 |
|
|
|
|
September 2nd, 2010
12:18 PM ET
God didn't create universe, Stephen Hawking arguesGod did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics. Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London. "Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes. His book - as the title suggests - is an attempt to answer "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything," he writes, quoting Douglas Adams' cult science fiction romp, "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy." He co-wrote the book with science writer Leonard Mlodinow. His answer is "M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space." He doesn't explain much of that in the excerpt, which is the introduction to the book. But he says he understands the feeling of the great English scientist SIr Isaac Newton that God did "create" and "conserve" order in the universe. It was the discovery of other solar systems outside our own, in 1992, that undercut a key idea of Newton's - that our world was so uniquely designed to be comfortable for human life that some divine creator must have been responsible. But, Hawking argues, if there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life. And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it. From there he introduces the idea of multiple universes, saying that if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours - and in such a universe, something not only can, but must, arise from nothing. Therefore, he concludes, there's no need for God to explain it. But some of Hawking's Cambridge colleagues said the physicist has missed the point. "The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing," said Denis Alexander. "Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge. "Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," said Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. And Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God. But, he said, "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said." Hawking's book will be published on September 7 in the United States and September 9 in the United Kingdom. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
@Bowb
Hmmm..., IMHO, Guess that lives you in a worse place,huh? Go check it out in your Funk and Wagnalls...
@YouDoNotExist
I'm sorry, but your post is not very clear. Could you elaborate on just what you're trying to get at?
@YouDoNotExist
Will you please elaborate as to your point/s..... Sorry, I am not clear as to your meaning....
Peace...
@NL
Thanks for your most civil post.
The best I can say, is that what makes my God different, is he is the only one that died on the cross, and was ressurected, and had the power to forgive my sins. The rest I can't speak for, as I only recognize one God, Jesus Christ.
The burnt fferings and so on, (of the old testament)..that was Old Testament, and a NEW covenant was established.
es, I can understand that it is hard for someone who believes as the athiest does, to understand where I am.
But, its not about living a life in fear. It is about his perfect love for us, that casts out ALL fear. Jesus Christ was God incarnate,(The Father) he became Flesh for us, out of love, and died on the cross in our place. That is so we can have eternal life with him.
I guess you have to have that personal relationship, so you can KNOW this.There would be your proof that God exists..you WILL know it.
I do respect that you responded to my post, and would like to say that you are one of the athiest I do most respect. You have a way of responding to people that is respectful, despite extreme differences of belief and opinions. I admire your civil comments. Have a Good Evening!
YouDoNotExist-
You describe your own personal God, different than that of other Christians, and here is the problem. Lacking a true benchmark that we can compare with, every believer has a personalized version of God, and a customized set of religious beliefs as well. Logic doesn't work as well against a definition of God that the believer has customized to fit their own idea of the ideal deity because it already makes perfect sense... to them!
Another problem is that religious leaders can still rally anyone who "believes in God" to their cause. I haven't met many Christians who strictly stick to just their own beliefs as derived from the bible. Many American protestants criticize Catholics for following the Pope, yet very few of them actually stick to their own, personal rendering of what the bible teaches. You see, they read Christian writers, and follow favorite pastors, or televangelists, and adopt these people's teachings as their own. It's easier to get along with fellow Christians this way because few Christians actually like a believer who strikes out on their own. Let's face it, most of you are sheep and innovators of belief are identified as leaders, gathering their own flocks. If you don't gather your own flock, then you are really a "lost sheep" and people will question your beliefs as "mutant," as one tread here has stated. Heretic, is more like it. Most, then, really follow another acting as their "Pope."
It seems that any movement that claims to be following some convoluted rendering of a bible verse just sweeps the vast majority of you up. When asked to explain your reasons for believing this mass teaching few of you can, which if understandable as you did not form them in your own minds, and this frustrates you, as is evidenced by the often rude responses posted to atheists here. Some atheists get rude here too, and probably for the same reason that they really haven't thought through the reasons for their position well enough. Everyone should be versed well enough in their faith position to be able to take either side in a debate, wouldn't you say? Rudeness never won any argument. Christians consider all of the arguments for atheism completely taboo, so they usually fumble their defence without any effect while many atheists were once believers, consider no topic taboo, and know exactly how you believe as you do.
