Hawking: God did not create Universe

Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks says in the Times [subscription required] that Stephen Hawking's idea is both unoriginal and that he doesn't understand that religion and science answer different questions:

"What would we do for entertainment without scientists telling us, with breathless excitement, that 'God did not create the Universe', as if they were the first to discover this astonishing proposition? Stephen Hawking is the latest, but certainly not the first. When Napoleon asked Laplace, two hundred years ago, where was God in his scientific system, the mathematician replied, Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse. 'I do not need God to explain the Universe.' We never did. That is what scientists do not understand.

"There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean. They are different intellectual enterprises."​

Click to expand...

In the New Scientist Roger Highfield dismisses the newness of the theory:

"Media furore over Stephen Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, has made it the biggest science news story of the day. But it's not like Hawking has suddenly given up a religious belief - let alone proved that God doesn't exist...

"As Hawking's long-suffering assistant dealt with a deluge of enquiries from journalists from around the world, she told me how the furore says more about the silly season than any change of mind. It also says much about how God is used to sell science to the public."​

Click to expand...

In the Catholic Herald Quentin de la Bedoyere argues that there is still a gap in Stephen Hawking's explanation of the creation of the Universe:

"Most particularly it would not touch the question of how something existing comes out from nothing. That is a question which science cannot answer, and will never answer, because nothingness is not within its domain. Hawking apparently does not address this question - which is the true and ultimate Theory of Everything."​

Click to expand...

In the Daily Mail John Lennox describes himself as a scientist and a Christian who teaches maths as Oxford university. He argues that Stephen Hawking is wrong to think they can't live alongside each other:

"Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise. "For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

"The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver."​

Click to expand...

In the Telegraph Graham Farmello is sceptical about the reasons behind scientists getting involved in the question of God:

"The science-religion relationship, in so far as there is one, continues to be a crowd-pleaser. It seems to be a fundamental law of PR that the God-science debate is a sure-fire source of publicity. Always welcome when one has a book to sell."​

Click to expand...

Hao ni wataalamu mbali mbali wanajibu hoja za huyo jamaa.

Mtazamaji said:

Hao ni wataalamu mbali mbali wanajibu hoja za huyo jamaa.

Click to expand...

Katika majibu yao yote hawajaonyesha kwamba mungu kaumba ulimwengu, au kasababisha existence, mambo ambayo ndiyo ya msingi hapa.

Hii inachukuliwa kuwa an axiom, a fiat. As long as we are talking fiats, let's grant the flat earth society a fiat too, and all the other crazies who say the moon is made of cheese. Why not them? Why do you just believe that god made everything without any evidence or proof?

Kiranga said:

Katika majibu yao yote hawajaonyesha kwamba mungu kaumba ulimwengu, au kasababisha existence, mambo ambayo ndiyo ya msingi hapa.

Hii inachukuliwa kuwa an axiom, a fiat. As long as we are talking fiats, let's grant the flat earth society a fiat too, and all the other crazies who say the moon is made of cheese. Why not them? Why do you just believe that god made everything without any evidence or proof?

Click to expand...

Kiranga nahaika una ufahamuna uelewa mkubwa . sio mpaka uone senetesi inayosema mungu alimumba uliwengu. Kama umesoma vizuri utaelewa wanamaanisha nini. Elewe kuna nature au kitu au mtu au mungu ambaye kwa uwezo wake wa ajabu ndio aliweka vianzio ambavyo hata sience ina base ya kuazia malezo.

Mtazamaji said:

Kiranga nahaika una ufahamuna uelewa mkubwa . sio mpaka uone senetesi inayosema mungu alimumba uliwengu. Kama umesoma vizuri utaelewa wanamaanisha nini. Elewe kuna nature au kitu au mtu au mungu ambaye kwa uwezo wake wa ajabu ndio aliweka vianzio ambavyo hata sience ina base ya kuazia malezo.

Click to expand...

Your assesment is so all inclusive to be meaningless. Of course kuna kitu kimefanya tuwepo. Uki include " nature au kitu au mtu au mungu" hujaacha kitu, na ni pointless kuongea hivi. Swali linakuja, kilichotufanya tuwepo ni nini? Wengine wanasema ni mungu (watu wa dini) wengine wanasema dini haiwezi kuonyesha kwamba mungu aliumba ulimwengu, na mpaka sasa the best explanation ni kwamba kuna kanuni za nature ndizo zilizoumba, lakini tunafika sehemu tunashindwa kuelewa hizi kanuni za nature zimetoka wapi, kwamba katika singularity iliyoanzisha time and space katika universe hii palitokea nini, kwani by definition katika singularity kanuni zetu zote zinavunjika na kunakuwa na 0 space and 0 time wakati kuna infinite mass, lakini kushindwa kuelewa huku hakuna maana kwamba ulimwengu umeumbwa na mungu. Kuna wengine ( kama kina Leonard Susskind katika "The Cosmic Landscape") wanaamini kwamba universe yetu ime branch off kutoka katika universe nyingine, na kwamba kuna universes nyingi katika "multiverse". Na sasa Hawking anatuambia mambo yanaweza kujiendea yenyewe bila mungu.

