Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
43,468
Points
2,000
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined Jan 29, 2009
43,468 2,000
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe
By Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer | October 17, 2018 04:23pm ET

Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

In a new book that was published posthumously, Stephen Hawking, who died in March, wrote that it is impossible for God to exist in our universe.


From his desk at Cambridge University and beyond, Stephen Hawking sent his mind spiraling into the deepest depths of black holes, radiating across the endless cosmos and swirling back billions of years to witness time's first breath. He viewed creation as a scientist, and when he was called to discuss creation's biggest puzzles — Where do we come from? What is our purpose? Are we alone? — he answered as a scientist, often to the chagrin of religious critics.

In Stephen Hawking's final book "Brief Answers to Big Questions," published Tuesday (Oct. 16) by Bantam Books, the professor begins a series of 10 intergalactic essays by addressing life's oldest and most religiously fraught question of all: Is there a God? [Big Bang to Civilization: 10 Amazing Origin Events]

Hawking's answer — compiled from decades of prior interviews, essays and speeches with the help of his family, colleagues and the Steven Hawking Estate — should come as no surprise to readers who have followed his work, er, religiously.

Credit: Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images


"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.
"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.

With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.

"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."
Hawking's explanation begins with quantum mechanics, which explains how subatomic particles behave. In quantum studies, it's common to see subatomic particles like protons and electrons seemingly appear out of nowhere, stick around for a while and then disappear again to a completely different location. Because the universe was once the size of a subatomic particle itself, it's plausible that it behaved similarly during the Big Bang, Hawking wrote.
"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature," he wrote.

That still doesn't explain away the possibility that God created that proton-size singularity, then flipped the quantum- mechanical switch that allowed it to pop. But Hawking says science has an explanation here, too. To illustrate, he points to the physics of black holes — collapsed stars that are so dense, nothing, including light, can escape their pull.
Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

This argument will do little to persuade theistic believers, but that was never Hawking's intent. As a scientist with a near-religious devotion to understanding the cosmos, Hawking sought to "know the mind of God" by learning everything he could about the self-sufficient universe around us. While his view of the universe might render a divine creator and the laws of nature incompatible, it still leaves ample space for faith, hope, wonder and, especially, gratitude.

"We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe," Hawking concludes the first chapter of his final book, "and for that I am extremely grateful."
Originally published on Live Science.

cc James Comey
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
43,468
Points
2,000
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined Jan 29, 2009
43,468 2,000
Explain to me how I am or I could be contradicting myself by saying so, please.

But remember, this is about Prof. Hawkings, not me...
You are being a skeptic against Professor Hawking's assertions, which claim to be based on science, as guessing.

Because the subject is unknowable.

But you are not enough of a skeptic.

Because you take the position that, believing that you exist is not guessing.

I can challenge you that, if you want to be a real skeptic, any foundation of your position that you exist is going to have an assumption, and you will not be able to justify all the assumptions.

Therefore, you will not be able to remove guessing from the assertion that you exist.

Aand if you say you exist, and this is not a giess, you will be contradicting yourself.

Because, on the one hand, you will be relegating Professor Hawking's assertions as guesswork - if anything, for a relatively valid reason that he cannot justify all the assumptions taken to reach the conclusion that God does not exists-, while you are actually doing the same thing - you cannot justify all the assumptions taken to reach the conclusion that you exist-

So, you are rejecting Professor Hawking's assertions as guesswork, while deep down, you assert your own existence on a foundation that cannot be verified without doubt, your existence is just as much of guesswork as Professor Hawkings assertion that God does not exist.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems cover this neatly.

It is also the logic at the core of the nonexistence of God.
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
43,468
Points
2,000
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined Jan 29, 2009
43,468 2,000
The book's ability to 'say',
By the way, he's not the first!
Who is the first is not as important as whether what he says is true or not.

In fact, his case is strengthened by the fact that he is not the first to say what he said.

