Stephen Hawking Picks Physics Over God for Big Bang

[HiWarp]

It's been a while since we've had a good old "science vs religion" debate. Hopefully this will begin one, which I usually find extremely amusing.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-god-big-bang/print

Stephen Hawking Picks Physics Over God for Big Bang

Published September 02, 2010 | SkyNews
fox news

Physics was the reason for the Big Bang, not God, according to scientist Stephen Hawking.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the professor said in his new book, in a challenge to traditional religious beliefs.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going," he wrote in his book "The Grand Design," extracts of which are printed in London newspaper The Times.

The book, co-written by American physicist Leonard Mlodinow and published next week, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have created out of chaos.

He cites the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than the Sun.

"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass -- far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."

Professor Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe, writing in A Brief History Of Time in 1988.

"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God," he wrote.

Until last year, the professor held the same post as Sir Isaac Newton, that of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge.

While other eminent scientists, such as leading atheist Richard Dawkins, will welcome Professor Hawking's views, others are still not convinced.

Professor George Ellis, emeritus professor at the University of Cape Town and President of the International Society for Science and Religion, says science may be the loser in this battle.

"My biggest problem with this is that it's presenting the public with a choice: science or religion.

"A lot of people will say, 'OK, I choose religion then' and it is science that will lose out."

For more news and information, see SkyNews.com.

[Rubystars]

My biggest problem with this is that it's presenting the public with a choice: science or religion.

"A lot of people will say, 'OK, I choose religion then' and it is science that will lose out."

Exactly. There shouldn't be that sort of dichotomy. It's not good for science or religion.

I don't think we can prove God but I do think that God is the one who created the universe.

These days I think it's getting a little more complicated. In the past we could say that the Big Bang was the definite beginning to our universe, but these days there is brane theory which deals in multiple dimensions and complicates things. One idea is that our universe formed and time began for our timeline when two branes collided.

I still don't think this excludes God's hand though.

Is there allowed any possibility in the Bible that God could have created universes and worlds separate from our own, and co-existing?

[Yaakov Mendel]

Just because Stephen Hawking is a brilliant scientist does not mean that he will come up with a brilliant theory about the existence of G-d.
There cannot be a physical answer to a metaphysical question. I thought Immanuel Kant hade made this clear three centuries ago.
"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of G-d," : what a delusional arrogance !

[Yaakov Mendel]

Just because Stephen Hawking is a brilliant scientist does not mean that he will come up with a brilliant theory about the existence of G-d.
There cannot be a physical answer to a metaphysical question. I thought Immanuel Kant hade made this clear three centuries ago.
"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of G-d," : what a delusional arrogance !

Sorry, I meant two centuries ago... (plus a few years!)

[Yaakov Mendel]

Anyway, Stephen Hawking simply cannot be the one brightest mind who will provide THE ultimate theory of the creation of the Universe for a simple reason : he is not Jewish ! 

[Rubystars]

Anyway, Stephen Hawking simply cannot be the one brightest mind who will provide THE ultimate theory of the creation of the Universe for a simple reason : he is not Jewish ! 

It's a theory that will unify newtonian physics and quantum physics so that there are no contradictions between them. This is a very important step in understanding how a lot of the things in our universe work. Stephen Hawking has come closer than most scientists to figuring this out. He is truly brilliant. I wish he would believe in God though.

[Muck DeFuslims]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"

This is not the first time I've heard this claim; that physics allows for something to come from nothing.

This is beyond my comprehension.

There is order in the universe. Physics tells us that it is virtually impossible for order to arise from chaos, but that given enough time it might happen.

Most of us have heard examples of how such a thing might happen.

A trillion monkeys typing for a billion years....one of them will eventually type a sonnet by Shakespeare.

A trillion tornados rip through billions of hangars of aircraft parts...one will eventually assemble a 747.

Possible ?  Maybe.

I just don't buy it.

Nevertheless, the possibility of something akin to the above occurring, no matter how infinitesimal, is something I can comprehend.

But for something, anything, to come from absolute nothingness...this is beyond my comprehension.

Ask me to believe that an order came to the universe over billions of years, that over the eons life arose from the inanimate, that from chaos evolved a cosmos, this I can concede as being possible even if I don't accept it as truth.

But something from nothing ?

No, that I can't accept.

I believe that there has to be something that transcends time and the laws of nature and physics.

Whether that something is G-d, I don't know. I don't have absolute faith. I'm an agnostic. But I'm convinced physics will never be able to explain our existence.

