If There Is Much In The Window There Should Be More In The Room

Monday, September 6, 2010

Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why we exist, says Stephen Hawking. Photograph: Bruno Vincent/Getty Images

• Physics, not creator, made Big Bang, new book claims

God did not create the universe, the man who is arguably Britain's most famous living scientist says in a forthcoming book.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.



  1. I read this article and respect his educated opinion, but it's just that to me, an opinion. I prefer my own.

    Thanks for sharing

  2. he doesn't know what he's talking about, he has been sent out here to confuse people at this moment... as soon as he said we should be affraid of ETs because they might be like the white man coming to america to destroy the indians, i knew he was on a mission sent out by the illuminati to confuse people... now here he goes again, saying something crazy that makes no sense... but dummies are impressed cause he got a PHD, especially trained what to say by the illuminati and he looks so innocent and non-threatening... lol

  3. now ask yourself this question... where is all this free publicity coming from?

  4. You're welcome, best friend.
    Whether they be scientists
    philosophers, or just
    ordinary people like us,
    we all have an independent
    line of thinking....

  5. If Hawking has postulated
    something that doesn't support
    a God-theory, it still is welcome.
    It's not a problem if people
    believe otherwise.
    This item wasn't looking to
    challenge any religious beliefs,
    perhaps just to supplement
    learning about our universe
    vis-a-vis science.

  6. It is no crime when
    anyone tries to use logic
    and reasoning or uses their
    mind's extrapolations (laws of physics, gravity)
    drawn from evidence of actual occurrences,
    as to how the universe might work.
    Yet, for there to have been
    an entity with intelligence
    and a will which created
    the universe demands a lot
    more explanation than
    the existence of the universe per se.
    We just don't know,
    we cannot possibly know the unknown....

  7. well your position is much more reasonable than his, maybe they should have given you the degree for admitting you don't know... lol... but some of us do...

  8. some of us do know because God can be known, one step at a time... and denying the existence of God in your own mind makes it impossible...

  9. Thanks, Josephalmighty.

    It's a good thing
    some of you do KNOW. lol

  10. I value your opinion, thank you....

    Point taken, but Hawking is merely doing
    his job as a physicist.
    His job is to figure out and try to make sense
    of how the universe works
    (same with biologists, etc).
    I don't think it's a stretch to say that
    doing that as part of his profession
    would lead him to reflect intensely
    on his beliefs about
    how it all comes together.
    While he may not have had
    a degree in religious studies or divinity,
    I would consider his opinion
    more informed than that of,
    for example, a fashion designer.
    Whatever his beliefs,
    he's had a decent look
    at the nuts and bolts of the universe,
    so maybe he has a clearer
    picture of the machine as a whole.

    We may choose not to rhyme in
    with the thought that one has
    to deny knowledge to make room
    for faith according to
    German philosopher Immanuel Kant.
    Whether the G-D tenets that
    one needs to believe in is sound – who cares.
    Religions are not seeking scientific truths.
    Yet, like it or not,
    religions are here to stay.
    And like it or not, science will always
    do its best to stand by its goal
    of describing empirical reality.
    Beyond empirical reality is
    that left for the arts and spirituality
    and what we obtain from this plane,
    we must be careful
    not to over-conceptualize.

    The main point is that we
    shouldn’t try to approach things
    by conceptualizing too much
    that ultimate reality.
    It will be more a question of feeling –
    do I believe that I ultimately
    come from a superior entity
    that to which due awe and
    respect must be given?
    If one is looking for
    intelligence behind
    the laws of physics,
    the laws of gravity, etc.,
    look no further than human beings....

  11. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist".

    George Orwell writes, "There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them." I believe the same can be true of a Mensa genius. Hawking writes "Because 'there is' a law such as gravity... ". Yes, well, from where did it come? Did that law, that manifestation of physics, create itself?

