Stephen Hawking: "God did not create the universe"

the kenyan · Sep 2, 2010

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking</a>
 
per usual, the voice of reason coming from a guy without a voice.

satfix · Sep 2, 2010

The thing is - it is no more 'reasonable' than those who can demonstrate that God did create the universe. It's an imponderable ponderable. There is no absolute answer. No one could ever 'prove' the existence or 'non-existence' of God. 
 
The 'ultimate' theory is still just that - a 'theory' - and by definition, it's not infallible or it would be a 'law' and not 'theory'.
 
So, I guess - he's no more 'reasoned' than a Southern Baptist Fire and Brimstone Preacher - more 'articulate'; more 'scientific'; but no more 'right'

the kenyan · Sep 2, 2010

yeah, but it still feels good to have the smartest fuckernutter in the world in your corner <img alt="" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/cool.gif" title="">

satfix · Sep 3, 2010

Here's a list of 'smart too' scientists who believe 'creationism' is also a viable 'theory'
 
 
Dr Raymond V. Damadian- Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods. See <a href="http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_MRI.asp" target="_blank">http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_MRI.asp</a>.
 
<a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/baumgardner-j.html" target="_blank">Dr. John R. Baumgardner</a>(Geophysicist)
U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory. Also see <a href="http://www.rae.org/believe.html" target="_blank">Scientists Who Believe: An Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner</a>, and <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20071023001102rn_1/answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/places.asp" target="_blank">Probing the Earth's Deep Places.</a>
 
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3984.asp" target="_blank">Dr Ian Macreadie</a>(Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080208051938rn_1/www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/research.asp" target="_blank">Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie</a>.
 
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3945.asp" target="_blank">Dr. Raymond Jones</a>(Agricultural Scientist)
This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry. See <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040701073838/http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3944.asp" target="_blank">Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones</a>.
 
<a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/wilder-smith-ae.html" target="_blank">Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith</a>(3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html#4" target="_blank">Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net</a>.
 
<a href="http://www.creationists.org/robert-gentry.html" target="_blank">Dr. Robert Gentry</a>(nuclear physicist)
Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.

SportiGrl · Sep 3, 2010

OMG ... the comments under the article are priceless entertainment!

the kenyan · Sep 3, 2010

my personal favorite.....

There is an unprecedented amount of stupid in these comments.

torque · Sep 3, 2010

Chuck Norris created the Universe....duh!

Horrible Peanut · Sep 3, 2010

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by satfix <a href="/forum/thread/69890/stephen-hawking-god-did-not-create-the-universe#post_1941646"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a>
The 'ultimate' theory is still just that - a 'theory' - and by definition, it's not infallible or it would be a 'law' and not 'theory'.
</div>
</div>
 
That's why they call it faith and not proof.

the kenyan · Sep 3, 2010

i guess people who's brains are wired a certain way are unable to jive with the faith thing. Which makes it all the more amusing when the more zealous follower tell us 'you gotta believe what i do or else.'

mmoonptdeux · Sep 3, 2010

Wait, didn't Al Gore invent the universe?
 
Oh, wait, mixing up my subjects of controversy...need more coffee

the kenyan · Sep 3, 2010

that theory is more plausible than much of the shit i've seen. <img alt="" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/shock.gif" title="">

satfix · Sep 3, 2010

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by the kenyan <a href="/forum/thread/69890/stephen-hawking-god-did-not-create-the-universe#post_1941795"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> i guess people who's brains are wired a certain way are unable to jive with the faith thing. Which makes it all the more amusing when the more zealous follower tell us 'you gotta believe what i do or else.' 
</div>
</div>
 
Are you referring to 'creationist' or 'evolutionist' followers?

the kenyan · Sep 3, 2010

we dont tell people to believe what we do, we just give the scientific facts <img alt="" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/cool.gif" title="">

satfix · Sep 3, 2010

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by the kenyan <a href="/forum/thread/69890/stephen-hawking-god-did-not-create-the-universe#post_1941828"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> we dont tell people to believe what we do, we just give the scientific facts <img alt="" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/cool.gif" title=""> 
</div>
</div>
 
Not true - you have no 'facts' that evolution is a 'law' - it is a theory. And 'you' do tell others to believe what you do or else in school curriculum; in mocking the beliefs of others; and in the arrogance demonstrated by 'evolutionary zealots'.

the kenyan · Sep 3, 2010

religion certainly has a place in school as long as it's kept in the right place....i remember looking at a variety of belief systems in history and english classes in high school. It might surprise people, but i was a few credits shy of a religious studies minor in college. But leave the actual scientific theories a la evolution to the science classes. Let's not mix apples and oranges.

