Stephen Hawking Says God Did Not Create the Universe: What Do You Think?

Double post shame award!

Spam Alert!

Woops, my bad.

Read about Brane Cosmology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

Okay let me make this as clear as mud! Why? Because words can never describe an infinite since words are finite. It does not matter how much I try to describe it with words, it is still sort of like trying to cover the hull of a supertanker with a postage stamp. But here goes:
If you have nothing, you have an absolute singularity. Black Holes are singularities but they may not be absolute, some may have matter really packed up tight, but that is arguable. The point is, the gravity pull, or “gravity well,” has an effect of creating something, even empty space. So nothing begets something, it creates gravity and its influences. For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. When you have an absolute singularity, it’s vary nature will cause the space it creates to fold in on itself, an opposite reaction.
In this case a singularity creates energy. Absolute nothing folds in on itself absolutely, and you could say when it comes out the other side, that concentration of absolute gravity is freed in the form of absolute energy. In our version of the universe, the energy seems to have qualities that act as solids, as “subatomic particles” and they behave close enough to each other to create what we perceive as matter.
Yet Hawking is talking about a beginning of the universe. The absolute gravity well that created absolute energy was not necessarily the cause of the Big Bang. It was a condition which eventually created conditions which caused the Big Bang. Since particles occupy infinite places in the universe, then that would include where it had been before, per say. Hence, the fact of absolute singularity, or nothing, becomes nil when that absolute singularity happened, since past and present were created to have always existed.
The universe is infinite because infinite nothing created infinite something, the equal and opposite reaction. So the existence of infinite universe with infinite possibilities is a natural consequence necessitating what may be called god. An all knowing god would create an infinite universe by doing nothing (having an absolute singularity), the easiest and most logical path to creation, do nothing.
What is also cool is that an all powerful god has to be the infinite universe itself, for what would an all powerful god be but infinite. Essentially god could be said to be imagining himself. An infinite singularity (nothing) that creates infinite matter can be seen as an illusion. Since the illusion of self is the only thing which exists, it is the reality.
It could also be said that when we look up at the stars, look at our children and loved ones, we are actually looking with god’s eyes.
I said that finite words can never actually describe the infinite. However, people have been blessed with an ability to know all this without description or thought. This is possible because an infinite must necessarily make all things infinitely one, the absolute singularity. So we can experience our infinite self even if we cannot describe it. We can have that ahhh moment through feeling it. We even gave it a word (How silly and contrary actually. Giggles!). It is called Zen.

I find it interesting that you use the phrase "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" along with the same post infer that the universe is infinite. The main point of evidence of a "Big Bang" type of event is that all the observable bodies from our perspective, including our own planet, are moving from the same point.

The concept of something being "infinite" is impossible. Nothing in the physical world is infinite (outside of the theoretical world of math). From our perspective it may appear so, but that doesn't make it true. Just as a straight line is rarely the shortest path (such as plans that don't travel straight, but a curved path).

the universe is has not always existed and will not always exist. its pretty easy to come to this conclusion when you look around and everything in the universe is constantly battling entropy. nothing lasts forever, at least in this universe...

wow thats deep. discover that while on lsd?

SEE: Hubble Bubbles, time line collapse through particle observation, then add the statistics that you will find completely encompass infinites.
Please do not feel bad. I rarely find someone that can understand me, or with whom I can have a conversation. And no, I am not being a smartass, it is a curse.

