Hawking Says Universe Created Itself

[fncceo]

I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.

Dude! He talks like a robot. He must be smart.

 

[Windparadox]

Whether he's right, it's not just opinio"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"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02

`
Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.

 

[Muhammed]

The universe was never created.

`
That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.

There is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.

 

[Gracie]

Whether he's right, it's not just opinio"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"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02

`
Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.

Trying to read your weird font is almost a futility too. Just sayin'.

 

[cnm]

Which is what I said. Theory. No proof. Just his opinion.

Ffs. Another science illiterate. USMB is full of them, pontificating away about things of which they're totally ignorant. A scientific theory must have evidence, it is not just someone's opinion.

Too, scientific theories are never proven, they have more or less evidence supporting them.

 

[Windparadox]

TThere is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.

`
I didn't say there was. It's all theoretical. While the Big Bang is an accepted theory in the scientific community, it also allows for other competing science based postulations. It may not be "compelling" to you, but it certainly is for others.

 

[K9Buck]

`
The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, The Grand Design, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."

Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.

The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time. So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence? It created itself? That's "scientific" thinking? Not a chance. And what about life? Did life creat itself too? Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator. The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.

 

[K9Buck]

... he's definitely a genius.

And a fool, I'm sorry to say.

 

[gtopa1]

Whether he's right, it's not just opinio"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"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02

`
Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.

Quite wrong, Mindy. Science is a METHOD!! Any fool can understand a method.

And that excludes many scientists!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

`
The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, The Grand Design, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."

Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.

The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time. So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence? It created itself? That's "scientific" thinking? Not a chance. And what about life? Did life creat itself too? Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator. The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.

I often wonder if people would take the word of a plumber that there is no God? Dealing with the nuts and bolts of creation is to me not that far from trade work only with a dash of self delusion. Scientists who are religious understand Science better imo.

Just sayin'.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

TThere is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.

`
I didn't say there was. It's all theoretical. While the Big Bang is an accepted theory in the scientific community, it also allows for other competing science based postulations. It may not be "compelling" to you, but it certainly is for others.

Once you have "compelling" it isn't Science.

Greg

 

[K9Buck]

The universe was never created.

`
That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.

Someone or some thing would have to create it in the first place for it to happen, right?

 

[Windparadox]

The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time. So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence? It created itself? That's "scientific" thinking? Not a chance. And what about life? Did life creat itself too? Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator. The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.

`
Key words "non-believer." I went to a Catholic university that taught physics, math and the sciences. Their taught the same things I am espousing, minus the religious myths of course. Obviously they did not feel the sciences interfered with their theology. So already, only certain christian sects push the notion of a literal biblical creation. I'm glad to say, I am not a believer in that. You can believe it all you want, but don't expect other people to follow suit.

 

[Gracie]

`
The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, The Grand Design, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."

Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.

The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time. So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence? It created itself? That's "scientific" thinking? Not a chance. And what about life? Did life creat itself too? Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator. The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.

I often wonder if people would take the word of a plumber that there is no God? Dealing with the nuts and bolts of creation is to me not that far from trade work only with a dash of self delusion. Scientists who are religious understand Science better imo.

Just sayin'.

Greg

If the plumber had a disease, got lots of msm attention...probably so. Hawking is another one that is using his "celeb" status to press his opinion upon others as FACT when it is not fact at all. Just opinion.

 

[K9Buck]

Whether he's right, it's not just opinion.

"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.


"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02
​

Spontaneous creation? LOL.

 

[cnm]

So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence? It created itself?

According to the law of gravity, according to Hawkings. Where is he wrong in his interpretation of that law?

 

[K9Buck]

The universe was never created.

`
That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.

There is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.

The universe is spreading outward and all evidence is that it's ALWAYS been spreading outward. The ABG adherents are trying to disavow the Big Bang because of its implications with regard to a creator.

 

[cnm]

Hawking is another one that is using his "celeb" status to press his opinion upon others as FACT when it is not fact at all. Just opinion.

Ffs. With the law of gravity as driver of his theory. I don't think the law of gravity is just opinion. Nor do I think Hawking is pressing 'his opinion upon others as FACT'. Scientists don't do that. He may be saying there is more or less evidence for this hypothesis.

 

[K9Buck]

Whether he's right, it's not just opinio"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"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02

`
Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.

There is no shortage of non-believers that won't look at science that threatens their narrative.

 

[Windparadox]

Once you have "compelling" it isn't Science.Greg

`
Compelling is subjective. I'm compelled by facts and and proof. While, empirical proof is best, the combination of logic and theory can also be compelling. Ultimately, it depends on the individual.