Tatizo unasema "kwa uwezo wake wa ajabu", wanasayansi wanaamini ulimwengu haujaumbwa kwa uwezo wa ajabu (supernatural powers) bali umeumbwa kwa kanuni za nature ambazo zinaweza kueleweka, na tatizo ni kwamba hatujaweza kuzielewa tu.

Unachosema ni kama vile watu wa zamani walivyosema kwamba radi ni jinsi ambavyo mungu "kwa uwezo wake wa ajabu" anaongea na binadamu. Baadaye wakaja kugundua kwamba radi ni umeme tu ambao hata binadamu anaweza kutengeneza, wala si kitu cha ajabu, ni kitu kinachofuata kanuni za nature.

Kama ulimwengu unaonekana wa ajabu, hili linatokana na upungufu wa elimu yetu tu. Lakini ukiusoma ulimwengu unaeleweka na unafuata kanuni, wala hauna ajabu in the sense ya vitu kufuata supernatural powers, ndiyo maana sayansi inaweza kutufunua macho kila tunavyozidi kuusoma ulimwengu.

Kiranga said:

Your assesment is so all inclusive to be meaningless. Of course kuna kitu kimefanya tuwepo. Uki include " nature au kitu au mtu au mungu" hujaacha kitu, na ni pointless kuongea hivi. Swali linakuja, kilichotufanya tuwepo ni nini? Wengine wanasema ni mungu (watu wa dini) wengine wanasema dini haiwezi kuonyesha kwamba mungu aliumba ulimwengu, na mpaka sasa the best explanation ni kwamba kuna kanuni za nature ndizo zilizoumba, lakini tunafika sehemu tunashindwa kuelewa hizi kanuni za nature zimetoka wapi, kwamba katika singularity iliyoanzisha time and space katika universe hii palitokea nini, kwani by definition katika singularity kanuni zetu zote zinavunjika na kunakuwa na 0 space and 0 time wakati kuna infinite mass, lakini kushindwa kuelewa huku hakuna maana kwamba ulimwengu umeumbwa na mungu. Kuna wengine ( kama kina Leonard Susskind katika "The Cosmic Landscape") wanaamini kwamba universe yetu ime branch off kutoka katika universe nyingine, na kwamba kuna universes nyingi katika "multiverse". Na sasa Hawking anatuambia mambo yanaweza kujiendea yenyewe bila mungu.

Tatizo unasema "kwa uwezo wake wa ajabu", wanasayansi wanaamini ulimwengu haujaumbwa kwa uwezo wa ajabu (supernatural powers) bali umeumbwa kwa kanuni za nature ambazo zinaweza kueleweka, na tatizo ni kwamba hatujaweza kuzielewa tu.

Unachosema ni kama vile watu wa zamani walivyosema kwamba radi ni jinsi ambavyo mungu "kwa uwezo wake wa ajabu" anaongea na binadamu. Baadaye wakaja kugundua kwamba radi ni umeme tu ambao hata binadamu anaweza kutengeneza, wala si kitu cha ajabu, ni kitu kinachofuata kanuni za nature.

Kama ulimwengu unaonekana wa ajabu, hili linatokana na upungufu wa elimu yetu tu. Lakini ukiusoma ulimwengu unaeleweka na unafuata kanuni, wala hauna ajabu in the sense ya vitu kufuata supernatural powers, ndiyo maana sayansi inaweza kutufunua macho kila tunavyozidi kuusoma ulimwengu.

Click to expand...

Sawa ni meaningless na pointless kutokana na uelewa wako.

May be nieleweshe nipate meaning na points ya huyu jamaa na wewe .

1. Ebu nilemishe Anachosema huyu Hawking ni Law, Theory au Hypothesis?

Mtazamaji said:

Sawa ni meaningless na pointless kutokana na uelewa wako.

May be nieleweshe nipate meaning na points ya huyu jamaa na wewe .

1. Ebu nilemishe Anachosema huyu Hawking ni Law, Theory au Hypothesis?

Click to expand...

Labda wewe unieleweshe kwako wewe law ni nini, theory ni nini na hypothesis ni nini.

Halafu nikikuambia alichosema Hawking ni nini, na wewe uniambie kuamini mungu ni nini kati ya law, theory na hypothesis.

By the way hujaonyesha bado kwamba mungu kaumbwa ulimwenngu.