[Muck DeFuslims]

"Is there allowed any possibility in the Bible that G-d could have created universes and worlds separate from our own, and co-existing?"

Dr. Gerald Schroeder is an observant Jew and a physicist. I've heard him say that the Torah is mute regarding the existence of other universes or a multiverse.

Interestingly, he cites our sages as saying that the opening Hebrew letter (bet) of Genesis is not an accident. The Bet is shaped like a backwards English C. Since we read Hebrew from right to left, the Bet is a clue that we can not know or comprehend what existed before Genesis.

[Rubystars]

I think they're not talking about something coming from nothing exactly, but I'm not educated enough to really know what a quantum fluctuation is and be able to explain it. When I was reading about it, it was put in layman's terms.

[Yaakov Mendel]

But for something, anything, to come from absolute nothingness...this is beyond my comprehension.

I believe that it is impossible for a human mind to have a true notion of pure nothingness. Therefore, I am inclined to think that all the questions based on this notion are more or less devoid of meaning. In my opinion, this kind of obscure metaphysical speculation is definitely not the way to find G-d.

[✡ Hindu Zionist ॐ]

Reminds me to share:

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, the Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student: No

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?


(Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and serve the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelled your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes, faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have any thing called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light.... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it is called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach yourstudents that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelled it?.....No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it, sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

That young man was none other than

?
?
?....


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


ALBERT EINSTEIN.......

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It's been a while since we've had a good old "science vs religion" debate. Hopefully this will begin one, which I usually find extremely amusing.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-G-d-big-bang/print

Stephen Hawking Picks Physics Over G-d for Big Bang

Published September 02, 2010 | SkyNews
fox news

Physics was the reason for the Big Bang, not G-d, according to scientist Stephen Hawking.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"

This is almost exactly what my Rabbi argues, only, part of what Hawking is saying doesn't make logical sense.  If the law of gravity already exists (in addition to other laws from Einstein's equations also existing) then that is NOT, I repeat, NOT "from nothing."   That's creation "from something."      G-d precedes the applicability of any of these equations or any natural order at all.    Creation ex nihilo really means Ex nihilo.   The Rambam explains that this notion cannot be explained scientifically.    It's quite true; science operates on assumptions that contradict it, so there is no way science could ever conceive of the notion.   Science assumes that there was always something.    But there is no reason that one can't assume creation ex nihilo.   And the Torah directs us to adopt the assumption of creation ex nihilo.

But all those who claim the big bang is "proof of creation" are wrong according to all accounts - both according to hawking and according to my rabbi -    There was certainly something in existence prior to the Big Bang , therefore it is not, by definition, creation ex nihilo.   The Big Bang is some later event!

the professor said in his new book, in a challenge to traditional religious beliefs.   

This of course is not true.  It does not challenged religious beliefs, but someone who is not expert in the Jewish beliefs can't possibly know that.   And he is nowhere near an expert (obviously).

Professor George Ellis,...

"My biggest problem with this is that it's presenting the public with a choice: science or religion.

"A lot of people will say, 'OK, I choose religion then' and it is science that will lose out."

For more news and information, see SkyNews.com.

What a great point!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

My biggest problem with this is that it's presenting the public with a choice: science or religion.

"A lot of people will say, 'OK, I choose religion then' and it is science that will lose out."

Exactly. There shouldn't be that sort of dichotomy. It's not good for science or religion.

I don't think we can prove G-d but I do think that G-d is the one who created the universe.

These days I think it's getting a little more complicated. In the past we could say that the Big Bang was the definite beginning to our universe, but these days there is brane theory which deals in multiple dimensions and complicates things. One idea is that our universe formed and time began for our timeline when two branes collided.

I still don't think this excludes G-d's hand though.

Is there allowed any possibility in the Bible that G-d could have created universes and worlds separate from our own, and co-existing?

I've asked my rabbi similar questions, for instance, can there be life on other planets or intelligent beings out in the universe and he said certainly that's possible and does not pose a challenge if they found that.  He commented on how vast the universe actually is and how small we actually are in relation to that - physically it could seem we are insignificant, a source of humility, but spiritually we also know that we're important despite the appearance of the physicality.   

I never actually asked him about the multiverse theory though, as in what if they proved it true and demonstrated another universe's existence.   I would tend to think he would not view that as a problem either.   There is certainly ample room for interpretation in uncertain matters like this.    My rabbi has spoken before about how people can't simply rely on what physicists said for their "proof of God" because the physicists' position has evolved, just like you said, as it went from the big bang being a sign of the universe's beginning, to now the multiple universe theory and/or the dynamic equilibrium/steady-state theory which many physicists have now adopted (likely the majority).   In this situation, "the big bang" was only the latest explosion in a series of collapses and explosions of our universe.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"

This is not the first time I've heard this claim; that physics allows for something to come from nothing.