You don't live your life in fear, but any belief that includes eternal hell and a God being sole judge of salvation must include fear, I think. "Born Agains" usually appear so smug in their certainty of being the ONLY folks going to heaven that they come off as elitist, and sometimes even Fascist. If they truly believed that God alone awards salvation they should never feel confident of their individual salvation, right? How could anyone assume to know God's mind, after all?
NL,
You make a couple of good points in there. The one I wanted to address was the whole system of belief of Christians related to the rudeness and frustration that can come from all the sides in blogs like these. I can actually very much identify with this. I am actually just beginning my stint at seminary to learn more of the history, the theology, the interpretation (and even the ancient languages) as to more effectively support my beliefs with logic and reason. I have heard many quality discussions between Christian and Muslim or Christian and atheist, and I enjoy them greatly. It is my hope to develop a stronger perspective rooted in science, history, geography and theology. Opinions and beliefs are great, but they certainly do need to be founded.
Peter F-
Yes, it's as important to know the criticisms for your position as it's to know your arguments for. Anyone prepared to defend a position should also be able to attack it equally well. Formal debate really should be mandatory in schools, I think.
If you're going to seminary, and you want to keep your faith, my advice to you is to know when to quit learning about religion. I have had a lifelong interest in religious studies, and I truly still love it, but the danger is that the more you learn the more the mystery of faith, and it's validity, just disappears. Your future flocks will remain faithful with just a passing interest in religion, and you will remain a non-hypocrite if you just keep to the basics and not fall in love with the subject. I take no offense in this, but you really don't want to end up like me, do you?
Well, perhaps. I definitely believe God will help me to put my knowledge into practice in such a way that it won't be a burden or less of a joy to me. I never expect to understand it all... the fullness of the Lord is beyond my comprehension anyway.
Peter F-
Saying that the fullness of the Lord is beyond comprehension is a safe way to compartmentalize any nagging skepticism, and if that's what you need to remain a happy Christian then do what you must. I'd like to be more encouraging to you, but if you really want to remain a believer then perhaps it's best you limit your exploration of God to just the basics.
I'm not being condescending with this because I honestly only see one outcome to really studying God closely, and it sounds like it's not something you're looking for. I wasn't looking for it either, but I really am happy with the discovery of the truth. It's very liberating.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-bumps-no-obstacle-for-light.html
Universe's quantum 'speed bumps' no obstacle for light
You do not have everything you need to make your assumption (and call it fact) that God does not exist, in the entire universe.
You do not even know what caused the so called big bang. Right now, the best you can logic is that BASED on what is known, (removing the faith basis) , there appears to be no God, that could have been the creator of the universe, as we know it.
Things are constantly being updated, and in some cases dis-proving what was once thought to be "fact".
:
to speak of flawed logic, one must look in ones own thoeries. Especial-ly when those theories are based on a LACK of knowledge, based on given facts, as we know them only.. To say it is impos-sible, is what is flawed.
You are a limited thinker, because you are finite. Folly is to folly, what fact is to fact.
To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion
I posted to you, but it ended up in Stephanie's post up above. Oops!
Do the same rules apply to you? For someone to state categorically that there is a god, they must have verifiable evidence that can be tested by others. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, they must provide verifiable evidence to support that claim. Your logic is flawed when using this line of questioning for this topic. It seems that you are trying to disprove an atheistic world view. Even if you could invalidate any type of opposing world view, doing so does not prove that your world view is accurate or factual. Your efforts to discredit others is folly. I would suggest your effort should be to provide verifiable evidence of your gods existence. If you can do that, it settles the argument.
If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the t-i–tle is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?
The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an “agnostic” – one who claims he “doesn't know” if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is “ignoramus.” The Bible tells us that this ignorance is “willful” (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the “atheist” can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.
@YouDoNotExist
clipped for your approval:
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief.
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.
An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity.
A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
-from dictionary.com
You sound like you're fighting atheists while being a theist. Good luck. Both sides are clueless, IMHO.
