Misinformed.

Of course we can research and learn more. Of course we can find out we're wrong. But based on the info we have and the math we have and laws we have, there was Nothing. Now, if you really want to make the argument that we can't call something a fact regardless of our current knowledge, because you never know what we'll find out in the future....well, then we can't call anything a fact...ever.

Your original statement was that, "there was nothing", as if that was a fact. How can that be, since you've basically negated any and all concepts of facts?

I would explain the zipper to you, but you may drive later day, and I wouldn't want you on the road with a blown mind. That would be dangerous. I just saved your life. You're welcome.

how dare you respond with all these words. You're lucky were not face to face. This is where my white glove comes off, and thrashes you across the cheek...sir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fin D]

how dare you respond with all these words. You're lucky were not face to face. This is where my white glove comes off, and thrashes you across the cheek...sir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My bad. Boobies.






Better?

[Sethdaddy8]

My bad. Boobies.






Better?

Boobies...HELLO!!!




Of course that's better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dol-Fan Dupree]

By showing that the sum total of everything in the universe is 0, like matter and anti matter for example.

That just shows that everything that is here wasn't here before. Not that there was nothing before it.

[Dol-Fan Dupree]

No they have not proven it for certain "scientifically". This is part of what the new super collider is supposed to help scientists discover. At least some of the elementary particles. The theory is that you can in fact create energy I forget what the condition is though for this to occur.

I am looking forward to being amazed and confused by what they discover there.

[Fin D]

That just shows that everything that is here wasn't here before. Not that there was nothing before it.

It does because it shows there's nothing else.

If there was something else, there would have to be remnants of it ( which isn't possible because then the sum total would no longer be 0 or it was wiped from existence before our universe began. If it was all wiped from existence, then there was Nothing before our Universe began even if it was for the smallest fraction of a second. (Which isn't possible, considering time was created by the Big Bang.)

[Dol-Fan Dupree]

It does because it shows there's nothing else.

If there was something else, there would have to be remnants of it ( which isn't possible because then the sum total would no longer be 0 or it was wiped from existence before our universe began. If it was all wiped from existence, then there was Nothing before our Universe began even if it was for the smallest fraction of a second. (Which isn't possible, considering time was created by the Big Bang.)

I thought there was .03%(or some other number) more matter than anit-matter, because if there were an equal amount of matter and anti-matter than there would be nothing right after the explosion of the Big Bang.

Plus since there is no way to measure what exists before the Big Bang, then how could there be for sure, nothing.

You talk a lot different than the scientists from the shows that I watch. They do not use nearly as much certainty for things that are not able to be measured.

[Fin D]

I thought there was .03%(or some other number) more matter than anit-matter, because if there were an equal amount of matter and anti-matter than there would be nothing right after the explosion of the Big Bang.

Plus since there is no way to measure what exists before the Big Bang, then how could there be for sure, nothing.

You talk a lot different than the scientists from the shows that I watch. They do not use nearly as much certainty for things that are not able to be measured.

I have not heard the .03% theory, but I'd like to.

I'm talking in definite terms as it relates to the knowledge we presently have. Not only is it understood, but I have stipulated that its possible to learn new info that negates some or all of what we know. I'm much too lazy to put a disclaimer in every post.