maybe god really is an alien. nothing but reality is absolute

I understand entropy, the running down of the universe. However it was in the book, A Brief History of Time by Dr. Hawking that the universe began from a I believe he said basketball sized object, which then exploded into what we know as the Big Bang. He was given all kinds of rewards for his pioneering work etc. I believe he called it the Big Squish or something, referring to the formation of that energy ball. He demonstrated that it was not exactly a singularity, as we would know as a Black Hole, as those dissolve, they do not go boom.
Having said that, scientists tried to determine the amount of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to see if the entropy influenced universe will eventually be slowed and reverse its outward direction due to gravity. That would then cause the Big Squish again, and it was hypothesized that would again lead to another Big Bang. Surprisingly, they actually have found that the universe is speeding up its outward acceleration, and they want to determine if Dark Matter and perhaps Dark Energy are causing it.
The question is, will the Big Squish ever happen? Right now it at least looks like the answer is no. But we do not know enough about Dark Matter and Dark Energy to determine if they have some quality that would in themselves cause the Big Squish. However, there is another hypothesis. As the universe gives into entropy, and matter falls apart into a less “formed” state into energy, entropy will so flatten out the universe that it will lose three dimensions. That would instantly cause it to lose two dimensions, and the infinitely flattened singularity energy would automatically, without the laps of “time” collapse back into the Big Squish, and then repeat the Big Bang. That would reset the clock on entropy.
Oh and by the way, matter/energy is never lost, it is transformed. So it does last forever, the question is in what form.

"I know that the existence of “god” in an infinite universe with infinite possibilities is a natural consequence."
This^^^ I used to study Kabbalah. When I came to the understanding of the infinite fountainhead that is our "God" I had a braingasm for a week. Ever since then it's been as simple as that^^

its a fact of nature. your body right now is fighting entropy along with everything that surrounds you. if it weren't so we would never have to eat or drink anything to survive and we would never age or die.

whatever energy becomes is always going to be less useful than the energy it was before (without outside forces influencing it). entropy. maybe this bang and squish have happened before many many times before. maybe we are the result of a more powerful energy's entropy? there is really no way to know. we can observe the behavior of the things around us and see the patterns they take though.

"... nothing lasts forever, at least in this universe ..."
_________________________________________

But no human being can actually know that so it's an unwarranted claim to make. Think about it, what would be the necessary conditions for a human to say that conclusively? Wouldn't they have to observe all things for an indefinitely long time to see if, in fact, "nothing lasts forever"? That's a pretty tall order isn't it?

They'd have to be the last to turn out the lights, wouldn't they? How precisely is that possible? Even then, if they were the last to turn out the lights, who would they tell?

In addition, wouldn't they have to have reliable knowledge of the workings of at least one other universe for it to even be possible to claim that "nothing last forever, at least in this universe" as compared to another? How exactly does one exist in two universes at once, or how does one slip back and forth from one to the other to make such observations?

Suffice to say, the statement is nonsensical because it claims a good many unsupportable things.

That's cool! You made me smile! See> :)

LOL! Yes, that’s cool. You are essentially correct. What is with the down dings? I will ding you up one for that.

Just curious, what are your educational qualifications ezrierin?

maybe god really is an alien. nothing but reality is absolute

I can't prove that there are no leprechauns or unicorns, but in spite of that I still don't believe in them, that's my take whenever I hear the challenge to disprove God's existence.
I have never quite understood why people believe in something so fervently... not because of evidence of it's existence, but rather in the absence of ANY evidence other than that of folk tales written thousands of years ago by people who believed the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth.

You are an agnostic my friend. You leave open the possibility....I am certain there is no god, no higher power. nothing. Our imaginations & egos created "god" & higher powers. Just because you don't believe in any religions does not make you an athiest.

To ponder whether leprechauns or unicorns exist is somewhat irrelevant; for there is no reason to question their existence. If someone actually found gold at the end of a rainbow, that evidence would justify questioning whether leprechauns exist. To question the existence of something, you would need reason to begin questioning a relation or effect, such as the pot of gold.

The universe is the evidence to justify questioning whether some sort of God (whatever it may be and in what form and to what level of existence) oversees us all. However, intelligent design is just a theory in my book; there is no proof in favor of science, nor theism at this point.

To not believe in man-made religions is separate from believing in the notion of intelligent design.

I explained it in my post.

If God is defined as:
1.) the creator of the universe.
2.) the designer of the universe.
3.) and a loving being involved in our lives as individuals.

We can eliminate #2, because there is no design. We know how pattern arises from a step by step process of recursive cause and effect relationships, thanks to Chaos theory and Fractal mathematics.