I must be an infidel by those definitions. 😉
Personally, I'm not denying God; I simply don't believe God exists. There is ample evidence to believe in something which is "denied", like the Holocaust, or Evolution, but God is a matter of Faith, and not evidence, right? Saying that atheists are denying God is a believer's doctrine aimed at maintaining the assumed existence of the deity. Of avoiding the taboo concept that God may actually be fictional by asserting that everyone really, deep down, knows that he exists, but that some act like petulant children rebelling against their father. We're not rebelling against a God; we actually don't believe there is such a being.
Agnostics haven't made up their minds yet on the probability of there being a God that will condemn them for not believing in him. If they do manage to settle on full out belief in God wouldn't they think back on their agnostic years as being reckless? If they accept that there is no God wouldn't they look back on these same agnostic years as wasted in doubt and indecision? How can anyone live without this issue being settled in their minds? Grow up, make a commitment, become a believer or an atheist, and live your life accordingly (preferably as a good person either way.)
country, and the statement is then true.
To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.
If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?
The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an “agnostic” – one who claims he “doesn't know” if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is “ignoramus.” The Bible tells us that this ignorance is “willful” (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the “atheist” can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.
A Different Perspective
So with the cheese sandwich insanity, and the confusion about the message of Christianity, I could sympathize with my atheist friend in the airport. When he professed atheism it gave me the opportunity to humbly cite my atheist credentials. I said, "I wrote a book called God Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof the Atheist Doesn't Exist." Then I told him that I was a platform speaker at the American Atheists' national convention in 2001. I offered, "It's really easy to prove God's existence." He replied, "It's not healthy for me to talk about God." I said that I could understand that, and added, "But you are a reasonable and open-minded person, so you can listen to me for two minutes."
He gave me the okay, so I told him how he could know for sure that God existed, that God had given him a conscience and that if he even lusted after a woman, Jesus said that he had committed adultery already with her in his heart. I also mentioned that if a criminal was given a death sentence and he said to the judge, "But I don't believe in the electric chair," it didn't change reality.
http://www.christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/atheism.html
Your post lacks knowledge of logic. I would welcome the opportunity to debate you on this topic. Please respond if your are interested in a discussion.
"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
–Luke 10:21 (KJV)
"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
–1 Corinthians 1:19 (KJV)
"If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."
–1 Corinthians 3:18-19 (KJV)
Marilyn Adamson was a athiest also, prior to her conversion. I forgot to include that in the above
post.
And almost every atheist I know of was once a believer before their conversion. I think you'll find that the migration is mostly flowing in our direction.
If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."19 If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen."
Note: He stands at the door and knocks, you must answer.
I challenge any athiest to do this and see what happens.
If you REALLY believe he don't exist, you have nothing to lose, right?
You may want to read Marilyn Adamson's reasons that led her to believe in God.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
I Challenge You-
Let me ask you, if somebody knocked on your door and informed you that they just got rid of all the Gruggfs from your lawn, and then demanded payment for that service, would you feel obligated to pay?
I may occasionally still do things that I regret doing, much fewer now that I'm an atheist, but by dropping God and the longing to join him in heaven, I am no longer recognizing any of my actions as "sins." Jesus' dying, then, really cures nothing inside me, and I do not feel obligated to pay his price of "believing in him" ie. worship, and all that Christians are told that entails, some of which I find objectionable.
I've lived a pretty tame life (which may explain why I didn't fit in at church much), and I really don't think that I've (or many Christians, for that matter) have done anything to deserve eternal damnation, least of all not believing in something without any reason to. Torture, especially undeserved torture, only comes from a sadist, and if God should exist, and is a sadist, then he really didn't deserve worship in the first place.
If, as some expect, God exists but does not torture. That he takes believers to heaven, but allows non-believers such as myself to simply die without afterlife, then my life ends just as I expect it to and I have lost nothing.
If God exists and simply chooses the people who believed in his existence without logical reason to then I die a logical person who did not believe in gambling on long shots and stepping on others while doing it, and, if God is a sadist, then I have the dignity of having lived without cowardly kowtowing to him simply to save my own skin, while still stepping on others to do it. If, however, God exists, is moral-minded, and rewards the people who have done the least harm on this planet, I might just have a shot of heaven after all. So, either way, I win and I'm happy with my choice to live as an atheist doing my best not to harm others.
