DescentBB

Well It would seem those of you who are firm in your belief that the Big Bang was a God inspired event will now be sucking on the hind *tittie:

\"Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe. There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something,\" he concluded.\"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

So I guess, just like bubbles forming in a pot of boiling water, so too do universes pop into existence. All without any godly intervention. Have fun.

Well, that's the question that science can't explain- where did all the stuff in the universe come from? Believing that it spontaneously spawned takes just as much faith as believing that god made it. Btw the bible also starts with an unexplained \"god was\" where you don't get an answer about the origins of god- because he has no origin.

The point is, every belief system has to start with something mystical happening, or just being, at the beginning of time.

Stephen Hawking also believed for a very long time , and spent a great deal of energy trying to prove that black holes break the laws of physics.

Then he broke down and finally admitted he was wrong.

I’m just saying…

I once read that the big bang wasn't a bang at all. It was just an infinitesimally small balloon that popped into being and started expanding to the size of our universe and still expanding.

Also 20 years ago they would have locked up Hawkins in an asylum for his comments of late about aliens.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... exist.html

Stephen Hawking said it, it must be true and/or indicative of all those who put stock in science.

1/10

Spidey wrote:Stephen Hawking also believed for a very long time , and spent a great deal of energy trying to prove that black holes break the laws of physics.

Then he broke down and finally admitted he was wrong.

I’m just saying…

BTW, much of this is chronicled in a book called "The Black Hole War" by Leonard Susskind. I really enjoyed reading it.

Hawking's position is silly. Which is amazing for a man of his stature.

Hawkings wrote:Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing

This does nothing to answer the question of why there is a law such as gravity. It's a philosophically silly assertion.

Either you have to assume, by faith, that the laws of the "universe" exist and have existed from all time. Or you have to assume, by faith, that God created the laws of the universe. You can make interesting logical and philosophical arguments for both positions. But arguing that "the universe must exist because the law of gravity exists" is NOT one of them.

I think I may have vaguely heard of the theoretical work that Hawking is referring to, but I certainly wouldn't agree with his conclusion, and I'm honestly surprised to hear someone like him making an assertion like that so firmly. The way it's phrased doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either...what does the mere existence of the law of gravitational attraction have to do with the rapid inflation of the entire universe from a singularity?

(Unless he's postulating a \"Big Crunch\" sort of environment, but given that our universe's expansion seems to be accelerating, there'd be no guarantee that anything that \"came before\" wouldn't do the exact same thing.)

``God does not play Dice'' -- Albert Einstein

``Not only does God play Dice, he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.'' -Stephen Hawking

This discussion is a \"non-event\" because it really doesn't change anything ... and Hawking is not (yet) in a position to be an authority on whether God exists or not, much less how God created the Universe (or not).

Move along folks, this conversation proves (or disproves) absolutely nothing. It only states Hawking's statement.

I read the whole article and it sounds a little overblown anyway, but as a scientist Steve Hawking should do better than \"spontaneous creation\" with absolutely nothing to back it up before challenging \"god created it\". He has not managed to disprove the existence of god, he has only denied the existence of god. I'm no more inclined to listen to that then I am to the apocalyptic rantings of a lunatic drug attic on the street corner.

Although I really have some doubts about the article itself, it isn't that hard to omit parts of the context and or dress up something to appear more dramatic so some article can pull more hits. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen something like that happen.

TechPro wrote:This discussion is a "non-event" because it really doesn't change anything ... and Hawking is not (yet) in a position to be an authority on whether God exists or not, much less how God created the Universe (or not).

Move along folks, this conversation proves (or disproves) absolutely nothing. It only states Hawking's statement.

I agree.

So where did gravity come from? I thought gravity came into existence microseconds after the big bang. How could it have been there before the big bang?

Also, if God did it, where did God come from?

I just want to know why the Big Bang made everything round

AlphaDoG wrote:

TechPro wrote:This discussion is a "non-event" because it really doesn't change anything ... and Hawking is not (yet) in a position to be an authority on whether God exists or not, much less how God created the Universe (or not).

Move along folks, this conversation proves (or disproves) absolutely nothing. It only states Hawking's statement.

I agree.

Also agreed.

.