    Hawking never impressed me. I personally know people such as him. While they do think on a plain of reasoning well beyond the average individual's capability, as a natural manifestation of their higher intelligence, this is not a sequitur, which gives them a corner on the market, when it comes to either truth or common sense.


    1. “Yes, well, from where did it come? Did that law, that manifestation of physics, create itself?"

      This is “The Question” and I doubt whether science would ever produce a satisfying answer to. It is said science, aspires, like theology used to, to explain absolutely everything. Yet, how can you cross this enormous gulf between non-existence and existence? We’ve come a long way. Science has told us so much about our world! We now understand, more or less, what reality is made of and what forces push and pull the stuff of existence to and fro. Scientists have also constructed a plausible, empirically founded narrative of the history of the cosmos and of life on Earth. To my mind, we still need further scientific investigation of our universe to be able to solve all mysteries.

      Is there an odds-on chance that the natural law of gravity might have come from “Nothing”? Could it be conceivable that “something” might have sprung from “nothing”? Try to ponder on the state of affairs of “Nothing” as something even larger and more surprising than the state of “Something”. I have read somewhere about “quantum fluctuation” -- physicists such as the legendary John Wheeler proposed that, according to the probabilistic dictates of quantum field theory, even an apparently perfect vacuum seethes with particles and antiparticles popping into and out of existence. In 1990, the Russian physicist Andrei Linde proposed that our entire cosmos, as well as an infinite number of other universes, might have sprung from a primordial “quantum fluctuation.” This is ultimately strange but engrossing. In the fabric of reality, it is said, these quantum fluctuations in the void actually seem to drive "things" into existence, almost as if "nothingness" were an elevated state of tension that demands resolution via the creation of "stuff". This cannot help but reinforce the purely philosophical notion that it is possible that "nothingness" may also have a certain improbability about it.

      We have to make great effort to imagine it if we are to make progress in understanding. The problem is that unless one is systematically following a process, your intuition, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are going to be biased by both learned prejudices and inborn kinks in our cognitive process....

    2. “Hawking never impressed me. I personally know people such as him.”

      People have the right to define their philosophical and religious leanings on their own terms.

      In general, people start off with a belief and a prejudice— we all do. And the job of science is to set that aside to get to the truth. But people should not deny science or truth or reality when they choose a belief system.
      Basically, I am prepared to believe in moderation, to be open, to learn and listen with an open mind and heart, yet question in moderation. To some extent I believe that Hawking is smart enough to understand these issues. Even if we read from him, we are taking the "leap of faith" that the math behind it works out the way their statements in the book imply that it does. We have no way of knowing for ourselves, unless we suddenly embark on a decade of immersion into mathematics, physics and quantum theory. It doesn't matter that he in fact may actually be that smart and that he might be right, what matters is that personally for me, I am on the very verge of a new discovery that may prove to be true someday....

    3. “....which gives them a corner on the market, when it comes to either truth or common sense.”

      It is simple logic: mainstream media does bias what research is shown to the mainstream public. Naturally they won't market a radical breakthrough/idea that might not sell. Scientific breakthroughs will seldom be cost free. No one can produce a revolutionary discovery/idea and do it without some sort of financial return. They expect to get paid. They need that money to continue with their pursuits. What determines its success, in the long term, is how the general public welcomes this. If it works, the more we will hear about it.

      As far as I can understand, there is no overriding committee that decides what the public is allowed to know. How else do you think the general public finds out about scientific advancements, anyway? By word of mouth alone? The media is the way we get our information about nearly everything, even the nuttiest ideas are spread via the media. Most of what you and I know or think we know has been dispensed by the media in one form or another.

      Then again, that much of what we discover from these and that which we choose to believe may serve to be a sequence of invented remedies to allay our mind from its terrible and chronic pain of intellectual anxiety.

      In modern physics though, one cannot properly understand relativity or quantum phenomena unless one accepts that reality does not work in ways that tally with our general human experience, our "common sense"...