Evidence for God from Science

From his upcoming book:

"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."

While this is just a quote, I'd be interested to know how Hawking proves this.

Also, of course, he has to answer as to why there are laws of physics in the first place, and where the laws came from.

He is proposing the coming into existence of the universe as an uncaused event essentially...breaking rank with the scientific method as there is no proof anywhere of something coming from nothing.

I am also interested to know how he accounts for the disparity between quantum gravity and classic (relativistic) gravity, as at some point during his proposed process the universe had to be smaller than the limits of the classic laws of physics.

Guess I will have to buy the book.

"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,"

Wow, this guy went from genius to moron at the speed of light.
Because there is a law (already existing) such as gravity, the universe (an exisiting thing) can and will create itself from nothing.
Just examining this statement displays poor logic, reason, and myriad of other problems.
If there is nothing, then there is no universe to create itself. No gravity to induce spontaneity.

It is an interesting question Jlay...can or do any of the physical laws exist prior to the existence of anything? It seems totally illogical to even propose that. Hawking has to show the ontology of pre-existence of anything...another logical fallacy.

Is Hawking stepping into the same trap that Dawkins did, showing that having a great scientific mind does not prevent one from demonstrating blatant stupidity when it comes to philosophy?

"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."

I wonder why we don't see examples of this today. If something were to come from nothing, then that would lead me to believe his theory would not be bound to any laws as we see it. Why would this be applied to the universe only? Why do we not see things on earth just appear?

Color me confused at that quote. I guess people assume that just because a guy is a scientist he's going to do well with philosophy.. of course Dawkins proved otherwise.

This just seems silly, it seems so strange that quotes like this pass as "science" while creationists are ridiculed. Maybe I shouldn't judge before I read, but it's not looking good for Hawking imo. It goes to show the ridiculous lengths to which some will go to avoid bringing up God. No evidence? Doesn't matter, you can just assume it was magic! Everything that EVERYONE for all of history has observed is actually wrong, something CAN come from nothing, because Hawking said so!

Existence is evidence of something. Without something there is no potential for anything. Whether it be a force, or a thing.

Gravity is merely a force we observe and measure. It does not exist in and of itself. At least, not that I'm aware.

August wrote:From his upcoming book:

"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."

While this is just a quote, I'd be interested to know how Hawking proves this.

Also, of course, he has to answer as to why there are laws of physics in the first place, and where the laws came from.

He is proposing the coming into existence of the universe as an uncaused event essentially...breaking rank with the scientific method as there is no proof anywhere of something coming from nothing.

I am also interested to know how he accounts for the disparity between quantum gravity and classic (relativistic) gravity, as at some point during his proposed process the universe had to be smaller than the limits of the classic laws of physics.

Guess I will have to buy the book.

Oh yes.. According to Hawking, we are an accident.

"So how did life begin? Answer. The most plausible answer is we are an "accident". According to Hawking, "Just by chance some molecules bumped into each other at random until finally one formed that could copy itself, then began the slow process of evolution that led to all the extraordinary diversity of life on earth. Life seems to be simply what matter does given the right conditions and enough time. I think that life is probably quite common throughout the universe, but that's another tale altogether. As life developed it changed the planet on which it was born, altering the very fabric of the earth. After 4.5 billion years, the human race arrived on the scene" -Stephen Hawking.

More here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=34309

How does he get to that conclusion? Faith. This is not science at all.. It's based on a religious philosophy. Again Hawkings says evolution (or accidents) is the "most plausible" answer.. This is not THE answer, it's just the one with the most weight. (based on philosophical premises)

Gman wrote:[....Oh yes.. According to Hawking, we are an accident.

"So how did life begin? Answer. The most plausible answer is we are an "accident". According to Hawking, "Just by chance some molecules bumped into each other at random until finally one formed that could copy itself, then began the slow process of evolution that led to all the extraordinary diversity of life on earth. Life seems to be simply what matter does given the right conditions and enough time. I think that life is probably quite common throughout the universe, but that's another tale altogether. As life developed it changed the planet on which it was born, altering the very fabric of the earth. After 4.5 billion years, the human race arrived on the scene" -Stephen Hawking.

More here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=34309

How does he get to that conclusion? Faith. This is not science at all.. It's based on a religious philosophy. Again Hawkings says evolution (or accidents) is the "most plausible" answer.. This is not THE answer, it's just the one with the most weight. (based on philosophical premises)

Where did the first molecules come from?
-
-
-

Interesting. Years ago Hawkings conjectured that a theory of everything was forthcoming in 20 years and at that time we'd either understand the mind of God or prove his non-existance.

We're well past that time ... no closer to such a theory and yet Hawkings claims to have determined the non-existance of God. That would seem to indicate to me that Hawkings is responding either from disappointment or frustration. I haven't read the new book however. I have read his old ones. Hawking's opinions in this regard carry no more weight than any man's.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Interesting. Years ago Hawkings conjectured that a theory of everything was forthcoming in 20 years and at that time we'd either understand the mind of God or prove his non-existance.

We're well past that time ... no closer to such a theory and yet Hawkings claims to have determined the non-existance of God. That would seem to indicate to me that Hawkings is responding either from disappointment or frustration. I haven't read the new book however. I have read his old ones. Hawking's opinions in this regard carry no more weight than any man's.

