Stephen Hawking is just out with a new book called The Grand Design. In it Hawking says flatly there is no room for God in science and that a Creator is not behind the universe. Instead gravity is what united particles after “The Big Bang” (spontaneous) and produced our plant and many others which Hawking believes contain human life.
“Because,” Hawking writes, “there is a law such as gravity, the universe canand will create itself from nothing … it is not necessary to make God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
So there. Creation but no Creator.
But does Hawking adequately explain the intricate workings of the universe or, for that matter, the astonishing design of gthe human eye?
Does creation need a Creator?
What do you think?
I think Hawking is correct in that there is no room for God in science and the existence of a Creator cannot be established by science either.
Science does not attempt to conjecture about why things exist only how they could come about.
Actually, Neil, the human eye seems to be rather crude compared to the operation of DNA in our tiniest cells.
The whole notion of Creation needs another examination, if you ask me. It is far too mechanistic to explain what science observes. We need a new vocabulary to encompass the fullness of our knowledge to date. I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian, but a revolution in thought seems to me to be long overdue. Do I believe in God? Yes. I also believe there is a truth beyond the disciplines of theology and science which reconciles both. I haven’t a clue what that is, however.
That is a very good comment, Barbara, for starters.
If I was in a wheelchair for 30 years, incontinent, drooling all over myself, and speaking through a computer I wouldn’t think there was a God either.
I do believe in God, I also believe that the 6 day timetable is a very nice fable. I also believe that whatever aggregated under gravity’s pressure or went bang had to be put there by some thing or other. Name it as you wish.
As for Hawking he speaks through a computor and is interpreted by someone who feeds the computer…he may not even recognize the interpretations made on his behalf and , as Sara Palin would say, he can’t “refudiate” them.
My contribution to the stew at first glance is 1) That disbelieving in God is a statement of great faith, a faith in atheism. Atheism cannot ever be proven.
2) They are forever mentioning the laws of science. Where did these laws come from? They were and are so precisely balanced in order to pre-design the universe. 3) How can the universe create itself since it did not exist?
4) Did Hawking mean that how the universe came to be isn’t dependent on one having a belief in God. 5) On the other hand Hawking said “As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow the universe to appear spontaneously from nothing” Does he realize that he has just blown up one of the science laws and that law is the second law dealing with the conservation of energy or or mass. 6) What is the source from which gravity arises.
Do we have to imagine that everything that is must be in some way separate from whatever caused it to be? Tat tvam asi, for crying out loud.
If the answer to your question is god then you haven’t actually answered anything.
How can this logic hold water:
- the universe is complex therefore needed to be designed/created.
- god created everything.
- god doesn’t need a creater because…um, just because.
You see – answering “god” is just creating a new set of problems. Who created god? If nobody created god because he’s always been there then why doesn’t ~that~ answer satisfy you about the universe? Perhaps the universe is in a constant cycle of big-bangs followed by expanding universe, followed by a contracting universe, followed by another big-bang…
@Tony: Are you saying that the brilliant Dr. Hawking doesn’t believe in god because of his handicap?? WTF??!!
Good morrow, all!
Tony sez: “If I was in a wheelchair for 30 years, incontinent, drooling all over myself, and speaking through a computer I wouldn’t think there was a God either.”
How very…what’s the word I’m looking for…oh…yes…Christian of you.
I’m so looking forward to ~your~ research of the last 30 years, to explain how God did it, and created Everything out of Nothing. AND in only six days, too!
Stephen Hawking expressed an opinion, based on what he has learned about the cosmos (the Greek word for order). For all we know, we’re being punk’d.
She moves in mysterious ways – CTZen
“As for Hawking he speaks through a computor and is interpreted by someone who feeds the computer…he may not even recognize the interpretations made on his behalf and , as Sara Palin would say, he can’t “refudiate” them.”
One, he helped design that computer program through which he communicates (and no longer needs an “interpreter”). Two, there is nothing wrong with his brain or his ears…he hears and understands just fine, thank you very much. And three, yes he can repudiate that with which he does not agree. Watch his eyes.
As for whether or not “Creation” “needs” a “creator,” who knows? But if so, who or what created the creator? If there is actually a moment of beginning that can be nailed down that we have not yet found, where/when is it?
I put it to you this way: time and the multiverse are cyclical. No beginning, no ending, as we describe them with our limited knowledge of such things. Simply a continual waxing and waning of circumstances and physical being. Ergo, no “creator.”
Thank you Janus for the update on Hawking’s ability to communicate. I never doubted his intelligence and awareness but some time ago I read about his “interpreter”, glad to now he does not need one anymore.
I’m back to stir the stew again. 7) Re Hawking’s “something from nothing”, what was it that orchestrated the forces of electromagnetism, along with strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and gravity to produce the big bang, and even if there are laws which account for their interaction are we to believe that these laws owe their existance to nothing and that they exist in infinity?