We can eliminate #3, because there is no evidence of it.
Normally, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in this case, it is.

We define a neglectful parent by the parent's absence in the lives of it's children; not on the one or two days a month when it might come home for a place to crash after a drinking binge.

so if a God exists or not, it does not qualify as #3.

That leaves only a small gap in our knowledge for #1. That would be a Deistic concept of God, not an Abrahamic one. and, as Hawking pointed out, we know how it would be POSSIBLE without a creator, so Occam's Razor would indicate there is no creator.

I feel that it would be possible to logically disprove the existence of certain definitions of God. For example, a fundamentalists definition or view of God does not exist as evidence contradicts statements in the Bible. Thous statements now proven to be false by observable evidence show that a fundamentalist definition or view of god is false as well, because the entirety of the bible must be true in the fundamentalist definition.

So by finding specific instances within specific definitions, one can verify the false nature of a good deal of claims for the existence of god; however one can not rule out all possible definitions.

For instance, if I define God as only the force that holds matter together then that definition for the word can be classified as true. While a more accurate word exist for this phenomenon, it is still not incorrect as an individual is given the authority to define how they believe and the meanings of the words for their belief.

This personalization of definition is acceptable because to a large extent it happens with every word in the human language. This is due to the personal limits of information. To be more precise; our definitions for any particular word or subject are based off of our understanding. So just because a standard definition exists doesn't mean the vast majority of the populace uses or interprets it in the same way.

All of this being stated, we can clearly see that their are a mathematically infinite number of definitions of God/god/gods that are both correct and incorrect. Some of those incorrect and correct definitions will explain the creation of the universe; however their initial value (whether the definition of God/god/gods is correct) will determine the correctness of the the explanation.

This explanation can not address whether a definition of God being sentient and omnipotent is true though. This can only be used to determine the accuracy of the definition with evidence of either an observable or experimental nature.

In conclusion, If (A verifiable correct definition must exist ) any definition of God/god/gods is believed that is true, then two things occur: 1. the statement "There is no God/god/gods." is false. 2. The statement "There is a God/god/gods." becomes true. 3. Given that there is indeed a particular definition of god that is true, 1 & 2 retroactively true. 4. All of the above being true, Atheism does not exist as a logical system (maybe it can be seen as a belief structure, or needs to simply be redefined).

So that's why I'm an Agnostic.

i like your comment fun. no one can really be certain until after death. reality, what a concept

with the world being so cruel and fucked up some people need to hang onto a faith that helps them to believe something better lays on the other side. i myself have had numerous experiences that assure me that there is another life after we depart the earth. but what god really is is something we may never find out until after death

I agree. Again as i said im an atheist as far as organized monotheistic religions go. However, i cannot with total certainty rule out the possibility that a "being" from higher plane of existence may have had some had in the formation of our universe. With the new discoveries being made in the fields of science on practically a yearly basis who knows what the truth may be? As far as im concerned we as a species still dont know jack shit about the beginnings of the universe.

of course what design there may be could be beyond normal human comprehension. to say with certainty that there is no design is a bit over egotistical. theories are just that. the finest egg heads of the world can make many claims about just about anything but that doesnt necessarily make them so.

that is right, no one can either prove or disprove the existence of god. god is a faith based concept for most people. i have felt the power of something in my life. god? maybe.but i can not prove it to you or anyone else. if you are without faith i think agnosticism is better than nothing.

First of all let me congratulate you as that was some first rate logic. You obviously know your stuff. However, as to your last paragraph i disagree. While it is certainly plausible that the universe was created without the help of a "higher power", even with Occam's Razor it does not rule out the possibility entirely.

While its true that USUALLY the simplest answer is the most correct it is not always so. Sometimes things happen that are so seemingly random and so far beyond the perceived realm of possibility that it leaves people scratching their heads.