@NL
See, you just touched on one of the problems people have with practicing religion.
Most all faiths say God wants you to do good things. The problem is, people do things because they think it'll get them credit with God, as opposed to doing good things simply because they're good things.
Intent is important.
Just musin'
Kate-
Yes, and it makes me think of many of the Christians posting on this site. Are they doing it because they want to express their opinion, or are they testifying here to we poor sinners, being cyber-missionaries? If they were spreading their word with no expectation of reward I might consider them selfless, however...
@NL
We'll never know. Well, for the most part – I don't get good behavior credit for what I post, I'm just doing it to be downright obstinate 🙂
Just arguin'
Kate-
I think sometimes it would have been nice to have someone settled in their disbelief, as I now am, to talk to back when I was still struggling to make sense of Christian dogma. Could'a saved me a whole lot of the time I spent working it out for myself. It's also important to let people out there know that we exist, and what our ideas actually are as opposed to the straw men that they were taught we are.
@NL
You trouble me a little, because you bounce off two separate philosophies I have – one is that people should make their own minds up, free from outside influences, based on their own thinking, while at the same time it's also important, I think, for people to pass on the things they learn so those who come after can avoid their errors.
I do agree with you on the importance of non-believers being heard though – if nothing else it gives people the same opportunity to examine their faith through the eyes of others. That can go either way as to the results, but at least it helps ensure those results are a conscious choice.
Just sayin'
Kate-
I agree that people have to make their own minds up, but sometimes their minds need a little nudge to get them thinking about taboo ideas. I know from personal experience that believers are sometimes afraid to even think the words "I wonder if God is real?" So ingrained is the belief that God hears and sees all they fear being struck down for even letting the thought enter their mind. I'm happy to act as a sounding board to anyone willing to work these thoughts out for themselves, but it does have to come from them and make sense in their own minds. It's pathetic when someone cannot defend their beliefs, and these people just end up sounding childish and getting frustrated when they cannot articulate the reasons why they are an atheist, or a Christian, or whatever.
I worked out my beliefs long before I ever heard of Dawkins or Hitchens, but I must say that these authors do pave the way for new doubters quite a bit. In a way they also do Christians a great service as well, because anyone who can read their books, honestly work through all of their arguments, and still manage to have faith enough to remain a believer will be stronger for having the experience. Sadly, most pastors would caution against picking up an "atheist book." I find that very telling, don't you?
@NL
Very well said.
Which isn't to say, however, that someone's faith should be judged solely on whether or not they understand the why behind their belief.
But they should still be allowed and willing to self-examine it.
The number of those are willing to debate their beliefs (or lack of for that matter), even if just from their own perspective, is depressingly small.
Just musin'
Kate-
The authority of the Christian Right, as it approaches fascism, lessens the need for their flocks to defend their faith as individuals. These folks go to church together, shop at each others stores, teach each other's children, walk each other's dogs, cut each other's lawn, listen to each other's news channels to the point where they have isolated themselves from dissenting opinion and non-biased representations of science. No wonder they are lazy in knowing the "why" of their beliefs. Nobody they actually know will question any of it.
It's exactly how cults operate, but on a mega-scale.
Wow, just when I thought I couldn't find anything more pretentious, I find this thread.
Looking at this from a another angle. Do you think Stephen Hawkins is all togther the most objective person in making this declaration. If some how he discovered that a God or being was indeed necessary for creation would he admit it. Or would be be too bitter to admit this seeing his very challenging personal situation. To some degree our declares thories are framed by your personal believe system. Personally I do not see the point of trying proof God's existance that assumes a perfect understand of the laws of physics and the universe and we have a way to go before we reach there
It is good to see Relgiion falling away. It is a very amusing creation, religion. Conmplete fiction – and as much a piece of fiction as God.
A fair warning to people who never took up the lunacy of religion, and that is "Don't argue with an idiot, for if you do it too long to strt to sound like one."
Try to remeber people who "believe" in God just "believe", whereas I do not beliueve or not believe in it. I know. And I know there is no God. A great deal of comfort and joy comes from that. Our futures are what we make it, not some stupid man with a beard in the sky – who utterly silly to think such a thing could even exist.