Bet51987 wrote:Wow. I didn't realize so many in this forum had such an in depth knowledge of cosmological physics and M-theory to so quickly dismiss Stephen Hawking, even from a philosophical point of view. I'm breathless.

God has absolutely nothing to do with physics (Hawking's area of expertise).

Last I heard is there are holes (not talking about Black holes) in M-theory formally know as String theory. There seems to be More speculation instead of empirical Evidence. There are about 10^500 different models of string theory, Which makes it a very vague theory.

You can learn more here.

http://quantumfieldtheory.org/

I would never dismiss Dr. Hawking. His work in theoretical physics and other areas is nothing short of astounding.

I would certainly disagree with any statement saying, \"the scientific model precludes the existence of a creator\".

...Of course I have to point out: The above is not what Dr. Hawking was saying at all.

I'd prefer to have the full context of his statement, but from the little we've been given, I think it's quite clear that Hawking was not trying to say that science somehow disproves God. That would be a ridiculous statement.

Dr. Hawking is simply contesting the opposite idea, that the universe somehow proves God, or logically requires a supernatural creator (e.g. Newton's belief that the universe proves God's existence).

The title of the BBC article is clearly trying to stir up controversy, but it misrepresents Hawking's statements. He didn't say \"The science disproves God\", he said \"It is not necessary to invoke God...\". In essence, stating that the current model is a legitimate one, even without positing a creator.

...And I agree!

Physics currently has no mechanism for determining what happened before the bang. Thus from a scientific standpoint (in which something unobservable is effectively unprovable), 'spontaneous creation' is just as valid an explanation as 'supernatural creation'. Neither one can be proven (or disproven) strictly via science.

-----------

Now... what I did find interesting was the recent observances of planets in orbits which would make them possibly very similar to Earth.

Hawking used that to point out the flaws in the arguments that say \"Earth is the only habitable place in the universe, so the universe must have been created for humanity\". However, I'm a bit more curious about this question:

Do the folks here who believe in a supernatural creator believe that Earth is the only location in the universe where humanity was placed?

Humanity, or (sapient?) life in general?

null0010 wrote:Humanity, or (sapient?) life in general?

Either one.

I'm mostly just curious to see how Earth-centric people's beliefs are, particularly if they believe humanity was intentionally created as something unique / special.

Isn't the Big Bang speculation itself? I mean I find some of the theorizing fascinating, brilliant original thought even, but a lot of it seems like a huge house of cards. Most of it starts with the presumption of a Big Bang, and even that in itself is inconclusive. There's a myriad of different things right here on Earth that we can see with our own eyes and handle with our own hands and we still don't understand the mechanics behind it. Even if the Big Bang theory is the best model we have at the moment, it is still just that, and every thing that is built upon it, is dependent on it being true.

@Foil
I'm not gonna be so arrogant as to give even a definite opinion about life elsewhere. I would surmise though, according to christian tradition, that if their is only one God who created everything, I doubt that that life would be created just as we, in His image. Angels have life, so why couldn't he have made different lifeforms elsewhere? Just none of them would have been created to resemble Him like we have been.

Bettina wrote:Wow. I didn't realize so many in this forum had such an in depth knowledge of cosmological physics and M-theory to so quickly dismiss Stephen Hawking, even from a philosophical point of view. I'm breathless.

Foil wrote:I would never dismiss Dr. Hawking. His work in theoretical physics and other areas is nothing short of astounding.
I would certainly disagree with any statement saying, "the scientific model precludes the existence of a creator".
...Of course I have to point out: The above is not what Dr. Hawking was saying at all.

Entirely valid. Allow me to rephrase. The position presented by the article is silly. Knowing the idiots in the media, it is foolish to assume that they have presented Dr. Hawking's ideas clearly.

Foil wrote:Physics currently has no mechanism for determining what happened before the bang. Thus from a scientific standpoint (in which something unobservable is effectively unprovable), 'spontaneous creation' is just as valid an explanation as 'supernatural creation'. Neither one can be proven (or disproven) strictly via science.

Exactly. A working scientific model for the Big Bang presupposes a framework for that model to work in. It just puts us back to square one, do you assume the framework always existed, or that God created the framework? A discussion around that point is VERY interesting, but new information on the science behind the big bang doesn't change the question at all.