For example i once read this story of a man in NYC who jumped off the top of a building in an attempt at suicide. However, on his way down he was killed by a gunshot so it was ruled a homocide. It turns out the man's father accidentally shot him as he was falling while the father was having an argument with the mans mother. They later found out that the son was the one who loaded the gun in the hopes that his father would shoot his mother during one of their frequent quarrels so in the end the case was ruled a suicide.

If something as seemingly impossible as that story is actually possible, then can you truly rule out the possibility of a higher being creating the universe?

To be honest i dont really believe "God" or a higher power created the universe i just like to play devil's advocate =P

To try and claim that it is "incomprehensible design" is a nonsense statement. It's not only an argument from ignorance- it ignores the definition of the word "design".

Again- you are just trying to squeeze God into a tiny gap.

The point is we KNOW how DNA formed.
We KNOW how life forms evolved.
We KNOW how the planets, stars, and galaxies formed.
We KNOW as far back as the big bang, and people like Stephen Hawking have strong theories about that.

Because of what we KNOW- not what we don't know, but what we KNOW- there was no design.

It was all just the process of cause and effect relationships, as I said, going all the way back to the Big Bang.

Because of that, God cannot be a Watchmaker. At best, he can be a pool player- he struck his cue against the cue ball, and everything played out from that point according to the laws of physics.

Thus, as I said, he would be at most a Deistic God, not the Abrahamic God.

Actually I did address that in my last paragraph- the possibility of a Creator only leaves room for a Deistic concept of God. Since the other characteristics were eliminated, it could not be an Abrahamic God.

Occam's Razor does not make the existence of a Deistic God impossible- it just makes it unnecessary; like a Pianist sitting in front of a Player Piano.

Yes, a Pianist may be sitting in front of the Player Piano;
but IF there is a Pianist sitting in front of a Player Piano,
he is not, at that moment, a Pianist.

Same goes here- if there is a supernatural being sitting next to our self-creating, self-governing universe, then whatever that thing is, it does not fit the definition of God.

Who's to say? Well, I'll be at least one to say - what if anything reliably points even to the possibility of a "higher being" or a "higher plane of existence"?

Even a claim of possibility needs some kind of fact and deductive reasoning from fact to support it, otherwise it is baseless imagining.

That one can imagine a thing does not make a thing "possible". I can imagine the Earth turning inside out and then outside in once a day while I'm sleeping snug in my bed.

Nothing in nature suggests that's "possible". Simple imagining is insufficent to make that claim.

It's largely because human beings treat whatever they imagine or can imagine as equivalent to "possible".

It is not.

Any conclusion that, on the surface, appears to be logically sound but nevertheless lacks genuine connection to what is real and tangible, is a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist in nature except as errors of intellect.

Play all of the word games you like, but in the end, your conclusion must derive from what is genuinely real and fit with what is genuinely real, otherwise, it is poor logic and therefore no genuine knowledge.

Reason must concern itself only with the tangible, otherwise it is brain chatter for its own sake.

" ... no one can really be certain until after death"
_______________________________________

That statement is self-defeating. If, as you say, "no one can be certain", then you cannot be certain that "no one can be certain". You walk into a logic trap.

Better to say, "maybe, no one can be certain". And then again, maybe some of us can. The way we find out which is true is to continue asking our questions to come to at least some reasonable degree of certainty about a good many things without the unrealistic and therefore irrational and unreasonable expectation of TOTAL certainty about all things.

That's just silly.

That's all well and good until someone with your same kind of thinking then turns and imposes the expectation that others MUST believe in the same way on penalty of harm or restrictions to their liberties.

True, you can believe as you wish, but you cannot dictate the truth. A thing is true or it is not. You might dictate to others, but you cannot dictate to nature. You play by nature's rules, not the other way around.

"As far as I'm concerned we as a species still dont know jack shit about the beginnings of the universe."
___________________________

And that is precisely where Stephen Hawking and others knowledgeable of such things would disagree with you.

One either has reason to believe a thing possible, likely or actual, or one has nothing and it is pure imagination.

The atheist doesn't "believe in nothing" but rather find nothings to support believing certain things that others do.

A very big difference. Even "possibility" needs support. Possibility of a "god" is not supported.