Zote IMANI tu, ukitaka kuamwamini Hawking mwenye mada na mifano yenye mashiko hai na halisia, au ukitaka kuamini stori za kufikirika za vitabu VITAKATIFU! Kwamba hapo mwanzo kulikuwa na neno na huyo neno ali...........!!! ni chaguo lako. Wakati mwingine unaweza uchague kutomwamini binadamu, ukaamini mizimu na nafsi yako ikaridhika. Thanks!

S. Hawking ni kichwa balaa sana katika maswala ya hisabati na fizikia, ni profesa wa hisabati pale cambridge! anaugua Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, ugonjwa uliompata ukubwani na kusababisha viungo vyake vingi kuathirika, mpaka kuongea anatumia mashine! Kwa wale wapenzi wa vipindi vya sayansi vya National Geographic watakuwa wanampata vizuri. Ukitaka kujua balaa za huyu mzee tafuta kitabu chake:A Brief History of Time

i dont understand people who get all worked up and start name calling when God is weighted versus science.

they should know that there are worst things than an atheist who rely on science for proof. At least they can try to argue that since God is everything than science itself is (part of) god and hence god made the universe (by default).


believers in God should be more concerned with people who became atheists because of God (or rather because of religions).

the relations between God and his followers, the madness, the ‘my god is better than yours' fights, the irrationality of believers and other whatnots repel a lot of people to the other side.

i have a feeling that people who do not believe in god because of lack of scientific proof are way less than the other group of atheists.

If you have read Small gods, or the Sirens of Titan or even A passage to India by Forester ( among many of the kind), you might just agree, if that is how god (and religion) is, then you might as well live without one.




Just to cheer the belivers on, i give you a line from the Sir of humour on the Bing Bang theory
'there was nothing, then it exploded'..............

:smile-big:

Kafa kafiri jamaa.

"Msidanganyike, Mungu hadhihakiwi; kwa kuwa cho chote apandacho mtu, ndicho atakachovuna. Maana yeye apandaye kwa mwili wake, katika mwili wake atavuna uharibifu; bali yeye apandaye katika Roho, katika Roho atavuna uzima wa milele." - WAGALATIA 6:7-9

...

Msanii said:

Huyu mtu ni kichaa na disable kama anavyoonekana.
Scam

Click to expand...

..... and Africa will never advance in Science kama kuna thinking kama ya kwako!

Kiranga said:

Psychology kubwa hiyo ya kukufumba macho, ukitaka kumjua baba usiulize kitu, muamini kama mtoto mdogo, toa zaka na uheshimu utawala.

Guess nani kaendeleza propaganda hizi za mungu? The clergy ( wote waliosoma theology wanajua hamna mungu) na wafalme waliokuwa na interest ya kuwa na a docile populace.

Wewe nifuate tu, usiniulize. Sasa kama hukutaka nikuulize utashi wa kuuliza ulinipia wa nini?

Ukichunguza sana utaona wala hakuna contradiction, kwa sababu anayesema "nifuate usiniulize" wala si mungu, ni watu wanaowa control watu wengine kwa kupitia jina la mungu. Hakuna mungu wala nini.

Click to expand...

This is really insane , anyways the freedom is your either to accept or reject his presence

Yudack said:

This is really insane , anyways the freedom is your either to accept or reject his presence

Click to expand...

What is insane? Why is it insane?

Insanity is rejecting the logical conclusion, that a self contradicting God idea,cannot be reality, because it is self contradicting.

The God idea was created by people,as a "manufactured reality" ad Dr. Yuval Noah Harari says.

Kiranga said:

What is insane? Why is it insane?

Insanity is rejecting the logical conclusion, that a self contradicting God idea,cannot be reality, because it is self contradicting.

The God idea was created by people,as a "manufactured reality" ad Dr. Yuval Noah Harari says.

Click to expand...

Makubwa umerudiii

Mama Sabrina said:

Makubwa umerudiii

Click to expand...

Hahaha,nilikwenda kumtafuta Mungu,nimemkosa kwani hayupo.

Ulinimiss?

Kiranga said:

Hahaha,nilikwenda kumtafuta Mungu,nimemkosa kwani hayupo.

Ulinimiss?

Click to expand...

Nimekumiss Kiranga hivi bado hujaja tu kwani
Maana nilikuwa nishaandaa kukupokea airpot

Mama Sabrina said:

Nimekumiss Kiranga hivi bado hujaja tu kwani
Maana nilikuwa nishaandaa kukupokea airpot

Click to expand...

Nitakutafuta pembe, hapa wasiojulikana wengi.

Kiranga said:

Nitakutafuta pembe, hapa wasiojulikana wengi.

Click to expand...

Sawa Kiranga