This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Stephen Hawking and the Existence of God

Stephen Hawking and the Existence of God - Comments

CoinneachMacLeoid's Avatar Comment 1 by CoinneachMacLeoid

Turning it around the other way, since no one has ever proved the existence of god(s) then it/they have to be a human creation. Completely the opposite of the way it is supposed to be.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 21:55:58 UTC | #511473

prolibertas's Avatar Comment 2 by prolibertas

Haha. Sure, science doesn't conflict with belief in God, so long as your God is useless do-nothing lay-about slack excuse for a deity that might as well not bother to exist. I wonder how Templeton would take that.

Updated: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:36:28 UTC | #511493

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 3 by Neodarwinian

No role for god. Now we need to reduce the role of the deluded followers of this superfluous superstition.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:57:32 UTC | #511505

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 4 by AtheistEgbert

Not only is God dead, but he's decomposing. Thanks to the second law of thermodynamics.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:03:06 UTC | #511510

amadeusbach's Avatar Comment 5 by amadeusbach

As brilliant as Hawking is, I think it was a bit irresponsible of him to end A Brief History of Time the way he did. He was pretty much inviting controversy, even if he was just being metaphorical.

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:16:48 UTC | #511543

kantastisk's Avatar Comment 6 by kantastisk

Stay tuned for religious people to ask why reality is designed as to have universes create themselves.

I sympathize with the intention of this argument, but there's no end to it. I think the better strategy is the one Dawkins uses: Demonstrate logically that God is simply not an explanation. It's not that we don't need God as an explanation. It's that God isn't an explanation.

The God theory, and all super-natural theories, cannot do explanatory work since they themselves suffer from the same problem they're invoked to explain.

"Why is there something when there could be nothing?" corresponds to "Why is there a God when there could be no God?"

Updated: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 01:15:33 UTC | #511563

zengardener's Avatar Comment 7 by zengardener

Was it Einstein who said that the total energy of the universe is equal to zero or Hawking? Does quantum mechanics really say if something can happen, it will?

God, AKA, Gravity

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 03:06:55 UTC | #511586

crusader234's Avatar Comment 8 by crusader234

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 04:17:59 UTC | #511591

Tony123's Avatar Comment 9 by Tony123

Comment 8 by kantastisk :

I sympathize with the intention of this argument, but there's no end to it. I think the better strategy is the one Dawkins uses: Demonstrate logically that God is simply not an explanation. It's not that we don't need God as an explanation. It's that God isn't an explanation.

Whether God is an explanation or not, recent developments do not contradict the Church's centuries-old position that a God outside of time and space created the universe out nothing. In fact they reinforce it in the sense that we now have theoretical evidence of a universe created from nothing.

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:26:37 UTC | #511604

kantastisk's Avatar Comment 10 by kantastisk

Comment 11 by Tony123 :

Whether God is an explanation or not, recent developments do not contradict the Church's centuries-old position that a God outside of time and space created the universe out nothing. In fact they reinforce it in the sense that we now have theoretical evidence of a universe created from nothing.

I don't understand why you've posted your comment as a reply to mine. It doesn't seem to address my point at all.

But now that I'm at it: You seem to have missed Hawkin's point as well - we don't have "theoretical evidence" of a universe "created" from nothing. We have a scientific theory, ready to be tested, which, if true, would explain how a universe could come into existence naturally - read: without invoking anything supernatural - read: God.

It's nice to hear that the scientific theory of the Big Bang happens to sit well with the doctrine of "the Church". Assuming it's the catholic one, maybe you'll put in a good word for it to accept the positive effects of contraceptives as well?

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 06:29:49 UTC | #511620

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 11 by Stafford Gordon

Very neat.

Too neat?

I sincerely hope not.

It makes sense to me, but. but, am I wish thinking?

S G

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:12:34 UTC | #511644

Outrider's Avatar Comment 12 by Outrider

recent developments do not contradict the Church's centuries-old position that a God outside of time and space created the universe out nothing

Just for clarity, Tony 123, which 'Church' is that? See, if science spread-bet the way religion does, by having thousands of fragmentary models which all take a different spin on things, then reconcile when scientists demonstrate on or the other then it would 'right' all the time, too.

See, we have hypotheses and then when they are supported they become theory. You have dogma, and when it becomes supported it's still Dogma, but it was RIGHT DOGMA ALL ALONG.

I can make eight thousand guesses at how the universe works, and on a proportion of them I'll have either been right or so unclear that I can suggest I was right - so can the Church.

