# Did God Create The Universe? Stephen Hawking



## Ken Morgan (Aug 10, 2011)




----------



## MAist25 (Aug 10, 2011)

I actually watched this show the other night and it was very interesting. However, it only depicts one man's theories so you can't take everything said on the program to be fact, because it is, like I already said, only a theory. Definitely a very cool show to watch though and it does get you thinking.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 10, 2011)

Yes only one man&#8217;s theory, but he is arguably one of the top men in his field, thus has all the credentials to give validity to the theory.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 10, 2011)

I prefer Sagans Theory (Im only really saying that to clarify that i dont like this idea THAT much, as much as i just enjoyed watching it. Dont get the wrong idea, im not trying to debate anything.), but this was quite interesting to watch nevertheless.

Come to think of it, ive not seen Hawking do too much recently... Ive always liked his work.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

I am humbled by the genius of those like Aristarchus. How satisfying those moments must have been.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 10, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> I prefer Sagans Theory (Im only really saying that to clarify that i dont like this idea THAT much, as much as i just enjoyed watching it. Dont get the wrong idea, im not trying to debate anything.), but this was quite interesting to watch nevertheless.
> 
> Come to think of it, ive not seen Hawking do too much recently... Ive always liked his work.



Carl has been gone for 15 years now. Imagine what his view would be now based on the new data and research.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 10, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Carl has been gone for 15 years now. Imagine what his view would be now based on the new data and research.


We shall never know


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> I prefer Sagans Theory (Im only really saying that to clarify that i dont like this idea THAT much, as much as i just enjoyed watching it. Dont get the wrong idea, im not trying to debate anything.), but this was quite interesting to watch nevertheless.
> 
> Come to think of it, ive not seen Hawking do too much recently... Ive always liked his work.



"Sagan's Theory"  ?


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> "Sagan's Theory"  ?


Carl Sagans Theory regarding God, The Universe, and Evolution.
You should perhaps read in to it


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Carl Sagans Theory regarding God, The Universe, and Evolution.
> You should perhaps read in to it



I think I know what you are referring to. Yeah, his ideas, while I wouldn't say, _I believe, _are very _compelling_.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I think I know what you are referring to. Yeah, his ideas, while I wouldn't say, _I believe, _are very _compelling_.


Personally, i dont believe any theories. Science ought continue to Skeptically interrogate the Universe, but we can never prove one way or another, the existance of a 'God'.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 10, 2011)

I don't think anyone is trying to disprove god, I think science is just moving forward and as more becomes known, old barriers and bias falls away.


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 10, 2011)

Fantastic show...he wraps it up fairly logically which is nice.

I do not entirely agree however in that I think there is a lot more to the equation than simply saying negative energy is in the space between galaxies though this may be the case.

It still does not explain the initial movement of that first piece of energy away from its associated piece of anti-energy since either that happened by magic or some other force acted upon it to move it.

As such we are still a long way off putting our fingers on the God juice.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> So where did all this energy and space come from?
> 
> "Space and Energy were *spontaneously created *in an event we now call the Big Bang".
> 
> I mean seriously, after all that work to just fall back on a freaking cop-out, this argument is no different than saying God made it. The only difference is time, make the Big Bang soooo long ago and then people will believe it.



Hahaha WHAT?! Both of those claims are WAAAAAAY different.


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Hahaha WHAT?! Both of those claims are WAAAAAAY different.



Not really, they are both saying that a magical force Spontaneously created something.

Hawkins goes on to show that he wasn't serious with that statement but he does not tackle the problem of what force caused energy and it's counterpart to seperate(come into existance) in the first place.

Science still has a long way to go.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> Not really, they are both saying that a magical force Spontaneously created something.


I understand your position. But you are wrong. What the scientific method says is "Physical evidence and observation show that matter and energy sprang forth about 13.7 Billion years ago. "

They do not say they know what force happened. Scientific models 'describe' nature. They don't necessarily 'explain' it. We have never seen an electron. We don't really 'know what it is'. We only have 'models that describe how it appears to behave'. 
Do you see the difference?