This is beyond my comprehension.   

It's interesting the way you term it because it's also beyond anyone's comprehension IMO, since what he is saying is logically inconsistent.   When there's literally nothing - there's no physics to speak of.

There is order in the universe. Physics tells us that it is virtually impossible for order to arise from chaos, but that given enough time it might happen.

Most of us have heard examples of how such a thing might happen.

A trillion monkeys typing for a billion years....one of them will eventually type a sonnet by Shakespeare.

A trillion tornados rip through billions of hangars of aircraft parts...one will eventually assemble a 747.

Possible ?  Maybe.

I just don't buy it. 

You know, I never really bought that type of argument either.  It's based on a mathematical principle, yet I don't really think a monkey can type Shakespeare unless he's actually thinking or given some kind of guide.   If he's just banging the keyboard, why would anything be coherent, even if by accident, and even if it's a sentence, how could it be poetic and deep language and a very specific known formula like a Shakespeare sonnet.  I just don't get that.

Nevertheless, the possibility of something akin to the above occurring, no matter how infinitesimal, is something I can comprehend.

But for something, anything, to come from absolute nothingness...this is beyond my comprehension.

Ask me to believe that an order came to the universe over billions of years, that over the eons life arose from the inanimate, that from chaos evolved a cosmos, this I can concede as being possible even if I don't accept it as truth.

But something from nothing ?

No, that I can't accept.

I believe that there has to be something that transcends time and the laws of nature and physics. 

Although you say later you're not completely willing to embrace this as a belief in God, I think that you basically have the right idea.   But I also think that being an agnostic is a mistake.  Granted, to embrace the belief in God from the point where you stand is taking on an assumption.   I don't think anyone can deny that.  But every belief and every position is based on assumption - and something being an assumption doesn't make it wrong or unacceptable.    And this we were told through prophecy is the correct assumption.   Just throwing my 2 cents in there.

[Secularbeliever]

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the professor said in his new book, in a challenge to traditional religious beliefs.<<

Of course that begs the question, who or what created the law of gravity.  Interestingly Hawking does not deny the existence of G-d just that He created the universe.  Frankly, that is a strange idea, a G-d who is a bystander.

[IsraelForever]

A trillion monkeys typing for a billion years....one of them will eventually type a sonnet by Shakespeare.

A trillion tornados rip through billions of hangars of aircraft parts...one will eventually assemble a 747.

Possible ?  Maybe.

I just don't buy it.

I don't buy it either.  It's theoretical bulldung.  Just like getting a human being after a long while from an amoeba.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the professor said in his new book, in a challenge to traditional religious beliefs.<<

Of course that begs the question, who or what created the law of gravity.  Interestingly Hawking does not deny the existence of G-d just that He created the universe.  Frankly, that is a strange idea, a G-d who is a bystander.

Right, and then Einstein created the universe with his equation e=mc squared.   Or his equation created the universe.   It's a bizarre formulation, to be sure.

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

Ingenious way to boost book sales.

[Yaakov Mendel]

There is order in the universe. Physics tells us that it is virtually impossible for order to arise from chaos, but that given enough time it might happen.

Most of us have heard examples of how such a thing might happen.

A trillion monkeys typing for a billion years....one of them will eventually type a sonnet by Shakespeare.

A trillion tornados rip through billions of hangars of aircraft parts...one will eventually assemble a 747.

Possible ?  Maybe.

I just don't buy it. 

You know, I never really bought that type of argument either.  It's based on a mathematical principle, yet I don't really think a monkey can type Shakespeare unless he's actually thinking or given some kind of guide.   If he's just banging the keyboard, why would anything be coherent, even if by accident, and even if it's a sentence, how could it be poetic and deep language and a very specific known formula like a Shakespeare sonnet.  I just don't get that.

I can't see which mathematical principle this spurious argument would be based on.
Mathematically, one could model the letters typed by monkeys on a keyboard as sequences of random variables. In probability theory, there are various forms of convergence of sequences of random variables to certain probability distributions. But this only means that, provided a very large number of letters are typed (in theory, an infinite number, and this alone raises major issues), it may be possible to determine, ex ante, which percentage of every letter of the alphabet will be drawn. As you put it, this does not guarantee consistent speech in any way, let alone works of art !