SportiGrl · Sep 3, 2010

I think most religions are set up to control the weak and poor and keep them in line so the powerful can abuse their own rules and take advantage of all the followers of the various religions and have them happy to do it ...
 
 
but ... I do think most of the commandments are good and indeed keep life 'civil' ... I don't know if I believe in a higher being but know that if one does exist they'd likely be sickened by religions and the abuse of power that they enable.

the kenyan · Sep 3, 2010

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by SportiGrl <a href="/forum/thread/69890/stephen-hawking-god-did-not-create-the-universe#post_1941839"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> I think most religions are set up to control the weak and poor and keep them in line so the powerful can abuse their own rules and take advantage of all the followers of the various religions and have them happy to do it ...
 
 
but ... I do think most of the commandments are good and indeed keep life 'civil' ... I don't know if I believe in a higher being but know that if one does exist they'd likely be sickened by religions and the abuse of power that they enable.
</div>
</div>
 
<img alt="http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f223/kromproductions/applause.gif" src="http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f223/kromproductions/applause.gif" style="">

torque · Sep 3, 2010

My experience with atheists is that they are very closed minded...not very condusive for science. If you keep your mind open to all possibilities the truth will lead to more questions. By closing your mind, you've lost a tremendous gift.

GaReb770 · Sep 3, 2010

I don't see anything in Hawkin's article that discredits the Biblical account of the Creation. God doesn't tell us specifics of how he created the world, whether through physics, a big bang theory or whatever. The Bible simply tells us he did it. After reading Hawkin's article and a couple of others I still don't have a problem with God being the Creator. Nor do I have a problem with his belief's concerning his personal hypothesis that God was not necessary for the impetus of the Creation. God gives us free will.

rlemert · Sep 3, 2010

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by satfix <a href="/forum/thread/69890/stephen-hawking-god-did-not-create-the-universe#post_1941831"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-right:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-bottom:0px solid;"></a> 
Not true - you have no 'facts' that evolution is a 'law' - it is a theory.
 
</div>
</div>
 
I'm trying to keep an open mind about your comments, but it looks like you are making the same mistake as so many others in confusing the terms 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. Creationists in particular like to dismiss evolution by saying "it's only a theory", when in fact calling something a theory is one of the highest compliments science can pay to an idea.
 
 A hypothesis is a testable 'guess' about an observation. You drop a feather and an iron ball and see the latter fall faster than the former, and you say it's because gravity pulls harder on the ball. You test this by dropping the objects in a vacuum, and you find your guess is wrong because now you see that they fall at the same rate. Your hypothesis has been tested and found to be wrong (i.e. it's falsifiable), and you know you've been barking up the wrong tree.
 
 A theory, on the other hand, is a coherent explanation of some phenomenon, developed from a set of tested and verified hypthotheses, that is testable, predictive, and falsifiable. This means that it should explain all of the phenomenon that are within its scope (the germ theory of disease, for example, cannot be expected to explain the orbits of the planets), that it can predict behavior that was not used in its development (especially something that has not been observed at all previously), and that experiments can be devised (at least in principle) that - if the results don't behave as expected - prove the theory wrong. And all of these observations must be based on things that people can detect and measure, or that can be traced back through their own theories to things that can be detected and measured.
 
 (My apologies for adding some seriousness to this forum, but this is one of my biggest pet peeves. You can try to poke all the holes you want into the theory of evolution, but attack the theory itself. Don't try to dismiss it by making it something it isn't - something that's trivial and can be shrugged off with "it's only a theory.")

Stephen Hawking: "God did not create the universe"

Top Contributors this Month