I would be very doubtful had the assertion been that Stephen Hawking has said that he is God (although I have a suspicion some people have said that before :)
 
Nyani Ngabu

Nyani Ngabu

Platinum Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
82,375
Points
2,000
Nyani Ngabu

Nyani Ngabu

Platinum Member
Joined May 15, 2006
82,375 2,000
You are being a skeptic against Profesor Hawking's assertions, which claim to be based on science, as guessing.

Because the subject is unknowable.

But you are not enough of a skeptic.

Because you take the position that, believing that you exist is not guessing.

I can challenge you that, if you want to be a real skeptic, any foundation of your position that you exist is going to have an assumption, and you will not be able to justify all the assumptions.

Therefore, you will not be able to remove guessing from the assertion that you exist.

Aand if you say you exist, and this is not a giess, you will be contradicting yourself.

Because, on the one hand, you will be relegating Professor Hawking's assertions as guesswork - if anything, for a relatively valid reason that he cannot justify all the assumptions taken to reach the conclusion that God does not exists-, while you are actually doing the same thing - you cannot justify all the assumptions taken to reach the conclusion that you exist-

So, you are rejecting Professor Hawking's assertions as guesswork, while deep down, you assert your own existence on a foundation that cannot be verified without doubt, your existence is just as much of guesswork as Professor Hawkings assertion that God does not exist.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems cover this neatly.

It is also the logic at the core of the nonexistence of God.
I am not a "real skeptic" as you've posited.

I am more of a 'situational skeptic'.

With that, I don't see where I could contradict myself with regard to what Prof. Hawking said.
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
43,468
Points
2,000
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined Jan 29, 2009
43,468 2,000
I am not a "real skeptic" as you've posited.

I am more of a 'situational skeptic'.

With that, I don't see where I could contradict myself with regard to what Prof. Hawking said.
Hahahaha, situational skeptic is either a tautology or an oxymoron.

Both are logically compromised.
 
Nyani Ngabu

Nyani Ngabu

Platinum Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
82,375
Points
2,000
Nyani Ngabu

Nyani Ngabu

Platinum Member
Joined May 15, 2006
82,375 2,000
Hahahaha, situational skeptic is either a tautology or an oxymoron.

Both are logically compromised.
I just don't see how they both could be logically compromised!
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
43,468
Points
2,000
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined Jan 29, 2009
43,468 2,000
I just don't see how they both could be logically compromised!
A tautology is basically circular argument that is meaningless, like saying "it is what it is", of course it is what it is, but what is it?

An oxymoron posits two opposites as being one and the same, like "friendly fire" or "let's agree to disagree".

If you are skeptic, and you draw a line to let go your skepticism, I am skeptic about your skepticism.

A real skeptic ought to question even his/her senses, how do you know your perception is correct if you can't even see ultraviolet rays with your naked eyes?

How do you know that you actually exist here and you are not a simulation of some bits of information some billions of light years away?

My point is, Professor Hawking's assertions are based on some serious math and science. I am not saying that he cannot be wrong, there are differing opinions on the matter, but calling the assertions guesswork is akin to reducing his thoughts to some eeny, meeny miny moe.

He actually did a lot of work prior to that conclusion.I would hesitate before calling that "guesswork" without even understanding what he did.
 
Nyani Ngabu

Nyani Ngabu

Platinum Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
82,375
Points
2,000
Nyani Ngabu

Nyani Ngabu

Platinum Member
Joined May 15, 2006
82,375 2,000
A tautology is basically circular argument that is meaningless, like saying "it is what it is", of course it is what it is, but what is it?

An oxymoron posits two opposites as being one and the same, like "friendly fire" or "let's agree to disagree".

If you are skeptic, and you draw a line to let go your skepticism, I am skeptic about your skepticism.

A real skeptic ought to question even his/her senses, how do you know your perception is correct if you can't even see ultraviolet rays with your naked eyes?

How do you know that you actually exist here and you are not a simulation of some bits of information some billions of light years away?

My point is, Professor Hawking's assertions are based on some serious math and science. I am not saying that he cannot be wrong, there are differing opinions on the matter, but calling the assertions guesswork is akin to reducing his thoughts to some eeny, meeny miny moe.