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 10, 2011)

Calm down, Gents 

Theres the possibility that the Big Bang was just a Neutron Star exploding, or a previous Big Crunch. Or Dark Matter. There are so many THEORIES.
And even if you do conclude that it couldnt just happen of its own accord, therefore there must be a God, i can then also say; Who or What Created God. Because if a Sentient Cosmos Controlling Entity can exist, could not a Cosmos?

There is no sense proclaiming True or False when neither can yet be proven. You can Theorise.


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 10, 2011)

Naturally there are countless differences, I say they are the same because in the end both are flying in the face of logic with the idea that "it just happened".

Actually there are two potential trains of thought each of which could bear fruit but so far have not.

1. We find an energy source not limited by the restrictions on matter (ie: psychic energy) and it was this energy which pushed Matter and Antimatter apart.

2. We find an energy source not limited by the restrictions on matter (ie: psychic energy) and it "created" Matter and therefore without the need for an Antimatter counterpart.

Either way Science is unable to push deep enough into the way things work to explain the apparent "Spontaneous creation" of anything.



Yes, Fangjian I get your meaning. I merely took this stance because at 6:10 S01E01Part 3 it was presented that way. Granted it was as a joke.


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 10, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Calm down, Gents



It's okay nobody's getting upset(I hope) we are just playing.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 10, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> It's okay nobody's getting upset(I hope) we are just playing.


Oh, i know. But thats how these Topics usually start. Im just making sure we all stay nice and Neutral...

:lurk:


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Theres the possibility that the Big Bang was just a Neutron Star exploding, or a previous Big Crunch. Or Dark Matter. There are so many THEORIES.
> And even if you do conclude that it couldnt just happen of its own accord, therefore there must be a God, i can then also say; Who or What Created God. Because if a Sentient Cosmos Controlling Entity can exist, could not a Cosmos?


1.I am unfamiliar with this Neutron Star idea. I know what  a Neutron Star is and it's not connected to Big Bang Cosmology. Please provide a link if I am mistaken. Dark Matter is also 'not the Big Bang'. 
2. Your CAPITALIZATION of the word 'theory' leads me to believe that you are unaware of the scientific use of the word. It is not 'a guess'. It is 'a model that is used to describe a phenomena and make accurate predictions' Like if I told you :
_
-Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them._ -

This is not a 'theory' in the manner you are, I think, describing. 





> There is no sense proclaiming True or False when neither can yet be proven. You can Theorise.


 Right. Nothing is 'proven' in science. Only models used to describe nature and make accurate predictions


Cyriacus said:


> Oh, i know. But thats how these Topics usually start. Im just making sure we all stay nice and Neutral...
> 
> :lurk:


Imagine Spock is reading my responses to you. This is normally the attitude in which I am writing. Never arrogance or anything.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> 1.I am unfamiliar with this Neutron Star idea. I know what  a Neutron Star is and it's not connected to Big Bang Cosmology. Please provide a link if I am mistaken. Dark Matter is also 'not the Big Bang'.
> 
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#Structure
> I cannot remember who Theorised its relevance, but the theory went something along the lines of their not being a Big Bang, but rather a Huge Neutron Star Explosion which we misunderstood.
> ...



Subjectiveness! The manner in which people read things.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Aug 10, 2011)

I suppose the answer depends upon in whom you place your trust.


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 10, 2011)

Mark Jordan said:


> I suppose the answer depends upon in whom you place your trust.



I place my trust in the Ninja Master.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Mark Jordan said:


> I suppose the answer depends upon in whom you place your trust.



Hmmm. Maybe for some things. But not when interrogating nature (generally) I don't think. The reality of nature just *is*. It doesn't matter whom you place your trust, really. Some unfortunate people in Afghanistan have been told that 'if you strap this to your chest and go to that checkpoint, you will come back to life'. But the laws of nature just *are* and it doesn't matter what they believed.


----------



## Carol (Aug 11, 2011)

The language must be taken in to account.

