Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

[galvatron]

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded



By Laura Roberts
Published: 6:15AM BST 02 Sep 2010
1186 Comments


$this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01388/hawking_1388171c.jpg') The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded. Photo: GETTY IMAGES


The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.

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.”
In A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking's most famous work, he did not dismiss the possibility that God had a hand in the creation of the world.
He wrote in the 1988 book: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.”
In his new book he rejects Sir Isaac Newton's theory that the Universe did not spontaneously begin to form but was set in motion by God.
In June this year Prof Hawking told a Channel 4 series that he didn't believe that a "personal" God existed. He told Genius of Britain: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."
Until his retirement last year Prof Hawking was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, a post previously held by Newton.
The book, co-written by American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, is published on September 9.



The Link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-Universe.html

What do you think ?do you believe god create universe ?
I believe universe was always there without a beginning since i am a Buddhist .
I wonder how do Muslim,Christian view this ?My Malay Muslim friends believed universe created by" Allah" and Hawking was anti Muslim and a Jews .

[Guo Xiang]

Did it ever come across to people WHAT or WHO created that law of physics?

[xJadedx]

Putting aside science and religion for a minute, I'm just thinking that Hawkins is starting to be one of those scientists who, having gotten to where he is now, decides to just start saying random controversial things because he can get away with it in the community. A lot of prominent scientists, after having really established themselves, do this (I wonder how much of it is serious and how much just for giggles).

[Banh Mi]

Already you guys are being defensive. He's worded himself very carefully there.
He didn't say there is no God that created the universe. He said under the laws of physics, or our current understanding of it, the universe would have formed on it's own, God isn't a necessary component.
Doesn't mean he's saying God doesn't exist. He just believes God doesn't.

[xJadedx]

Like I said, putting science and religion aside - irregardless of what he thinks, I do feel that given his other recent claim, Hawkins is more doing the prominent-scientist-starting-random-controversy thing than anything else. Whether or not I agree with what he says is a different issue.

[Trien Chieu]

I don't know whether I can agree with his big bang theory. However, as an atheist, I can agree with him about "god was not needed to create the universe". I simply believe god doesn't exist. I don't believe in super being.

Did it ever come across to people WHAT or WHO created that law of physics?

That is law of nature for people to discover. No one created it. Just like 1+1=2. It's a arithmetic for people to discover and learn. No one created it.

[kidd]

Already you guys are being defensive. He's worded himself very carefully there.
He didn't say there is no God that created the universe. He said under the laws of physics, or our current understanding of it, the universe would have formed on it's own, God isn't a necessary component.
Doesn't mean he's saying God doesn't exist. He just believes God doesn't.Agree with Banh Mi on the defensiveness. A lot of people of science do not believe in God, even some spcneters here (who is not famous in anyway).

Agree with you. A lot of people of science do not believe in God. Even some spcneters here (who are not famous in anyway) do not and are vocal about it.

So, I don't get this conclusion of Stephen Hawking purposely saying some random controversial thing because he can get away with it.

Stephen Hawking saying something like this is unsurprising. I thought this has always been his sentiment.

Anyway, what he said he totally safe among the science community. There's nothing to get away from. The science community will most probably support him and so will the atheist community.

Did it ever come across to people WHAT or WHO created that law of physics?

The question that bothers me more since I was a small kid is 'Who created God?' If everything has a starting point and have to have a creator, then, who created God?

[Lucre]

The question that bothered me more since I was a small kid is 'Who created God?' If everything has a starting point and have to have a creator, then, who created God?

God is the beginning. But I suppose that's a pretty valid question, considering our human minds are unable to fathom such a tricky question, just like non-homo-sapien-creatures are unable to understand alot of things we humans do. I'll ask Him when I live out my life on earth as a human being.

God is subtle, he left the choice of 'faith' to the freewill of men. That's also why those who chose not to see His presense will not see it. Those who do, He welcomes them.

[xJadedx]

It's pretty obvious that someone like him is most likely atheist and that this theory cited in the article is probably something he believes in all along (and what a lot of other scientists believe in). This theory is nothing special or even original in and of itself. But for him to focus so much on it, and given his very recent previous claims (you know which ones), I find it a bit hard to take his claims as serious science.