8) Was nothingness created. 9) I believe that an hypotheses must be testable if it is to be classed as “scientific”. 10) Over the years I’ve looked into lightspeed, Plank’s Constant, Gravity Constant, the electron charge, the number of dimensions (eleven) God’s Particle, Higgs Boson (CERN), String Theory, which are way-out-there stuff – only to discover that I’m ahead of myself and the scientific community is behind itself, because to my knowledge, 11) We have nothing which explains how Amino Acids came together to form complex peptides and nucleotides that are part of the first living organisms. What’s more we’ve not even explained mitochrondaia, nor the science of a thought. 12) The Pope and Cardinals ride around town in limos. Are they not afraid that when Jesus does his second coming bit, and rides into town on his ass, that they may bump into Him? Will Jesus point out to them that they’re setting a bad example by wearing dresses?.
Can somebody translate Jim’s ramble into english please?
The only part I understood was the statement: “I believe that an hypotheses must be testable if it is to be classed as ‘scientific’.”
Jim gets a gold star for this because it’s true. There is nothing to “believe” about this statement – it’s a true statement period.
BTW – “god’s particle” ~is~ the higgs boson. They’re just 2 different names for the same thing (I prefer higgs boson for obvious reasons).
Joe – You hit the nail right on the head. I know that “God’s Particle” and “Higgs Boson” are the same. Out of deference to you I threw in Higgs and out of deference to the faithists I used “God’s Particle”.
BTW Joe you misquoted me when you wrote that I said “‘god’s particle’”. Not true. I said “‘God’s Particle’”.
BTW Joe, as to yuor not unerdstindang waht I wirte, mbaye I cuold tanraslate it itno rael tmie for yuo.
jim wrote: “I know that ‘God’s Particle’ and ‘Higgs Boson’ are the same. Out of deference to you I threw in Higgs and out of deference to the faithists I used ‘God’s Particle’.”
Then you shouldn’t have seperated them with a comma… it read like you were refering to different ideas putting commas between them all. But that’s just nit-picking on my part.
I didn’t mean it as an insult – I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say above. For instance, you (jim) wrote: “Over the years I’ve looked into lightspeed, Plank’s Constant, …snip snip… which are way-out-there stuff – only to discover that I’m ahead of myself and the scientific community is behind itself, because to my knowledge.”
I have no idea what this means. Can you enlighten me here?
You also wrote: “..what was it that orchestrated the forces of electromagnetism, along with strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and gravity to produce the big bang…”
Who says something/someone had to “orchastrate” these?
jim cont’d: “and even if there are laws which account for their interaction are we to believe that these laws owe their existance to nothing and that they exist in infinity?”
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. If you study the science enough you’ll come to certain conclusions – none invoking a god. There is no %100 answer… yet…
jim cont’d: “Was nothingness created.”
Another HUH moment. What does this even mean?
jim cont’d: “We have nothing which explains how Amino Acids came together to form complex peptides and nucleotides that are part of the first living organisms.”
Are you saying you’ve never heard of chemistry?! Geez! It’s a pretty old field of study (chemistry) and it explains how molecules form in great detail. It (chemistry) also explains why we have the abundance of elements we see today – mostly H and He – and why.
jim cont’d: “What’s more we’ve not even explained mitochrondaia, nor the science of a thought.”
The first point that needs to made is: SO WHAT?
Why does ~not~ having an answer to something automatically mean that god is a valid answer? It doesn’t. In fact – ‘god’ answers nothing.
There are theories (or, rather hypotheses) about mitochondria. It’s interesting stuff looking like they’re (mitochondria) descended from bacteria. It’s science in progress.
Which is also what the “thought” is. There is a very active field in science right now looking into this. It’s important and interesting work that will take the magic out. It’s called evolutionary psychology.
I can imagine the hard work it must have been required to research for this post.All what i can say is just keep Publishing such post we all love it.And just to bring something to your notice,I have seen some blog providng your blog as source for this information.
Ah, the Duty Athiest is at it again. I’m about to answer your inquiries as best I can and try to be brief. Because your paragraphs are not enumerated I will be identifying them by using the first two words you used when addressing me in your comments of Sept 9th
(Jim wrote)and(Then you) -
Your complaint about my misuse of a comma can be explained by the fact that when I was deleting some words, in the sentence, in order to shorten up on my comments, I deleted an excerpt which included an Oxford Comma. ergo the goof. You concluded by saying that you were not a nit-picker. Well, neither am I, so I have no intention to correct your spelling of the following words – “refering” “seperated” “orchastrated” “english” -
I couldn’t find the word “english” in a lower case anywhere in my Oxford Dictionary.
(I didn’t) -
In the cosmology there are the phrases “Bottom Up Approach” and “Top Down Approach” I was into the latter and decided to return to the former.
Joe, the remainder of your comments are tantamount to lecturing including my getting into chemistry. Joe you like chemistry I like biochemistry. Sheeesh. You also mentioned that I was throwing God into the mix. I couldn’t find anyplace in this blog where I wrote about Him.
