FH news Steven Hawking reverses opinion on God!

[Scouse]

According to Doctor Steven Hawking the universe spontaneously creates itself!

And:

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

Quite a reverse from the Brief History of Time, where he couldn't rule god out...

...in light of new evidence he's ruled him out!


Who says science is a "religion" now eh? What with the changing opinions and lack of belief involved

 

[old.Tohtori]

Don't think science ever was called a religion

Then again, that is a theory of one man, so not exactly proof either

 

[nath]

I'm as anti-religion as the next guy who has more than two braincells to rub together, but to be fair this is just one guy - he doesn't encompass all of science.

In his 1988 bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the Universe.

That's really not how I read it (yes, I have read A Brief History of Time because I'm ever so clever). He didn't rule it out but the above quote seems to suggest a begrudging acceptance that God was involved.

 

[Scouse]

Don't think science ever was called a religion

I've gotta find the quote where you call it that...

...by "gotta" I mean, cba, tho

That's really not how I read it

It's not how I read it either. But this is the beeb, remember?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well even if, i would dispute the existence(or there lack of) of god would refute the statement. God does not equal religion afterall

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

As soon as someone discovers a Babel fish its all over for god anyway.

 

[cHodAX]

Hawking is a lying bastard, I bet he doesn't even need that wheelchair and is just going for the sympathy vote!

The Daily Mash - CREATION DID NOT INVOLVE CHOCOLATE, CLAIMS HAWKING

 

[Zenith.UK]

That's really not how I read it (yes, I have read A Brief History of Time because I'm ever so clever). He didn't rule it out but the above quote seems to suggest a begrudging acceptance that God was involved.

The final sentence of BHoT shows that Prof Hawking is christian, not that he thinks the universe was made by an almighty.

However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God.

And I have BHoT as well nath. "Universe in a Nutshell" too.
Cosmology, gravity and quantum theory are hobby interests of mine along with particle physics.

 

[Talivar]

I always thought it more of a reflection on how if we knew how it all truly worked we would be like gods ourself in the way that we know all the answers.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Why do they keep on changing the article?

But linking the law of gravity with a self creating universe is a bit odd.

 

[old.user4556]

In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

 

[rynnor]

I'm an atheist but I still dont see how Hawking can say that gravity created the universe since it still requires mass and where did that mass come from?

I agree with the big bang theory but what none of it actually explains is what actually caused the big bang - even the paralel dimensions theory gets you no further towards what caused our universe to exist.

These questions are really metaphysics rather than physics so its a bit stupid for scientists to start wandering into them - I'm sure he did it for publicity for his new book tbh.

 

[Scouse]

I think he reckons that there's an explanation for the big bang - the spontaneous creation of matter thing's all involved.

TBFH I think it's a press overhype thang - and good for the book. But lets face it - whatever the motivations: There is no 'god', eh?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually we had a nice talk about this in another place and i proposed a theory to prove 'god'. In a word;

Misdescription.

Let's say person A prays to god for strength(example) to get through a hard time.

They feel that the prayer is working and as such, get through the hard time.

There may or may not be a 'god', as the common belief has god described, but the belief/prayer in itself does give what people pray from this god.

So the prayer/belief becomes the god.

If god is(atleast expected to be) someone who gives strength through hard times, and prayer/belief gives that, then the prayer/belief is god. Because if something does as is described, it is true.

So in essence; god does exist, just not as a tangible object, but in the form of the belief/prayer that provides what god is asked to provide.

Though mroe on topic; has the hawk king said "there's no god"?

 

[DaGaffer]

Actually we had a nice talk about this in another place and i proposed a theory to prove 'god'. In a word;

Misdescription.

Let's say person A prays to god for strength(example) to get through a hard time.

They feel that the prayer is working and as such, get through the hard time.

There may or may not be a 'god', as the common belief has god described, but the belief/prayer in itself does give what people pray from this god.

So the prayer/belief becomes the god.

If god is(atleast expected to be) someone who gives strength through hard times, and prayer/belief gives that, then the prayer/belief is god. Because if something does as is described, it is true.

So in essence; god does exist, just not as a tangible object, but in the form of the belief/prayer that provides what god is asked to provide.

You seem to be describing a mental illness.

Though mroe on topic; has the hawk king said "there's no god"?

Actually, he said that maths shows there's no requirement for God (previously he'd said God could, but not necessarily did, account for creating the initial conditions for the Big Bang, now he's saying the Big Bang was self-starting), which isn't quite the same thing.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You seem to be describing a mental illness.

Not really, the god in question differs, but the result is the same.

But hey, good to see another open mind!

Actually, he said that maths shows there's no requirement for God (previously he'd said God could, but not necessarily did, account for creating the initial conditions for the Big Bang, now he's saying the Big Bang was self-starting), which isn't quite the same thing.

Not really answering the question i asked though, what you said is pretty much obvious on the thread.

 

[throdgrain]

Who gives a fuck?

Look at this pigeon. Does it care?

 

[old.Tohtori]

It might, it might not, you don't know!

 

[Scouse]

You seem to be describing a mental illness.

That's what I'd have said, if it didn't also describe the placebo effect almost exactly.

