29 Apr 13
Stephen Hawkings tried to say there can be no god because at the beginning of the big bang or singularity or what ever model you choose there was no time or time = 0 which means there was not enough time for a creator to exist !! How stupid is that though because what if this creator existed outside of time? Not bound by time at all ? hard to comprehend sense we are bound by time.
Manny
29 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt was on one of the cable channels last year....Science question everything or something like that and hawkings did indeed say that. I will find it for you.
I very much doubt that. Its far more likely he said something to the effect that God is not required as an explanation.
Manny
29 Apr 13
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html
I can't find it but he basically said as you have said the universe in his mind at least does not need a creator in order for it to exist and one of the main reasons was because there was not enough time before the BB because there was no time before the BB
Manny
29 Apr 13
Originally posted by menace71He doesn't say that in the article you link to. He merely says the laws of science adequately explain the universe's existence and he takes the laws of science to be brute facts.
.... and one of the main reasons was because there was not enough time before the BB because there was no time before the BB
A theist may say that God created or defined the laws of science, but this just introduces God as a brute fact and does not follow as a requirement from what we know, so Hawkings claim that God is nor required as part of the explanation still stands. I am fairly sure however that he would not go further to claim that this somehow proves that God does not exist.
29 Apr 13
Originally posted by menace71There are theories gaining ground now that the BB was only the beginning of OUR universe, that in fact, possibly an infinite number of other universes exists. We think our universe is so huge, maybe 50 billion light years across and so forth but the REAL universe beyond ours would presumably be infinitely bigger so that what we think of as this mind boggling size of 50 billion LY's is just a dot on a pimple of the outer universe and so time zero would be just a transition point, a local clock resetting our universe to zero and no other. Each alternative universe would have its own clock and presumably its own BB.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html
I can't find it but he basically said as you have said the universe in his mind at least does not need a creator in order for it to exist and one of the main reasons was because there was not enough time before the BB because there was no time before the BB
Manny
30 Apr 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieThat is the outcome God has determined for those that reject His saving grace. It is not too late for all of you to repent. But if you are not warned you will not see a need to put on that parachute or put on a life jacket.
not only have you warned me. you have stated the outcome, isnt that over stepping the mark, are you sure god is okay with you pre-judging for him?
30 Apr 13
Originally posted by KeplerNo need just no answers on how all things came to be.
Seems a reasonable response. It is in line with Ockham's Razor that insists we should not invent new entities to explain things unless absolutely necessary. Do we need to hypothesise a god to explain the universe or its workings? As Laplace said "I have no need of the god hypothesis".
KJ
30 Apr 13
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's a good thing from my point of view. I don't know a thing so I have something to investigate. Imagine how boring it would be if we knew everything. I wonder if that is why god wandered off to do something else? Do gods get bored?
No need just no answers on how all things came to be.
KJ
30 Apr 13
3 edits
Originally posted by menace71Maybe it was Richard Dawkins you were also thinking of because he said such things as the following:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html
I can't find it but he basically said as you have said the universe in his mind at least does not need a creator in order for it to exist and one of the main reasons was because there was not enough time before the BB because there was no time before the BB
Manny
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins
"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."
Richard Dawkins
"My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."
Richard Dawkins
01 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI am ok with the blind pitiless indifference thing.
Maybe it was Richard Dawkins you were also thinking of because he said such things as the following:
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins
"A universe with a God would look quite different from ...[text shortened]... My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."
Richard Dawkins