He actually did a lot of work prior to that conclusion.I would hesitate before calling that "guesswork" without even understanding what he did.
You can't use math and science to make a guess about something?

With regard to your examples of oxymoron and tautology, listen, some sayings aren't to be taken literally.

Don't be too literal.
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
43,468
Points
2,000
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined Jan 29, 2009
43,468 2,000
You can't use math and science to make a guess about something?
That is not what my argument is.

You criticised Professor Hawking's painstaking work and conclusion as guesswork. Fine.

You can make that assertion if you have zero tolerance for assumptions.

Godel showed us that, you really cannot prove anything logically without assumptions.

Therefore, you cant' even prove you exist.

And the moment you allow room for assumptions to allow for your own existence, your criticism of Professor Hawkings work, as guesswork, become irrelevant and intellectual dishonesty.
 
ngosha wa mwanza

ngosha wa mwanza

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
787
Points
1,000
ngosha wa mwanza

ngosha wa mwanza

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 23, 2015
787 1,000
Mshenzi tu huyo na bora kafa akakutane na Sir God.Hivi binadam mbona wapuuzi kiasi hiki yaan tunashindwa kuuamini Mungu yupo hebu ww jiangalie tu kakuumba mwanaume na mwanamke je ni nature gan inayojua ulitakiwa kua na uume na uke ili mzaliane ????harafu puuzi moja linakufuru tu kisa limesha jamba kutoa gesi mwilini linasema Mungu hayupo.Mbona hahoji alie gundua cocacola .... kua hakuingundua bali ni nature iliitengeneza tu na ikajiweka kwenye chupa yenyewe hahaa
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
43,468
Points
2,000
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Joined Jan 29, 2009
43,468 2,000
Mshenzi tu huyo na bora kafa akakutane na Sir God.Hivi binadam mbona wapuuzi kiasi hiki yaan tunashindwa kuuamini Mungu yupo hebu ww jiangalie tu kakuumba mwanaume na mwanamke je ni nature gan inayojua ulitakiwa kua na uume na uke ili mzaliane ????harafu puuzi moja linakufuru tu kisa limesha jamba kutoa gesi mwilini linasema Mungu hayupo.Mbona hahoji alie gundua cocacola .... kua hakuingundua bali ni nature iliitengeneza tu na ikajiweka kwenye chupa yenyewe hahaa
Mungu angekuwepo,(mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote) tusingekunya wala kufa.

Tunakunya na kufa kwa sababu Mungu hayupo.

Unaelewa hilo?
 
Safuha

Safuha

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
2,586
Points
2,000
Safuha

Safuha

JF-Expert Member
Joined Mar 11, 2018
2,586 2,000
Mungu angekuwepo,(mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote) tusingekunya wala kufa.

Tunakunya na kufa kwa sababu Mungu hayupo.

Unaelewa hilo?
Mimi sielewi hilo mkuu.

Madai hayo ni feki tu

tunasema Mungu yupo ndo mana tunakunya na kufa .

Huu wote ni uwezo wake na yanatokea.
 
Safuha

Safuha

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
2,586
Points
2,000
Safuha

Safuha

JF-Expert Member
Joined Mar 11, 2018
2,586 2,000
Mshenzi tu huyo na bora kafa akakutane na Sir God.Hivi binadam mbona wapuuzi kiasi hiki yaan tunashindwa kuuamini Mungu yupo hebu ww jiangalie tu kakuumba mwanaume na mwanamke je ni nature gan inayojua ulitakiwa kua na uume na uke ili mzaliane ????harafu puuzi moja linakufuru tu kisa limesha jamba kutoa gesi mwilini linasema Mungu hayupo.Mbona hahoji alie gundua cocacola .... kua hakuingundua bali ni nature iliitengeneza tu na ikajiweka kwenye chupa yenyewe hahaa
Mimi kizungu sielewi ila nimepapasia kichwa cha habari hata huyu mzungu hana uhakika kwa sababu ya dhana yake dhaifu.
 

Forum statistics

Threads 1,304,151
Members 501,282
Posts 31,504,691
Top