Example:  *fracture*. In general English, the term can be used to describe breaking or destruction (fractured confidence), or it can represent a division (fractured process) or it can describe exceeding the limits or rules (fractured boundary).   

However, if my blood pressure is off the charts, my doctor does not tell me I have "fractured blood pressure".   If my doctor tells me that I have a fracture, he's referring to  something very specific:  the physical breaking or rupture of living  tissue. This is the medical definition of the term fracture.

In general English, the word *theory *refers to many things, it can mean a conclusion, it can also mean speculation and conjecture.   

However, in a scientific application, a theory is a principle derived from a systematic analysis of a set of facts.  It does not mean "scientific guesswork".  

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

1*:* the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2*:* abstract thought *:* speculation

3*:* the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music _theory_>

4a*:* a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the _theory_ that all children want to learn> b*:* an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances &#8212;often used in the phrase _in theory_<in _theory_, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5*:* a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave _theory_ of light>

6a*:* a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation 

b*:* an unproved assumption *:* conjecture 

c*:* a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <_theory_ of equations>


----------



## Carol (Aug 11, 2011)

This is the title page of an 1885 Cornell University text:  The Mathmatical Theory of Electricity and Magnetism.  







The entire text is online, for anyone interested:  http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=math;idno=03160001


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 13, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> I prefer Sagans Theory (Im only really saying that to clarify that i dont like this idea THAT much, as much as i just enjoyed watching it. Dont get the wrong idea, im not trying to debate anything.), but this was quite interesting to watch nevertheless.
> 
> *Come to think of it, ive not seen Hawking do too much recently*... Ive always liked his work.



He's had a lot of personal problems which seems to have stopped any recent work, we haven't heard or seen anything of him for a long time now. I think this documentary is probably the first thing he's done for over a decade, maybe more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411781/Hawkings-nurse-reveals-surprised-marriage-over.html


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

It's all theories until we can go to the place of the big bang and at least take a look.  Even then, we will know so much more about everything that all of the current theories may be as relevant as the fact that the earth was flat.  At this point in our scientific development, isn't it quite like wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  I mean, they can't even explain global warming or cooling to the satisfaction of everyone, how can you discuss something that happened before man, and we can't even investigate firsthand?


----------



## SensibleManiac (Aug 15, 2011)

> It's all theories until we can go to the place of the big bang and at least take a look.



Actually it's not "all theories," as you put it, there are facts that can be studied.



> Even then, we will know so much more about everything that all of the current theories may be as relevant as the fact that the earth was flat.



The Earth was never flat so that is not a fact.



> At this point in our scientific development, isn't it quite like wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  I mean, they can't even explain global warming or cooling to the satisfaction of everyone, how can you discuss something that happened before man, and we can't even investigate firsthand?



No it isn't considering that angels aren't real. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not.
As for "they" explaining global warming, I understand it quite well, that doesn't mean I know everything about it, nor do I have to in order to understand certain factors involved and know the facts from the fiction.
As for understanding things that came before man, there are many that we understand quite well, the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, dinosaurs, which were on and disappeared from the Earth long before man showed up.


I just wish that people who choose to comment on science and nature get the facts straight before attemping to discuss something of which they have no clue.

How about we start a thread on basket weaving and I attempt to tell everyone how to weave baskets using chopsticks, threads like this make just about as much sense when people who have no clue chime in.
BTW I'm only joking about the basket weaving thread, I wouldn't take part in the discussion, after all, I wouldn't want to look like an idiot...


----------



## seasoned (Aug 16, 2011)

Everyone will get the chance to answer this question with unquestioned certainty. The only problem is they will be dead. The dead don't speak you say, Scientifically you are correct, not to us living anyway. There are some things that are simply not for us to know.....


----------



## SensibleManiac (Aug 16, 2011)

> There are some things that are simply not for us to know.....



Says who?

Considering that it is impossible not to question on the most basic level of human thought, I find it highly doubtful that there is anything that is "not for us to know."