Well, there are a plenty of errors going on by groups of religous people not doubt. Just look at what the Book of Revelation says about the churches as lights in the world. Perhaps a few will find that way that Jesus tried to give us. I particualry note how he related a child as axpressing being of the kingdom of heaven. In reality, being honest, we are all so small, weak, poor spiritually, and so on that realtive to God we are ever so simple yet capable to a realtionship. The cross may best express how weak God needs to be in order for us to relate and survive.
Part of the Biblical definiton of God is that no man has ever seen God.
Many are deluded by the concept of “God created man in his own image” having the idea that God is likeness of man, which gives an impression ,that he is sitting on a throne somewhere, mighty and powerful. If He exists as an object it means he has boundaries and is sheltered by something, the question then is, what is it that shelters God? and where? The God that has limbs like a man and shelter can be vulnerable. This image/depiction of God debunks the belief that he is the supreme, the omnificent and omnipotent, the ONE that provides for all. If He is sheltered in a medium/space, is the medium mightier than He? The God I believe is the Supreme Being that shelters all and is not sheltered by any, the one that encompasses the entire universe and anything beyond. God the omnipresent the infinite with no boundaries, one whose attributes cannot be compared to any of his creations, whose nature/existence is incomprehensible to the human mind.
I think if Hawkings and others can portray God in this image, they may have a better understanding of God.
God knows best.
@mutallib
I think you are making the same mistake you are accusing "Hawkings and others" of doing.
If you merely point at the "incomprehensible" and say that it cannot be compared to anything we DO comprehend, then any assertion you make about the "incomprehensible" beyond giving it a label is just incredibly stupid.
From our perspective as tiny creatures living on a single planet, you would have us believe that anything larger than we can handle must be limitless, unbounded, infinite, undefinable, and must therefore be "God".
What a simplistic view of the universe you have.
You do not examine what "God" is purported to have done, you refuse to acknowledge the deliberate fabrications of human beings regarding said "God", you refuse to deal with the real world, and you dismiss everything that is honestly done in an honest effort to determine the facts of the matter – in this case, the "Big Bang" theory.
You have also failed to address the possibility that you could easily be mistaken thanks to your imperfect human brain.
Or have you already reached perfection of body, mind, and soul thanks to your "God"?
(It sure doesn't show in your post.)
You know so little of your own views about "God" that you fling your ignorance around like a monkey flinging poo.
Oh, wait. "God" knows best....by making you a descendant of ape-like creatures...who thinks it's best if you continue to fling poo.
Yah, right.
Be sure and tell us that "God knows best" after you have read of all the horrible disgusting things done in "God's" name.
You seem to have missed those "little" details, or you want to cover them up.
Which is the truth of your perspective? Ignorance, brain-washed, or criminal conspirator?
@ Fast Eddie
I think you are considerably ignorant by the fact that our abilities are limited, It is very clear that we cannot in our capacity as humans travel to the farthest planet more less of another galaxy. In this sense also our mind has limited capacity to comprehend about God.
A typical example can be a cockroach living in\under your toilet feeding from your flung poo – do you think that cockroach can comprehend that its home is actually your toilet and understand that your poo metabolized from chicken and chips to its meal? Can it understand rocket science, internet, computers, and other simple and advance human technology? Can the tiny little brain of a rat living in a tiny living space in your home comprehend how the scraps its feeding on are manufactured or understand anything about the global financial market, energy, global warming etc. All these creatures know is how to survive in their world (your home). So also, “from our perspective as tiny little creatures living on a single tiny planet” with “our imperfect brains” what exists in the universe as a whole is beyond our comprehension, it’s simply out of our league.
If you think you evolve randomly out of nothing or from a single living cell, then you cannot be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that God didn’t manifest himself by himself out of nothing, that nature gravity or whatever you call it, is not the supreme medium which is above all, is not the mightiest creator the God himself living and existing as the supreme medium that encompasses all.