But the keyword in your argument is "seemingly impossible". That one believes a thing impossible does not make it so. One must prove a thing impossible for one to call such a claim "knowledge". The same goes for the "possible". One must prove a thing possible for one to rightly claim it as "knowledge".

The problem isn't to rule out possibility but, like always, one must rule it in from fact and deductive reasoning. That job is not accomplished so the notion "god" is pure imagination. It is a proposition and nothing more.

"Imagined" does not equate to "possible". Nature must suggest possibility for one to rightly claim a thing "possible".

What in nature suggests the possibility of a "god"?

Science cannot yet explain everything that we can observe. There are countless untold mysteries about the universe that man my never fully comprehend even with thousands of years of study. For example it is now believed dark matter comprises the vast majority of the universe. However, it is invisible to the naked eye, unaffected by electromagnetic radiation and undetectable by current technology. Its existence is only speculated based on its perceived effects on gravity.

Just because our current understanding of the universe doesnt include a higher plane of existence doesnt mean its not possible. Who knows what we might discover in the next few hundred years?

Alright i understand what youre saying now. By God i just meant creator not necessarily a "holy" being. Great analogy by the way... i guess i never really thought of it like that.

Uhm that is not exactly what I am stating. My argument is logically based in linguistics, more specifically the definitions of words and how people interpret them. The argument really doesn't change peoples ideologies in any form or fashion really, it just points out that they should correct their statements to be true.

It's more like, if a toothbrush is God then the statement "there is a God" is correct, because God is a toothbrush. If the toothbrush definition were deemed acceptable by a certain number of people, or truly believed to be real by some (and possessed no properties outside of a normal tooth brush) then atheism can not exist because there is a God (it just happens to be a tooth brush).

So in the end I think the argument shouldn't be: there is a God vs. there isn't a God; but more in the lines of "I believe in God vs. I don't believe in God".

I do expressly state that if an individual defines their God/god/gods in a specific enough way, that can not latter be altered, we can indeed fully determine the non-existence of such a thing.

That argument hinges on a specific definition, and bring home the point of why we really can't say God does or does not exist, linguistically speaking.
Example:

If God is defined as:

1.) A tooth brush
or
2.) A constant force within the universe (quantum foam, gravity, space-time, the entirety of existence, etc.)
or
3.) any other thing that actually exists in the universe
and
the definition for that object is not changed by giving it "God" status
Then
There is a god.

True it is not necessarily the Christian God, or for that matter any other current definition we have for God, yet it is still God. Point being; if a term (in this case god) is so loosely defined as to have an almost infinite number of definitions, or can be defined on an individual basis then there is no right or wrong because everything is right and wrong depending on whose definition you use.

I don't feel that that statement applies.

Definitions are indeed the basis of knowledge. My argument is purely about definition and is therefore in the realm of the real (or the realm of human knowledge if you like). The point is based in the interpretive nature of the term. So without solid definitions for God, there is no real reason to even talk about the subject. That is my point. The whole argument is pointless banter, because there is no solid place to start from the begin with. Or more simply put there is no authoritative definition to base any arguments on.

Yes- it is defined on the Abrahamic God definition, which is the one accepted by most of the western hemisphere. So yes- I'm just referring to the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God, not a New Age or Eastern God concept.

Some people like to stretch the word "God" to impossible extremes- the universe is God, or "God is Love". Then, simplistically, no one can argue that the universe does not exist, or that love does not exist- thus God exists!

But- then it's no longer "God".

If you call a chair a tomato, you are not changing the definition of the word "tomato" to mean chairs. You are simply misusing a word.

It is not just a philosophy thing, it's a language thing- It is necessary for the purposes of communication for every word to have a definition.

At a bare minimum for any God concept, it must have an intelligence.

At a bare minimum for any god that people worship, it must "want" or "need" worship, and respond to prayer or communication in some way.

A "force", like Tao or Chi or Gaia, is not really a "god".
A state of existence, like Nirvana, is not really a "god".