Foil wrote:Do the folks here who believe in a supernatural creator believe that Earth is the only location in the universe where humanity was placed?

I don't have any reason to hold a belief one way or the other.

Lothar wrote:

Foil wrote:Do the folks here who believe in a supernatural creator believe that Earth is the only location in the universe where humanity was placed?

I don't have any reason to hold a belief one way or the other.

Agree with Lothar, but at the same time I think it's plausable that there would be life somewhere else.

Null, the word you're looking for is 'sentient'

Wouldn't a sentient being have or show great wisdom or sound judgment. If so would a sapient being have the power of perception by the senses; consciousness?

Just because it is mathematically possible for there to be sentient beings to be, doesn't mean there are others in outer space.

Stroodles wrote:Null, the word you're looking for is 'sentient'

If I had meant 'sentient' I would have said it. Sapient is more correct for the meaning I wished to convey.

null0010 wrote:

Stroodles wrote:Null, the word you're looking for is 'sentient'

If I had meant 'sentient' I would have said it. Sapient is more correct for the meaning I wished to convey.

Sorry then, was unaware of that.

Stroodles wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Stroodles wrote:Null, the word you're looking for is 'sentient'

If I had meant 'sentient' I would have said it. Sapient is more correct for the meaning I wished to convey.

Sorry then, was unaware of that.

Sapient tends to convey the meaning of "able to think about thinking."

null0010 wrote:

Stroodles wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Stroodles wrote:Null, the word you're looking for is 'sentient'

If I had meant 'sentient' I would have said it. Sapient is more correct for the meaning I wished to convey.

Sorry then, was unaware of that.

Sapient tends to convey the meaning of "able to think about thinking."

Thanks, I learn something new every day then.

Stroodles wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Stroodles wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Stroodles wrote:Null, the word you're looking for is 'sentient'

If I had meant 'sentient' I would have said it. Sapient is more correct for the meaning I wished to convey.

Sorry then, was unaware of that.

Sapient tends to convey the meaning of "able to think about thinking."

Thanks, I learn something new every day then.

flip wrote:Isn't the Big Bang speculation itself? I mean I find some of the theorizing fascinating, brilliant original thought even, but a lot of it seems like a huge house of cards. Most of it starts with the presumption of a Big Bang, and even that in itself is inconclusive. There's a myriad of different things right here on Earth that we can see with our own eyes and handle with our own hands and we still don't understand the mechanics behind it. Even if the Big Bang theory is the best model we have at the moment, it is still just that, and every thing that is built upon it, is dependent on it being true.

The COBE mission's observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation just about exactly matched the theoretical curve of the emissions spectrum (see here); it's considered one of the finest examples of experimental data matching predicted results in scientific history. In other words, the Big Bang is a theory with a lot of solid evidence backing it up. As with any scientific theory, it can never be definitively "proved," but it looks pretty damn solid at this point.

Yea, but not everybody is convinced…did anybody see the Morgan Freeman series? I believe the episode was named before the beginning, but I’m not sure. The membrane theory has some very strong evidence as well, and I think the background radiation also supports that theory as well. (but this is from memory)

The main point I took from that episode is this…

The Big Bang has some serious competition, and is far from written in stone.

I'm mostly just curious to see how Earth-centric people's beliefs are, particularly if they believe humanity was intentionally created as something unique / special.

Amazing, Foil.

You may become an atheist after all.

Spidey wrote:The Big Bang has some serious competition, and is far from written in stone.

Agreed. I'm been doing some reading in the area of Biochemistry latley. there is Compelling evidence there that has put some serious question into the Big Bang theory and Micro evolution in general.

Look up Chirality, and how it relates to molecular interaction

Someplace I read where universe's pop into existence through out space. If so then we can no longer consider our universe as being the only one. I would like to know where space itself came from.

M theory says there are 11 dimensions that have been identified. As for space it came into being at same time the supposed Bang Bang happen.

So I wonder how this guy is saying something different.

Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

.

Looks like I am not far off the mark:

\"Though there's no direct link between Everett's many worlds theory and M-theory, Professor Hawking does describe how M-theory \"allows for 10 to the power of 500 different universes, each with its own laws\".