1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Stephen Hawking Says There's No God

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Fin D, Aug 8, 2011.

  1. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    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.
     
    finyank13, gafinfan and Ohiophinphan like this.
  2. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    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 likes this.
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    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.
     
    Ohiophinphan likes this.
  4. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,006
    6,368
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    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
     
    PhiNomina likes this.
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    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.:tongue2:
     
  6. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,006
    6,368
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    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 ****** their own growth.

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


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    unluckyluciano likes this.
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    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.
     
  8. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    It doesn't seem you understood what he wrote.
     
    CaribPhin likes this.
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    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.
     
  10. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    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.
     
  11. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    By showing that the sum total of everything in the universe is 0, like matter and anti matter for example.
     
  12. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,333
    23,006
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    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.
     
  13. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,006
    6,368
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ

    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
     
  14. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    My bad. Boobies.






    Better?
     
  15. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,006
    6,368
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    Boobies...HELLO!!!




    Of course that's better.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Fin D likes this.
  16. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That just shows that everything that is here wasn't here before. Not that there was nothing before it.
     
  17. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I am looking forward to being amazed and confused by what they discover there.
     
  18. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    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.)
     
  19. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    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.
     
  20. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    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.
     
  21. MikeHoncho

    MikeHoncho -=| Censored |=-

    52,652
    25,565
    113
    Nov 13, 2009

    ...did you just blow yourself in public?
     
    SICK likes this.
  22. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Most my information comes from The Universe and NOVA.

    Even if it comes from the knowledge that we presently have, we have little to no idea what exists before the big bang. The theories we have are guesses at best. Just because we cannot measure anything doesn't mean there is nothing. I have yet to hear a scientist say that it has been scientifically proven that nothing existed before the big bang.
     
  23. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    I find questions of philosophy being debated by physicists to be odd. That "nothing" could (and did???) spontaneously become "something" strikes me as far odder than multi-dimension string theory.

    I believe in God. I need no proof. I have a solid if a layman's view of science (I majored for awhile in molecular biology many years ago) and respect its logic and disciplines. While I can not completely reconcile the two, I will allow, that is my problem or at least the problem of human understanding. Listening to bright, thoughtful people of all stripes such as a Stehen Hawkings sharpens my mind but in the end I find his arguments (as to spontaneous creation ex nihlo) unpersuasive.
     
    CrunchTime likes this.
  24. CaribPhin

    CaribPhin Guest

    The purpose of the episode wasn't to prove there is no god. It was to prove that it is possible that the universe can exist without one. Which he used to come to such conclusion. He qualifies it often by saying why he believes and doesn't make the definitive claim that there is no god.

    The premise was also that everything existed, in a supercondensed state. The universe was a subatomic existence, just as with the other universes a la string theory. Because all that exists in a universe was down to the size of quantum particles, the gravity generated was enormous. From studying black holes, we know that time slows and stops when nearer to extremely dense objects such as black holes. Combining the lack of time before the expansion, and the fact that things can come into existence without a cause (protons, etc.) Hawkins, and science have shown it is scientifically consistent that there is no need for a god to explain the Universe considering there was no time for creation as there was no time. He does not, however, say this means there is no god. He says it contributes to his disbelief.

    Here is where his logic comes from: There is evidence that what he has said is true. There is evidence of things such as evolution that explain biological organisms forming from chemical combinations. It could all have been set in motion by god, sure, but there is no proof of god and it is possible without him, so he chooses to not believe.

    Consider this, we thought that rivers could only be made by bears. Suppose that at a certain time in history, we didn't know that rivers could be natural. After a while, we found out that rivers could be naturally occurring, but there was no evidence bears made rivers, and what we once thought we knew, became less and less true. Hawkins is just saying that of the two explanations, he is applying Occam's Razor and choosing the one with the less assumptions and more proof.
     
  25. Muck

    Muck Throwback Uniform Crusader Retired Administrator

    14,523
    22,246
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    To me -- and I'm a very simple being, mind you -- any iteration of the universe couldn't simply begin existing out of nothing. Just doesn't make sense to me.

    I'm one that believes there's just as much probably that something(s) exist beyond the limits of our universe. Doesn't make sense if there isn't IMHO. What's beyond that? I dunno.

    I don't feel that science can disprove as much either. Even protons and such, it would seem those answers simply lie beyond our current capacity.

    I don't believe that science can disprove deity yet 'prove' things happen for no reason. That can't jive.
     
    Ohiophinphan likes this.
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Well, at the end he does say there is no god, pretty much. Up until that point, he made every effort to point out this isn't absolute, but does say it at the end.
     
  27. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I don't mean this to sound insulting, but your understanding of the universe has no bearing on what is and isn't possible.

    I say that because, it is precisely your take on it, that IMO, has lead to every religion. Person A cannot understand or make sense of Y scenario, so they ask questions. Here is where the divergence between science and faith begin. Science tries to answer that question with facts or numbers that are checked and rechecked. Faith tries to answer that question based on how it makes one feel.
     