The thing is, there are a lot of scientists who are atheists, and there are a good number of scientists who are religious in some sense. But most of them don't focus on it much and just go about doing their research. However, it is very easy to gain attention and create controversy if you do indeed incorporate the "science versus religion" issue into your words. So for a scientist to take a fairly straightforward theory like this one and make it into the media just doesn't seem like it was done for the sake of science. But given Hawking's status in the community, no one is going to say much about it.

[Lucre]

There are plenty of scientists who are religious, and even amongst the clergy; hence scientists being prone to atheism or at least weak in their faiths is simply not true.

[Candide]

Oh great, now I'll have to hear a lot more about this crap from the wanna-be atheist Hawking/Dawkin suck-ups around here.

[Banh Mi]

Oh great, now I'll have to hear a lot more about this crap from the wanna-be atheist Hawking/Dawkin suck-ups around here.

What kind of company do you keep.

[Dirt]

I don't think Hawkings is positing whatever he wants. I think he's positing whatever he thinks as true and hopes that somebody will prove it someday and thereby securing his legacy in the future.

[Ren Ying Ying]

Agree with you. A lot of people of science do not believe in So, I don't get this conclusion of Stephen Hawking purposely saying some random controversial thing because he can get away with it.

Stephen Hawking saying something like this is unsurprising. I thought this has always been his sentiment.

Anyway, what he said he totally safe among the science community. There's nothing to get away from. The science community will most probably support him and so will the atheist community.

I don't get this conclusion either. Some folks decide to share their religious views to the media while he decides to share his atheist views. Some folks do research (scientific or otherwise) purely for their religious beliefs and Hawkings has the right to focus on his athiest beliefs if he likes. It's all fair game. In fact, I don't even see how his statements even create any new controversy that didn't already exist...

[Candide]

What kind of company do you keep.

I work with them.

[xJadedx]

Meh, if he really was doing this for his pure scientific beliefs, then fine. But to me, paired with his most recent claims about extraterrestial life, this just doesn't seem to be anything scientifically sincere.

[Ren Ying Ying]

Meh, if he really was doing this for his pure scientific beliefs, then fine. But to me, paired with his most recent claims about extraterrestial life, this just doesn't seem to be anything scientifically sincere.

I dont really see anything wrong with his ET statements either. On a pure mathematical level, it actually makes a lot of sense. Though, I don't think he was saying that he had "scientific proof" of any known existence but rather just entertained the idea.

Still, I don't think he has anything to gain by "controversial" topics. From a media standpoint, he is the one that brings attention to the topics...not the other way around. And I would imagine that the only purpose of him brining attention to the topics is if he were truely interested in them.

[Ian Liew]

I'm a Christian and don't find his comments offensive at all. Science has always been concerned with the "how" (which is provable and tangible) and not the "why" (which, in many cases, requires faith, and which experiments cannot prove, and thankfully, so far, not disprove either). There isn't, and shouldn't be, any room for God in an objective scientific experiment and discussion on the hows of things. Once you have a motive you want to prove, science becomes merely a tool to prove what you want to believe - I mean, how many people thing butter is healthier than margarine and how many think the other way? How many believe that homosexuality is inborn (and hence it's natural and not a voluntary "sin") and how many believe that it's a choice? People want to believe something, and somehow through selective experiments manage to find the results they want. Hawking is merely stating the obvious - science hasn't proved that God exists, and I doubt it ever will unless we invent time-travel and go to biblical days and see for our own eyes like Thomas the apostle had to. Even then there'll be detractors and people who will find some way to argue against it.

If he said that science proved that God doesn't exist, then in my opinion he's either mistaken or a liar, and I'd be obliged to object. As it is, he's merely stating facts like a good scientist should. It's a scientific comment, not a theological one, and everyone should respect that.

It's also why I found George Bush's insistence that science textbooks in school state that "God created the universe" very offensive, and a really poor witness to his faith.

[Ken Cheng]

I mean, how many people thing butter is healthier than margarine and how many think the other way?

So many mornings, I sit at the table with butter knife in hand and do the whole "margarine vs. butter" debate with myself, then I say, "Screw it" and go for butter because it tastes better.

[Ian Liew]

So many mornings, I sit at the table with butter knife in hand and do the whole "margarine vs. butter" debate with myself, then I say, "Screw it" and go for butter because it tastes better.

My uncle is a doctor, and a very wise one. To all my scientific questions about which food is good/bad he smiles and sagely replies, "everything in moderation".

He probably knows that I'm looking for a particular answer to satisfy my culinary desires, and not really interested in truth. =) BUTTER!!!!