----------



## ETinCYQX (Aug 18, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> Not really, they are both saying that a magical force Spontaneously created something.Hawkins goes on to show that he wasn't serious with that statement but he does not tackle the problem of what force caused energy and it's counterpart to seperate(come into existance) in the first place.Science still has a long way to go.


I don't actually disbelieve the idea of a creator as kind of a catalyst, but the way the world formed and the way life has evolved is pretty well solidified as far as I'm concerned.  

Essentially what I'm saying is that divine intervention may be the "why", but science has explained the "how" several times over.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 19, 2011)

Hmmm, just some random thoughts on the matter as I was reading through this....

1) If the Big Bang just "happened" and it was all from a tiny source of energy that exploded outward, aren't we all ONE from that source?
2) If God created us all as his children aren't we all ONE from that source?
3) If God chose to use the Big Bang as to "how" he created the universe aren't we all ONE from that source?

So, no matter what your view wouldn't most of our time be better spent in recognizing our oneness and what that really means and not always finding ways to tear that away?

Just some random thoughts from someone who woke up sick and with no coffee yet this morning.....


----------



## cdunn (Aug 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It's all theories until we can go to the place of the big bang and at least take a look. Even then, we will know so much more about everything that all of the current theories may be as relevant as the fact that the earth was flat. At this point in our scientific development, isn't it quite like wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I mean, they can't even explain global warming or cooling to the satisfaction of everyone, how can you discuss something that happened before man, and we can't even investigate firsthand?



Well, funny thing about the big bang. If it's correct, it took place right where I'm sitting, . Right where you're sitting. At CERN. On the moon. In orbit around Alpha centauri. It happened at the star that emitted GRB 090423 with its cataclysmic death, thirteen billion years ago. 

The way we test it is to do the math and make predictions. And when we take the current standard cosmological model, replete with the big bang, inflation, the standard model particle theory, relativity, dark matter, and the other modifications and attachments - and out churns the visible universe. So we roll with it. _Because it works_.


----------



## nocturnus (Aug 22, 2011)

I find it funny that people will argue their case against the Big Bang with the constant argument "But it's only a theory!".  I wonder if they feel the same way about, oh, I don't know, the theory of Gravity?!?  
Maybe then they could float away and take The Magic Sky Man ideas with them.


----------



## JohnEdward (Aug 22, 2011)

We can go with Socrates' view on reality, and say does it really matter we are all going to die anyway Zen approach. I think Hawkings by adding fuel to the fire on the on going debate God vs. Science since the Scientific Revolution is trying to be one of the greats like the father's of the Scientific Revolution. Ambition, recognition, are a couple of the top things highly sought after in the human experience, and what bigger prize is there is to have the answer, be the authority to the ultimate question. And Hawkings isn't the only one claiming the answer, we see it too in religion with the position of every pastor, preacher, reverend, mister and Pope. 

The great debate exists as it should because it offers many benefits to mankind and sadly sufferings too. It is had to image life without the knowledge and advancements gained without the Scientific Revolutions to expand and understand the world around us.  But this doesn't mean there should abandonment that something greater than us exists. Because that is as plausible as any scientific theory. Both sides of the debate forget the simple truth, as it stands now, we just don't know how the universe came to be and us with it. Thus, the thing innately part of the human experience is having complete trust or confidence in someone or something what ever it maybe. Yes, science like religion works on faith.

If everything we know started in a big bang or a whimper, be it at the hand of God/ god(s)  thus giving a definite answer isn't going to happen in my lifetime. Not to burst bubbles, but all three middle eastern monotheistic religions for thousands of years have been waiting for an important someone to arrive and at this point no one has arrived. Science still needs to prove the big bang, randomness or something to explain it all. Yep, we are still in a holding pattern on this issue as I see it. And it will be a long time before that changes, if at all. Until then I look to the twinkling stars in infinite space and I know what they are. All the while having a intuitional sense and thinking that there is a possibility something exists greater than myself to be possible. And that is very assuring.


----------