  28. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    Hawkings has become a bitter old man. His recent rantings and ravings about "God", in particular, have caused many scientists to call him out.

    For example, Roger Penrose, who worked with Hawkings in the past and has publicly stated that he has no religious beliefs, called Hawkings' new theory, "hardly science" and "not even a theory".
     
  29. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010
    And who cares about any of this? believe what you believe, and have fun.....life is to short....stop spending it dogging out people who believe or dont believe....

    I could care less about Hawking, I could care less if he got hit by a bus or if he all of a sudden could walk again and played midfielder for Man U.....whatever...
     
    padre31 likes this.
  30. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    I fist pumped Muck on the post which you are discussing, so I would like to try and give a different nuance than your answer. You say faith tries to answer things based on how someone feels. I would take exception to that. It is not simply about how I or anyone else feels. Frankly there are things in scripture which call me to positions I would rather not take or feel.

    I think faith tries to answer things which the science of the day is unable to do. It is why science and faith need always to be in dialog, not as adversaries but as two ways of seeing things. One emperically and the other in a more revelatory, experiential fashion.

    I agree that we should allow the two to co-exist and in fact inform one another.

    Just like faith was wrong in trying to rein in science for centuries, I firmly believe science is just as wrong headed for trying to "prove" that which is ultimately unprovable.
     
    Muck likes this.
  31. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    The problem with this statement is that scientists are not emotional robots. Find a theory that totally negates someones life's work and you will see plenty of emotion and feeling in science.
     
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    While I agree that they don't need to be adversarial, I do not think they should influence one another. First of all, they are opposite approaches that require different classifications of "proof". If there is fact in your faith, then by definition you no longer have faith. If there is faith in your fact, then by definition you no longer have a fact. Its like mixing red and blue. If you put red into your blue, you have neither blue or red anymore and vice versa.

    I also don't think science is wrong headed in trying to prove or disprove the unprovable, because I don't think the topic at hand should be classified as unprovable. We may not be there yet, but I see no reason to accept the origins of the universe as unprovable. Now, as I stated in my original post, it is very possible to explain the origins of our universe without needing to fill the gaps with the concept of a god. We have not been able to provide proof of a god or no god. There may be a god, but at this point, the concept of god isn't vital to explaining the origin of the universe as far as science is concerned, but it hasn't been proven one way or the other.

    I probably worded the "how one feels" bit, poorly. I'll try again.
    The "proof" required in faith is purely emotionally based. Which means it can't be empirically quantified or qualified. Its level of proof is based entirely on how the person feels overall with their faith.
     
  33. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I don't see how I made the assumption that scientists weren't emotional. In fact, by saying science is checked and rechecked, I've shown why science isn't emotionally based overall and accounts for the emotions of individual scientists.
     
  34. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    When it comes to the unanswerable questions, there aren't any checks or rechecks.
     
  35. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Not true.

    Every step in the explanation has been checked and rechecked. Not too mention, unlike most faiths, if new evidence comes to light or mistakes are found, science will except that as a whole, and go from there.
     
  36. Muck

    Muck Throwback Uniform Crusader Retired Administrator

    14,523
    22,246
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    I think you might have misinterpreted my post.

    My point was that we don't fully understand the universe. That we will likely never will. I believe there is more beyond the universe, whatever it may be.

    It would be quite arrogant for me to believe that my opinion on the matter dictates what is and isn't possible. I attempted to qualify that at the very beginning of my post.

    I wasn't looking at it from a religious standpoint. But it would seem quite 'religious' (so to speak) to me that science would accept (or even 'prove') that certain things 'just happen'. It doesn't compute. That's what I meant in my last sentence.
     
  37. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Not true, if there is nothing to check, then there is nothing to recheck.

    Well like most faiths if new evidence comes to light or mistakes are fine, it will take a while before it is accepted as a whole. Oh those emotional scientists.
     
  38. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    So, things like matter and antimatter haven't been checked? Gravity? Relativity? Ages of stars?

    Really what you're saying simply makes no sense. In that episode, not one single part of the explanation by Hawking, hasn't been checked and rechecked.
     
  39. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I understand what you're saying, however, you're still applying your understanding of things to what science can explain and calling it, not true.

    I mean by saying we will never likely understand the universe, because you believe there is more, is essentially your opinion and you're letting it dictate what you say is and isn't possible.
     
  40. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Well then there are postulation such as multiverse theory, which is intriguing as a "ah-hah, that is were God is"! but is not sound theology.

    I think when Paul said "you can deduce the super natural by observing the natural" or something very similar for myself at least, that is sufficient to make it through another day so to speak

    As for Dr Hawking, from my pov I could not imagine a more depressing situation to be in, brilliant mind trapped in a decaying body who, when he casts about for some meaning for his own end, has nothing but death, ugh, but his thoughts on the matter are his to share, and I appreciate them but also consider that they come from a natural man point of view.
     

Share This Page