Your comments show that you know so little about things that have been done in God’s name, in his name there is more virtue in the world today than vices, more than 2/3rd of the world population who believe in God, one way or another are contented because they believe in a supreme being and abide by the teachings of their believe. Do you think if that majority are like you, the world would be as peaceful as it is, more people would have strived to achieve all they can in the little time they have to live. The “survival of the fittest” would have indeed thrived on earth.
As much as I could easily be mistaken so are you.
God knows best.
@ Fast Eddie
I think you are neglecting the fact that human abilities are limited, It is very clear that we cannot in our capacity as humans travel to the farthest planet more or less to another galaxy. In this sense also, our mind has limited capacity to comprehend about God’s existence.
A typical example can be a cockroach living in\under our toilets feeding from your “flung poo” – do you think that the cockroach can comprehend that its home is actually our toilets and understand how its meal is metabolized in our body? Can it understand rocket science, internet, computers, and other simple and advance human technology? Can the tiny little brains of the rats living in tiny living spaces of our homes comprehend how the scraps they are feeding on are manufactured? Or understand anything about the global financial market, energy, global warming etc. The only thing these creatures know and understand is how to survive in their world (our homes). So also, “from our perspective as tiny little creatures living on a single tiny planet” with “our imperfect brains” what exists in the universe as a whole is beyond our comprehension, it’s simply out of our league.
If we can deduce that mankind evolved randomly out of nothing or from a single living cell, then one cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that God didn’t manifest himself by himself out of nothing, that nature, gravity or whatever we call it, is not the supreme medium which is above all, is not the mightiest creator the God himself living and existing as the supreme medium that encompasses all.
You seem to know so little about things that have been done in God’s name. In God’s name virtues have prevailed vices on earth today. More than 2/3rd of the world population who have faith in God, one way or another are contented because they believe in a supreme being and abide by the teachings and ethics of their believe. The major drive for human morality today is Faith. If our majority does not have faith and are not guided by their ethical values, the world would have had more vices; “survival of the fittest” would have indeed thrived on earth.
As much as I could easily be mistaken so could you.
God knows best.
Mr. Hawking, you just repeat what the bible has said thousand years ago: Everything came from nothing (Genesis 1:1): Heaven and earth were from formless and emptiness. Why is this a striking discovery? Why is this fact show that there is no God?
You're right, it does not show that there is no God. It does, however, show that the universe didn't need God to be created where Christian dogma was clinging to the vacuum of a natural cause to justify the existence of God as trigger for creation. Without the role of creator of the universe God really must be a child of the universe like the rest of us. This takes away all of his "omni" powers and the most that believers are left with is a powerful alien kinda like the Star Trek character Q. This would explain a lot, including God's questionable morals, but could you imagine worshipping that guy?
The quantum entanglement evidence that strongly suggests that there is the potential to communicate across an infinite distance without time delay; to me, suggests that the required connectivity for a mind of God, or lesser spiritual entities, exists in a form that human's can now verify. The 'hand of God', if you will was given evidence by Einstein's theory that said the anything moving at the speed of light ceases to pass time. So energy is a changeless prinicipled factor behind all that exists.
WITH God anything is possible. It is not impossible that the foundation for the creation process were present when it was triggered by a lesser 'entity', if you will (given that allowance of course). I lean to the notion that quiescent blackholes(apparently non-existing as they where an infnitesimal knot of energy that remains after nothing more falls into one) colliding at a relativistic speed would destablize them to release the energy (perhaps with some gravity if the release was incomplete) that created the universe. If one wishes to relate it to scripture, the nature of the 'entity' that caused the release may most readily match Lucifer's and 1/3 of the angles fall to (be?) earth [that firm or having mass or otherwise dominating a spot in space in a rather poorly connecting way with the rest of reality for the most part]. Lucifer may have had his apple situation with Satan and so comes to say "I am God". Though really only, more accurately, just opening the 'libury' of the existential knowledge of good and evil.
DEAR STEPHEN HAWKING,DUDE FATHER KNOWS BEST! ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER,THAT MEANS THE UNIVERSE ALSO STEVEE!
@mike diamond
You were 'screaming' so loud I couldn't read your ridiculous post. Turned the volume down.... Hmmm.... O.K.... yep, What the F are you smokin' buddy....?
Peace...