Have a nice day Joe unless you’ve made other plans.
I admitted I ~was~ nitpicking about the comma because it wasn’t relevant… because it ~is~ nitpicking to point out spelling errors, grammar errors and such – it’s not relevant.
I thought you thought the higgs boson and god particle were the same thing – which is what I wanted to correct. You obviously ~did~ know they were the same.
Again – I wrote that giving a s#%^ about comma placement ~is~ nitpicking. Spelling too btw – nice job with that.
Oh – and I didn’t mean to “lecture”. Sorry if it came off that way.
Thanks for the english lecture though – good stuff!
Just to clear up an error: Higgs Boson is not “God’s particle.” it is “The God Particle.”
Joe, Jim is talking about Quantum Energy. I call it Magick.
Stirring the stew, Part 3. I’d like to take my brush to paint a picture of “thoughts” and about “nothingness” which tickled my fancy over the years. Looking at spontaneous creation came about following my survey of spontaneous combustion which appeared at first glance to be a fire which had no apparant ignition source. So, if we can have spontaneous combustion, why can’t we have spontaneous creation, especially since aminos and proteins and mitochrondia (remember them) are involved in the case of hay bursting into flames sans match?
Now to dab in Hawkin’s redefining “nothingness” I am about to straddle the fence and make a world class statement. Are you listening Joe?
Let us say that God, an uncreated Creator, could create something out of nothing. Fair enough. But is the atheistic concept of a God-less “Big Bang” or some similar beginning any less unfathomable? What would the materialists claim be, for the “essential” source of the “Big Bang”? What actually exploded all on its own? Some form of matter from time eternal – uncreated – in the mind of the materialist skeptic who insists on dismissing belief in an eternal Being as the Creator. Absolute nothingness – both spiritual and physical is not an option.
Chesterton wrote “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything”
BTW, thoughts occur spontaneously.
I was just thinking……….
wait,
never mind.
Ah, to hell with it,
What if the “Big Bang” was not the beginning, but was just the first chapter for this universe?
Primordially yours
O
I’m half way thru Hawking’s book and no mention of him believing or not
believing in God. I thought I’d try out a theory about the beginning of life on earth life without God having a hand in it, which is what the pundits are alluding to regarding Hawking.
We all know that gravity exists, right?
Matter is attracted to gravity.
More matter, the greater the pull of gravity.
Galaxies rotate around a center of mass.
At the center of each galaxy is a black hole.
Larger bodies of matter are collecting smaller bodies.
As galaxies age, suns collect planets.
Eventually, black holes collect suns of other galaxies.
Along the way black holes collect other black holes which calls for more gravity which in turn sucks in all the black holes to form the mother of all black holes.
Along comes the collapse and then the Big Bang and then we show up.
This progress will take trillions of years.
If I have described the past, it also means that I’m describing the future.
What is odd about this, is that the question of “did God do the Bang? will be asked then as it is now.
Now about history as prologue………………
Janus wrote: “Jim is talking about Quantum Energy”
Thanks for that… but I still don’t see it.
And I’m finding it difficult to understand Jim’s latest comment. Black holes don’t “collect suns of different galaxies” for instance – unless he’s talking about the end of the galaxy itself.
Am I missing something ~deep~ in Jim’s words? Is anybody else following this?
Yes, Joe. Except he’s not talking merely about the end of the galaxy, but about the end of this universe as an entity separate from other universes. Jim just encapsulated the cyclical nature of time. It’s not “deep,” it’s just difficult for most people to imagine. Or, as Michio Kaku would say, “Think of an ant’s trying to make logical sense of one of our cities.”
Joe I said “Eventually, black holes collect the suns of other galaxies”.
I did not say “black holes DON’T collect the suns of other galaxies”.
Janus – Thank you for your clarification.
But black holes ~don’t~ collect suns of other galaxies. No galaxy would lose a sun or 2 to a passing black hole – that would rip the galaxy apart!
Joe – I hope I can make my points more linear.
- The sun eats planets in its own galaxy.
- The galaxy falls prey to its black hole.
- Black holes marry other black holes.
- At a certain point in time the crunch of gravity at the super black hole becomes so great that one cubic inch weighs millions of tons.
- At this point the marriage can’t take it anymore and it collapses and produces a bang, a “big bang” and it spews out a new universe.
- Now Joe, I’m not going to screw it all up by mentioning superluminal expansion. Nuff said. Have a nice day.
You couldn’t be any more cryptic if you tried (earlier posts)! This one is MUCH better.
So you didn’t mean “Eventually, black holes collect suns of other galaxies.” (because it doesn’t happen that way (black holes marry other black holes)) – that’s what I thought. I’m trying to understand why you would put it that way – it’s like you were trying to be unclear… I wonder why. You seem to know what you’re talking about but delibrately phrase your words to appear unclear or outright wrong.
Well… one thing’s certain: you (jim) sure have a ~way~ with words!