"God did not create the universe" says Hawking

[Manthor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_ ... in_hawking

God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

"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," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.

Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics -- Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic particles.

His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.

He wrote in A Brief History ... "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 latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.

"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 evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

Hawking, who is only able to speak through a computer-generated voice synthesizer, has a neuro muscular dystrophy that has progressed over the years and left him almost completely paralyzed.

He began suffering the disease in his early 20s but went on to establish himself as one of the world's leading scientific authorities, and has also made guest appearances in "Star Trek" and the cartoons "Futurama" and "The Simpsons."

Last year he announced he was stepping down as Cambridge University's Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, a position once held by Newton and one he had held since 1979.

"The Grand Design" is due to go on sale next week.

[PeZook]

I wonder when the crazy creationists will blow a gasket over this and commence with the inevitable attempts to diminish Hawking's achievements as a man of science.

Then after the man dies, they can proceed to quote him out of context and lie about his position on religion and science.

[adam_grif]

Every news site on earth has taken the one line statement about "Gravity = there is no god" then posted it, with no context. I'm sure the book will speak for itself when it's published, but people are already going crazy about how he makes no sense.

I wonder when the crazy creationists will blow a gasket over this and commence with the inevitable attempts to diminish Hawking's achievements as a man of science.

1. Go to any news website.
2. Find article reporting on this.
3. Look at comments.
4. ???
5. Profit.

[PeZook]

Yeah...no need to read comments:

Religious leaders "hit back" at Hawking
(Remember: THIS IS WAR!!!)

The original article was posted on September 2.

Religious leaders were pumped full of rage so that a new article was made and posted by September 3.

Turns out you can predict some people to a T armed with nothing but a stereotype. Man...

[Zed]

I don't see any rage in that article. I see religious leaders respectfully telling Hawking that they believe he's mistaken.

[Captain Seafort]

I don't see any rage in that article. I see religious leaders respectfully telling Hawking that they believe he's mistaken.

It's not even that - Hawking is talking about God's necessity (or lack thereof) for the existence of the universe. Williams and the others are talking about God as a philosophical concept. Their arguments don't overlap.

[PaperJack]

Hawking confirmed as 2010's best troll

[PeZook]

I don't see any rage in that article. I see religious leaders respectfully telling Hawking that they believe he's mistaken.

I picked the first article - but you have to admit, even if the religious leaders are all respectful...why exactly did they see the need to immediatelly comment on that? And, of course, the title is all combative, though that's CNN and not the bozos.

Then there's a rambling "letter to the white house" (what does Obama have to do with it, again?) and, of course, the comments.

[kouchpotato]

The comments in themselves should be scientifically studied. They are just magnificent microcosms of the full range of human stupidity.

[Zed]

That letter isn't written by a high religious dignitary, so it's fairly irrelevant to the claim that religious leaders are enraged, though. Why did they see the need to comment? They're a religious organization - they are obviously going to advocate their position. Beyond that, they would have a bunch of microphones pushed in their faces the very moment that a scientist like Hawking starts advocating atheism.

[Channel72]

Honestly, this is only interesting because Hawking, whose celebrity has granted him the popular status of "smartest man on Earth", has come out as a fully-fledged atheist. But really, this should be no surprise to anyone who's ever listened to his lectures, or read his earlier book, A Brief History of Time, where he concludes that the no-boundary proposal makes God totally unnecessary. The only difference here is that Hawking is being more emphatic about his atheism.

Secondly, his actual argument is again, nothing new, and nothing that hasn't been "refuted" by Creationists thousands of times before. He's just repeating the obvious fact that God is unnecessary because the laws of physics are enough to explain the existence of the Universe. Creationists are just going to say what they always say: "yeah, but who made the laws of physics?" And as always, it will be completely lost on them that "who made God?" is an even more valid question. Thus, the argument degenerates into an (unsuccessful) attempt to shove Occam's razor down their throats, until they admit that the God-as-first-mover hypothesis violates parsimony, whereas physics-as-first-mover doesn't. (Hint: they never admit that.)

[Kuroneko]

Secondly, his actual argument is again, nothing new, and nothing that hasn't been "refuted" by Creationists thousands of times before. He's just repeating the obvious fact that God is unnecessary because the laws of physics are enough to explain the existence of the Universe.