The only real point of contention I have with you is the following statement.

"If you call a chair a tomato, you are not changing the definition of the word "tomato" to mean chairs. You are simply misusing a word."

You would be extending the word (or more specifically re-appropriating it) tomato to include chairs or chair like objects. This process isn't really that uncommon for example in some areas of the U.S. it is completely acceptable to call soda Coke vs. Pop or Soda pop. Other cases word be the use of the N word by Blacks, the F word by Gays, etc. This is pretty common although most often seen with brand names, as in the first mentioned case. So the idea that someone is misusing a word gets kind of silly when you think about how these definitions shift continually. If you then take a linguistics approach to the matter you will see that this slow steady shifting is a part of the continual evolution that is language.

I could discuss it more if I was willing to get into debates about formal and informal language, but I'd rather leave that for another time.

Nah... i dont actually believe a higher power created the universe i was just trying to point out that it is still impossible to totally rule out the possibility. I dont consider myself an agnostic because although ill never know for certain if God exists or not, from my own personal experience(however limited that may be) and using logic i do not believe there is a "God" at least as far as the Judeo-Christian religions go.

i dont know which people or the we youre talking about. the same ones that believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy? god is inside, if you cant feel him maybe he's dead, at least for you.

And I, and most rational people, have no idea what you are talking about.
What the hell does 9/11 have to do with this?
Do you just toss out words at random?

If you DO feel God inside you, you are either a schizophrenic, or someone with DID.
Either way, there is medication available for that.

But why say "god is inside" when one can just as easily and more justifiably say "nature is inside"? Why the need of the extra baggage of "god"? Isn't nature enough in and of itself?

This is what Stephen Hawking is getting at.

that is his belief, and thats cool. but my belief is based on my own experiences and they tell me that god exists, and nature is god and god is nature. im pretty strong, so i dont mind the extra baggage

it must be beautiful living such a self centered existence. a personal freedom one can achieve through lots of personal growth and introspection. peace

But it is the nature of every consciousness that it IS, in fact, the center of its own universe. The error is to suggest that any single consciousness is the center of the ENTIRE universe.

My consciousness starts at me and spreads out in all directions from that point. To denigrate that truth is unwarranted. If you can perceive existence from anything but your own point of view, that would be a neat - and very hard to prove - trick.

i like your logic but you appear to only be questioning what cannot be proven by science and not religion? time is not relative here... if it's perfectly possible that nothing existed at one point then what created God? try to define God and then prove it? the various religions existing on the planet today won't agree regardless.

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying certain aspects may be proven by religious standards, but not by scientific--as if religious proof is as substantial as scientific proof? I'm comparing religious faith to scientific fact.

If we are declaring that how time works on Earth is the same way it works at every point of the universe and throughout history, then yes, technically it is impossible for a God to exist for something must have created God--goes into an endless chain. However, from what we know now, I don't think we can say time works the same everywhere throughout the universe. If anything, we do not have the privilege (or prerequisite) to say it is or not in order to discuss intelligent design. The other possibility is that God is in a sort of parallel universe where time is nonexistent, but only within the boundaries of our universe does it exist.

Here's another separate theory: You know how "time flies" when your mind is more or less occupied or functioning at a higher capacity? Going off the principles of derivatives in calculus, what if time is instantaneous, or goes neither forward nor reverse in God's eyes?

good stuff! my only point was that people have faith in religion and don't feel it is required to "prove" their beliefs yet hold science to a higher standard in that regard. that is a double standard... i've recently learned that Asian scientists are more open to the concept of opposites existing at the same time due to being taught the concept of yin yang at an early age. I tend to have faith and believe in both science and a "God" or higher intelligence so to speak. never understood why we have to choose only one? many western scientists agree to this probability. it's mostly the general population that likes to debate it. I think it's because people like to feel they "know" their origin, another form of fearing the unknown. and some folks just like being "right" which in the end fails them...

God always was and is hence the name GOD because GOD can don any and all things beyond man's comprehension. That's why it's called faith sweet heart ;)

*do*