So, basically, god's a placebo. I can live with that

 

[old.Tohtori]

Nah, explained that also(after someone said it). It doesn't mean "god is a placebo".

Not disbuting or agreeing with that statement, since it's not relevant to it.

It means that god isn't in the divine being, but the effect that god is asked to provide, comes from the act of believing.

Think Thorwyn proposed i mean that it's kind of a self fulfilling construct, where belief becomes reality(metaphrase).

The belief brings what god is expected to bring, ergo god is the belief and belief = real.

Just forget your "sky fairy" things and listen to what is said, not take it into some namecalling contest simply because there's a single word that's a problem for you

 

[Scouse]

It means that god isn't in the divine being, but the effect that god is asked to provide, comes from the act of believing...

...The belief brings what god is expected to bring, ergo god is the belief and belief = real.

You can believe all you like that god is going to bring you a bike, bring world peace, save your mum from cancer, put an end to war etc, but it's not going to happen no matter how much you believe in it.

Belief = lying to yourself in the face of evidence.


At best belief brings about a placebo effect. That's the most useful thing it's ever done. And mostly that's belief in a non-religious sense....

 

[old.Tohtori]

Did i say that god brings you a bike? Did i theorise that praying makes god end wars? In fact; did i even say that there's a god in the meaning that is commonly accepted? No on all three, get a cookie.

You can also keep on saying that god is a placebo, but it's not the point i made.

I'm not going to bash my head against the wall when you always bring it back to "But mooom! God isn't real!!"

 

[Bugz]

Actually we had a nice talk about this in another place and i proposed a theory to prove 'god'. In a word;

Misdescription.

Let's say person A prays to god for strength(example) to get through a hard time.

They feel that the prayer is working and as such, get through the hard time.

There may or may not be a 'god', as the common belief has god described, but the belief/prayer in itself does give what people pray from this god.

So the prayer/belief becomes the god.

If god is(atleast expected to be) someone who gives strength through hard times, and prayer/belief gives that, then the prayer/belief is god. Because if something does as is described, it is true.

So in essence; god does exist, just not as a tangible object, but in the form of the belief/prayer that provides what god is asked to provide.

Though mroe on topic; has the hawk king said "there's no god"?

That is a belief system, adapted via religion to include a omnipotent force.

Stephen Hawkings is talking about God in the sense of something that creates, rather than something which affects your beliefs.

 

[old.Tohtori]

There's no omnipotent force involved in what i said. There's no wish granting being. There's nothing but the human mind giving strength to itself and that being the accurate measure of the focus of prayer. Ergo; god.

Mine was an answer to Scouse saying "there's no god", simply offered a theory on god existing.

Though i'd still like to know if Hawking has denyed the existance of god.

 

[Bugz]

No - what you said is a belief system. Religion has adapted omnipotent force to give it a wider breadth.

Either way - I really don't see why it matters. Your comments were nothing more than common sense & plays nothing into the real question of there being something "God-like" at the heart of our existence.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No - what you said is a belief system. Religion has adapted omnipotent force to give it a wider breadth.

No, it's not. It has nothing to do with religion either.

And when it comes to "why it matters", it's a post, it was an answer to "there's no god".

 

[Scouse]

Cherry picking your example from one of very few instances where a placebo effect could possibly have a positive benefit is just that - cherry picking.

It's certainly not a comment on god existing.

Replace the prayer for "strength" with something tangible eh? Like a bike. Or a bigger dick. Or something that can be measured at any rate

 

[old.Tohtori]

That would be your problem, praying for a bigger dick or some such isn't exactly what praying is about.

But since you anyway think it's about a placebo effect and NOT a comment about god existing, which i clearly stated it is, i can see you have your blinders on now.

Can't believe you argue "It's not a comment on X" when the comment states it's about X

 

[Bugz]

If god is(atleast expected to be) someone who gives strength through hard times, and prayer/belief gives that, then the prayer/belief is god. Because if something does as is described, it is true.

So your saying that if two different 'objects' both provide the same benefit, they are the same and we can interchange them? Baring in mind also that you said before:

There may or may not be a 'god', as the common belief has god described, but the belief/prayer in itself does give what people pray from this god.

So belief stems from 'god' but god is also interchangeable with belief? In which case, we can say god doesn't exist and it is all belief?

Don't reply to this post directly. Just explain your theory again in sentences that make sense and aren't ambiguous.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So belief stems from 'god' but god is also interchangeable with belief? In which case, we can say god doesn't exist and it is all belief?

No. I'm saying the belief IS the god. It's not that hard to get. It's in the first word; misdefinition.

There's no mention of a spaghetti monster or any supernatural being in that theory. There's no word of a being that is the being people pray to.

It makes sense and it's not ambiguous, maybe you need tor read it, not skim it.

Look, it's very very simple;

- Prayer/belief is to ask for X.
- Prayer/belief gives you X. (like strength to get through(no bikes and bigger dicks don't come true )
- Prayer/belief is the thing that gives you X and as such, prayer/belief is giving the same thing that your prayer target is asked to give.
- Prayer/belief is the god.

Definition wrong.