Hawking: God not necessary

[zooterkin]

Not sure if this should be in R&P, but I think it falls under science.

Stephen Hawking says that God is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe.

In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

This is a slight shifting from his position in A Brief History of Time, where he did not dismiss the possibility of God being involved.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Ah, but WHY is there such a law as gravity? Who created this law? Think about that. [/bleever]

 

[zooterkin]

Ah, but WHY is there such a law as gravity? Who created this law? Think about that. [/bleever]

Yes, first thought that occurred to me, too. Odd choice of title, if he's arguing there is no designer, though. Possibly trying to maximise sales.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Can we start the chants now?

"We've got Stephen Hawking. We've got Stephen Hawking!"

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Does he explain how the energy in the universe is created?

 

[bozman]

Does he explain how the energy in the universe is created?

Did you even bother to read the post?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Did you even bother to read the post?

I listened to a report on BBC radio 4 this morning about this article and his book which did not state that he explains where the energy in the universe came from. I've just read the Telegraph supplement article and haven't seen an answer to my question in there either. I was wondering if someone here knew more about the theoretical content of Hawking's soon to be published book than I do and whether there is a good answer to the question I asked in my previous post.

Alas, all I've got so far is an arsey American.

 

[bozman]

I listened to a report on BBC radio 4 this morning about this article and his book which did not state that he explains where the energy in the universe came from. I've just read the Telegraph supplement article and haven't seen an answer to my question in there either. I was wondering if someone here knew more about the theoretical content of Hawking's soon to be published book than I do and whether there is a good answer to the question I asked in my previous post.

Alas, all I've got so far is an arsey American.

Got it. May I ask what you mean when you say energy in the universe? I just want to be sure I'm on the same page.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Got it. May I ask what you mean when you say energy in the universe? I just want to be sure I'm on the same page.

Kinetic and potential.

Or, in lay terms: What physical law explains how it is possible to get something from nothing?

 

[bozman]

Kinetic and potential.

Or, in lay terms: What physical law explains how it is possible to get something from nothing?

Wasn't his entire point on spontaneous creation about this very thing? You CAN get something from nothing. At the quantum level, this seems to happen all the time.

Regardless, if you're alluding to the idea that this energy could only have originated because of the presence of a deity, how is this any different from the old "god of gaps" argument?

 

[Beady]

Not sure if this should be in R&P, but I think it falls under science.

Stephen Hawking says that God is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe.



This is a slight shifting from his position in A Brief History of Time, where he did not dismiss the possibility of God being involved.

He still doesn't. He just says God is not necessary. Hawking leaves room for God the Facilitator.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Not sure if this should be in R&P, but I think it falls under science.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

Layman terms pls?

 

[DC]

Wasn't his entire point on spontaneous creation about this very thing? You CAN get something from nothing. At the quantum level, this seems to happen all the time.

Regardless, if you're alluding to the idea that this energy could only have originated because of the presence of a deity, how is this any different from the old "god of gaps" argument?

is it something from nothing or something from something unmeasureable?
Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes to mind.

 

[GeorgeDorn]

Oooh so because Hawking says it it's OK to think the notion of a creation god is completely freaking braindead? Now I feel much better being an atheist and thinking that people who believe in god are complete idiots. I simply refuse to believe that an intelligent person like Hawking (or any of the american presidents or any person in power for that matter) believes in god.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Wasn't his entire point on spontaneous creation about this very thing? You CAN get something from nothing. At the quantum level, this seems to happen all the time.

Apart from some rather dodgy free energy websites and articles, I've not seen any physicist claiming to show how something can be produced from nothing and persist without adding energy.

Regardless, if you're alluding to the idea that this energy could only have originated because of the presence of a deity, how is this any different from the old "god of gaps" argument?

I wasn't alluding to the idea of the presence of a deity, which immediately brings up the question of how it was created from nothing.

 

[Dancing David]

Kinetic and potential.

Or, in lay terms: What physical law explains how it is possible to get something from nothing?

It came from "We don't know.", the BBe is outside of space/time, it is not nothing. It is "We don't know."

 

[DC]

Apart from some rather dodgy free energy websites and articles, I've not seen any physicist claiming to show how something can be produced from nothing and persist without adding energy.



I wasn't alluding to the idea of the presence of a deity, which immediately brings up the question of how it was created from nothing.

erm i did, a video from the cassiopeia project

 

[Dancing David]

Wasn't his entire point on spontaneous creation about this very thing? You CAN get something from nothing. At the quantum level, this seems to happen all the time.

Not really virtual partcles do get the energy from the collision or from the 'vacum energy'.

 

[Dancing David]

Apart from some rather dodgy free energy websites and articles, I've not seen any physicist claiming to show how something can be produced from nothing and persist without adding energy.



I wasn't alluding to the idea of the presence of a deity, which immediately brings up the question of how it was created from nothing.

The BBe is outside of current space/time, therefore we don't know. It could be something, it could be nothing, we don't know.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

is it something from nothing or something from something unmeasureable?
Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes to mind.

I think the modern idea is that a vacuum is actually a teeming mass of particles and anti-particles, spontaneously coming into existence and then annihilating each other. Energy is required to separate the matter from the anti-matter to keep it in existence for any significant length of time.