That doesn't seem obvious at all. What's obvious is that (1) the laws of physics adequately explain the functioning of the Universe, and (2) invoking God does nothing to improve said explanatory power. But neither of those are equivalent to explaining the existence of the Universe. It wasn't even obvious that science ever could say anything about why the Universe exists. The laws of physics are derived from the its behavior, so science appears to take it as a basic fact about the Universe that it exists, and only concerned with events in it.

The Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal is one variation of the idea that the Universe is a vacuum fluctuation, maintaining a close analogy to the way virtual particles work in quantum field theory, and potentially turning the usual order: the laws of physics are such that they produce universes. Although it's certainly not very clear how a theory in which the number of universes isn't fixed would work. (Susskind also argues that the cosmological constant is incompatible with their proposal, although I haven't looked into his argument in any detail.)

Creationists are just going to say what they always say: "yeah, but who made the laws of physics?" And as always, it will be completely lost on them that "who made God?" is an even more valid question.

You're right, and it's unfortunate that the article takes this slant in the first place. I think a much more fascinating aspect of the issue is the possibility that physics may go deeper than what we recognize as space and time.

[Kanastrous]

I think one problem is that the moment Hawking mentions 'laws' such a gravitation a lot of people will immediately ask Well, who *set up* those laws? Musta been some kinda God! I'm basically an atheist myself but I think that people asking the question is kind of inevitable.

[Metahive]

Hawking confirmed as 2010's best troll

Troll? For stating the blindingly obvious? Face it, in the realm of modern cosmology there's simply no demand for an anthropomorphic bronze-age deity to postulate as mythological "first cause".

[Skylon]

I think one problem is that the moment Hawking mentions 'laws' such a gravitation a lot of people will immediately ask Well, who *set up* those laws? Musta been some kinda God! I'm basically an atheist myself but I think that people asking the question is kind of inevitable.

Beat me to it. I was just going to post, jokingly "God created the law of Gravity."

Or, let's just take it to another extreme...gravity is God.

[Iosef Cross]

Hawking confirmed as 2010's best troll

Troll? For stating the blindingly obvious? Face it, in the realm of modern cosmology there's simply no demand for an anthropomorphic bronze-age deity to postulate as mythological "first cause".

It is quite obvious that assuming "god" doesn't help to explain anything. It it also quite obvious that Hawking has become a type of celebrity "scientist" with publishes books with bombastic statements in the cover.

He wants to sell books and make money.

[Kanastrous]

I'd like to know how you underwrite the quotes you put around scientist.

Do you mean to suggest that Hawking is *not* legitimately a scientist?

[Channel72]

It it also quite obvious that Hawking has become a type of celebrity "scientist" with publishes books with bombastic statements in the cover.

Like what? His earlier books, A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell are hardly "bombastic", nor do they focus on debunking theism. He's not like Richard Dawkins. Hawking has written that he finds God unnecessary, but theism has hardly been the focus of any of his earlier books.

[Metahive]

It is quite obvious that assuming "god" doesn't help to explain anything. It it also quite obvious that Hawking has become a type of celebrity "scientist" with publishes books with bombastic statements in the cover.

He wants to sell books and make money.

Stating the obvious conclusion to the available evidence now counts as a cheap attempt to stir controversy for a quick buck? I don't know to whom this is more insulting, Hawking or the people considering his statement "controversial".

[Ilya Muromets]

It is quite obvious that assuming "god" doesn't help to explain anything. It it also quite obvious that Hawking has become a type of celebrity "scientist" with publishes books with bombastic statements in the cover.

He wants to sell books and make money.

Have you even read his books beyond the cover or the cover leaf, Iosef? Because this sounds like the kind of sweeping generalization some idiot who doesn't know a damn thing about someone's work calling said work (and said someone) stupid like you see among frothing Internet tards every so often.

Here are the titles of some of his more well-known books catered for popular reading. Pray, tell me, which of these is "bombastic."

# A Brief History of Time (straight and to the point. I s this bombastic?)
# Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays (dry and technical sounding, how bombastic indeed!)
# The Universe in a Nutshell (Bombastic because he dares to put the whole universe "in a nutshell"? Hah, by that logic anyone who uses "in a nutshell" to cap a shortened version of something is a grandiose asshole)

Unless you mean The Theory of Everything, because how dare a man presume to say that his book explains everythi-- oh, wait, New Millennium Press published that without his express permission, and Hawking even went so far as to file a complaint with the FTC to prevent it from being published.