Let's wait for abstinence and an absence of prophylactics significantly reduce the AIDS epidemic before we start crowing the Church's scientific prescience, shall we?

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:35:45 UTC | #511649

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 13 by Dhamma

A walk in Tony's head:

It will be true if I say it a million times - It will be true if I say it a million times - It will be true if I say it a million times

Is the reality really that scary to accept?

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 10:31:15 UTC | #511680

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 14 by AtheistEgbert

See, the church has been saying all along...There is no God. [Sarcasm]

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 11:44:48 UTC | #511722

Logicel's Avatar Comment 15 by Logicel

Tony, you have a very nice name as it rhymes with pony and I adore ponies.

(Still on my mission to drum up nice things about religious believers.)

Updated: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:25:09 UTC | #511742

Logicel's Avatar Comment 16 by Logicel

In order to accept reality, you need tools and an continuing sharpening of them. Tony has the 'Church,' enuf said.

Updated: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:27:58 UTC | #511749

man with stick's Avatar Comment 17 by man with stick

Comment 9

Does quantum mechanics really say if something can happen, it will?

I think that's 'Sod's Law' or the 'Murphy Conjecture' your quoting.

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:35:01 UTC | #511755

Gunga Lagunga's Avatar Comment 18 by Gunga Lagunga

Hawking didn't disprove God's existence.

Ergo Jesus.

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:42:46 UTC | #511816

lackofgravitas's Avatar Comment 19 by lackofgravitas

Show me "ANY" proof.

Anything.

No, not your book.

Show me 'the proof'.

Anything

Anything at all.

It's not really working, is it?

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:51:53 UTC | #511964

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 20 by Enlightenme..

The first thought that came into my head on hearing the Hawking news was; 'What Laplace said'

As for inserting God into any gaps, it's about the same as identifying the U in U.F.O. before identifying it.

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:32:54 UTC | #512139

Tony123's Avatar Comment 21 by Tony123

All I am saying is that, as perceived by a universe-bound observer, the spontaneous creation of the universe out of nothing preceding it in time and space, is entirely consistent with Catholic teaching that the universe was created out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) by a creator who did not materially pre-exist it in time and space.

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:50:31 UTC | #512146

Outrider's Avatar Comment 22 by Outrider

This was the God that was first created 'the heavens and the earth' and then later created 'light'... Not wanting to call into question just how accurate an account that is, you understand.

Hawking has highlighted a consistent theory, backed up by mathematical predictions, that accounts for a vast swathe of occurences. Catholic Doctrine spouts specious drivel, and you selectively choose a section to interpret how you choose and claim 'God was right, all along'...

You're fooling only yourself, Tony.

O.

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 10:28:01 UTC | #512244

locutus7's Avatar Comment 23 by locutus7

If a god is so powerful he created the entire universe, why does he need followers to donate money to him? You would think he could afford to give money to his followers, not the reverse. Explain that, believers!

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:12:15 UTC | #512487

dariusvons's Avatar Comment 24 by dariusvons

why does hawking love to drag god into everything he writes? seriously why? he's just playing the part of a salesman who will say anything just to get others to buy. whenever he says anything profound he seemingly enjoys tacking on "god". I just don't think that scientists should include god into anything they publish, unless the topic itself includes god. I mean James Watson didn't end 'The Double Helix' with "...this is because of god." or "...this proves there is no god." or anything like that. this god crap it's just tacked on needlessly and simply to sell books or something.

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 02:19:25 UTC | #512744

Wosret's Avatar Comment 25 by Wosret

His chair has just taken over. Everyone knows that a cold machine can't understand love!

It has to be warmed up first!

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:07:13 UTC | #512773

locutus7's Avatar Comment 26 by locutus7

The largely positive reviews of this new Hawking book on Amazon are receiving numerous comments by christians, who seem compelled to assert inanely that "something simply cannot come from nothing, therefore god."

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:13:09 UTC | #512977

lawrence of arabia's Avatar Comment 27 by lawrence of arabia

The problem is this chaps: Richard said recently that he is only 99.9 % certain that "god" does not exist. That proves, quite simply, with 100% certainty that "he" probably DOES exist.

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 05:34:45 UTC | #946505

mmurray's Avatar Comment 28 by mmurray

Comment 27 by lawrence of arabia :

The problem is this chaps: Richard said recently that he is only 99.9 % certain that "god" does not exist. That proves, quite simply, with 100% certainty that "he" probably DOES exist.

Maybe you would like to give a little more detail on that one because you have lost me.

Michael

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 07:35:29 UTC | #946520