Bart, I believe Hawking's in his recent book "The Theory of Everything" waffles on the subject greatly. He certainly goes back and forth on the subject in this book, in a way seeing the way of a designer, then denying it. This is the forward in the book by Marcelo Gleiser PHD.

"A universe of being, where no change ever happens, is a
self-contained entity that needs no creator, while a universe
with time and thus with a singularity always has room for God.
So, God or no God? There is no resolution for this enigma, at
least for now. However, Hawking admits that science can only
go so far in explaining everything. Even in a universe where
time is imaginary, "[God] still had the freedom to choose the
laws that the universe obeyed." Science, at least as it exists now,
cannot breach this limitation. There is nothing new here. In fact,
this is an old philosophical dilemma, known as the problem
of the First Cause. If everything with a beginning has a cause,
then what caused the universe? Although science got much
closer to the actual moment of creation, it still can't move all
the way into it. Religions get away with this by making use of
supernatural arguments such as "God exists outside time and
hence is uncreated and uncaused." It is quite hard to argue with
statements like this while sticking to naturalist (as opposed
to supernaturalist) reasoning. So, the limitation of science, at
least from the point of view of understanding the origin of the
universe, is that it can't cheat itself. In my opinion, it is best to
admit that science is a narrative we create to describe Nature,
and as such has no obligation or commitment to explain what
is beyond its jurisdiction. Whatever theory we come up with, it
will necessarily rely on a scientific framework that makes use of
hypotheses, mathematics, and a handful of fundamental physical
laws. Asking science to answer nonscientific questions forces
it into a defensive position which is completely unwarranted.
Instead, we should be in awe of all that science has accomplished
in only four hundred years, thanks to a large extent to minds
such as Hawkins." Forward Theory of Everything" pg. 9

B. W. wrote:

Gman wrote:[....Oh yes.. According to Hawking, we are an accident.

"So how did life begin? Answer. The most plausible answer is we are an "accident". According to Hawking, "Just by chance some molecules bumped into each other at random until finally one formed that could copy itself, then began the slow process of evolution that led to all the extraordinary diversity of life on earth. Life seems to be simply what matter does given the right conditions and enough time. I think that life is probably quite common throughout the universe, but that's another tale altogether. As life developed it changed the planet on which it was born, altering the very fabric of the earth. After 4.5 billion years, the human race arrived on the scene" -Stephen Hawking.

More here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=34309

How does he get to that conclusion? Faith. This is not science at all.. It's based on a religious philosophy. Again Hawkings says evolution (or accidents) is the "most plausible" answer.. This is not THE answer, it's just the one with the most weight. (based on philosophical premises)

Where did the first molecules come from?
-
-
-

Big Bang, time, gravity, and matter... God? Not really sure.

Dr. Ross is speaking on this issue now.
Use the "Listen Live" link to the left (in light blue).
http://www.kkla.com/LocalHosts/4/

Wow, I really didn't see this one coming. Haven't scientists tried to use this idea before? Let's see if any of you all plan on reading Hawking's book let me know what kind of evidence he uses to back up this claim. I remember William Lane Craig saying during the time when Richard Dawkins was real popular that origionaly before Dawkins came along Stephen Hawking with his imaginary time ideas were some of the most absurd things that have been said by scientists, but Craig said since then, Dawkins has surpassed Hawking. But now with this new idea from Hawking, he may retake his place. But anyway, if there is anything to this turns out to hold any water, let me know. Thanks and God bless.

Its quite annoying when I bring this stuff up and the idiotic claims made by Hawkins. Its amazing how delusional some of the atheist are and its always the same predictable reply.



"You just don't understand it! Hes a scientist! You don't know what you're talking about! The science behind it is real"

You don't need to tell the truth to explain something.

Not to say his statement isn't consistent with some sciences and scientific theories, or that all the observations of those sciences are inconsistent, but I do believe the interpretations sometimes are. Science is a measurement that calculates using certain rules, and standards. Nature is a series of different, dynamic machines that go by their own rules, and could honestly care less about what scientists think of it. Some observations are correct, but a lot turn out from time to time to be inaccurate.

It's like trying to measure a tree's dimensions in order to figure out where it came from, and you've either never heard of a seed, seen what it does, or the concept is utterly ridiculous to your sensibilities, and you're using the Metric System. The tree will grow, and change, but you won't have an idea of where it came from just by using a measuring tape and looking at it. Probably not the best analogy, but I can't think of a better one.

Now, that isn't to say I think the beliefs and interpretations that some scientists have conflict within themselves, but to reiterate it's like trying to explain a surrealist painting. Bloody near impossible, because it's so different and "random" from conventional artwork and there's so little to relate to that makes sense to a conventional mind- just like how science alone can only understand most of what can be related to on Earth and nearby.

Also, I know this might seem kind of hard in a while, but please don't resort to defaming Stephen Hawking personally. He has a difficult enough time already, being half-paralyzed and unable to speak without a text-to-speech synthesizer that takes two minutes to write a sentence down with. He deserves, at least respect as a human being, if not more.