Stephens Hawking's - 'Did God Create The Universe?'

Sin City

Maudi wrote: »

how can you state that *before the big bang there was nothing*and then say *the universe (which didnt exist) expanded.if something didnt exist..how can it expand? you mon ami..are what we call...waffleing

Again Im no scientist but , Hawkings claimed that in quantem mechanicns things can pop in and out of existence so its theoretically possible for something to come into existence and expand from nothing

Sin City

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Those three all worship the same god.
How about Indian, Chinese, Japanese..........etc, scientists?
A Buddhist scientist for example would be quite comfortable with the idea of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, everything going around and around in circles, similar (naturally) to the Hindu idea of Brahma constantly creating universes and Shiva constantly destroying them over billions and billions of years (which is older than Yahweh's 6 day week).
The Japanese Shinto religion has gods being created at the same time as the universe, which I guess is no help.
There is more than just Jewish mythology out there.

What about them? As I said I think science concentrates on the big three , not every religeon or cult out there

tuxy

Sin City wrote: »

What about them? As I said I think science concentrates on the big three , not every religeon or cult out there

But the big 3 are Christianity, Muslim and Hindus by population.

Maudi

Sin City wrote: »

Maudi wrote: »

how can you state that *before the big bang there was nothing*and then say *the universe (which didnt exist) expanded.if something didnt exist..how can it expand? you mon ami..are what we call...waffleing

Again Im no scientist but , Hawkings claimed that in quantem mechanicns things can pop in and out of existence so its theoretically possible for something to come into existence and expand from nothing

ah dont mind hawkins..theoretically is the key word here...he dazzles with smoke and big words..theoretically...all it means is i s hawkins can cook the books...to suit watever nonsense i come up with to explain the existince of the universe and you all will buy it cos im s hawkins..think for yourself..your ideas are just as valid..rant over...things just "pop" in and out ...does he think hes writing for startrek?

Cú Giobach

Sin City wrote: »

What about them? As I said I think science concentrates on the big three , not every religeon or cult out there

Science doesn't concentrate on any religions because there is nothing scientific about religion.
As for individuals, why would a Japanese scientist surrounded by adherents to Buddhist and/or Shinto beliefs take more notice of Christianity (1% of the population) or Islam (.1%) than what he/she grew up with and is surrounded by every day?
Same for Chinese or Indian scientists.

Since you mention Judaism that has about 14 million adherents, yet dismiss Hinduism with up to 1 billion or Buddhism with about 500 million*, I feel there is defiantly a bit of bias with your comments.

*There could actually be over 1.5 billion Buddhists in the world.

Anonymo

Maudi wrote: »

ah dont mind hawkins..theoretically is the key word here...he dazzles with smoke and big words..theoretically...all it means is i s hawkins can cook the books...to suit watever nonsense i come up with to explain the existince of the universe and you all will buy it cos im s hawkins..think for yourself..your ideas are just as valid..rant over...things just "pop" in and out ...does he think hes writing for startrek?

what complete and utter foolishness.

in a previous post i spoke about the evidence for much of the theory that hawking talks about. there is speculation as to whether multiple universes exist but what hawking is doing is showing what the theories can allow for - but the speculation parts are pretty well sign-posted. his job as a cosmologist is to try and aid our understanding of the universe. most other peoples ideas are not as valid, since most ideas violate some of the evidence that we have at our disposal already.
lastly, things do 'pop' in and out... Just because you don't believe it, doesn't change anything.

Maudi

Anonymo wrote: »

Maudi wrote: »

ah dont mind hawkins..theoretically is the key word here...he dazzles with smoke and big words..theoretically...all it means is i s hawkins can cook the books...to suit watever nonsense i come up with to explain the existince of the universe and you all will buy it cos im s hawkins..think for yourself..your ideas are just as valid..rant over...things just "pop" in and out ...does he think hes writing for startrek?

what complete and utter foolishness.

in a previous post i spoke about the evidence for much of the theory that hawking talks about. there is speculation as to whether multiple universes exist but what hawking is doing is showing what the theories can allow for - but the speculation parts are pretty well sign-posted. his job as a cosmologist is to try and aid our understanding of the universe. most other peoples ideas are not as valid, since most ideas violate some of the evidence that we have at our disposal already.
lastly, things do 'pop' in and out... Just because you don't believe it, doesn't change anything.

yea things pop in and out of existance like the tooth fairy!!have you done any thinking for yourself son or do you just sop up everything you"r told?

Anonymo

Maudi wrote: »

yea things pop in and out of existance like the tooth fairy!!have you done any thinking for yourself son or do you just sop up everything you"r told?

great. you just discount quantum mechanics. and decades of evidence supporting the notion of quantum fluctuations. as opposed to yourself, who clearly has the idea that if someone who is trained to understand these things regards it as true then it cannot be so, I try and weigh up the evidence for and against the proposition. In the case of quantum fluctuations the evidence is so great that only someone who is completely biased in their perception could deny it.
I've stated my position on this already. There is a certain amount of speculation, this speculation should be flagged. But most of it is well motivated theoretically. That does not make it true but it does make it more valid than the majority of ideas out there. What you are doing is disregarding the sound basis upon which some of the speculation is based. That is just stupid.

western

there is a really interesting video on youtube of prof. Brian Cox interviewing steven hawking , well worth a look

headmaster

So, you're all telling us what "may be" from your own level of thinking, but this is based on nothing of fact. Therefore, i'd have to ask, "how do you know you can think"? I'd imagine the answer to this will produce nothing, so we're back again at the start, with absolutely nothing to go on, except what HAS already happened, not WHAT WILL HAPPEN. My belief is that we human beings arrive at a point in intelligence, whereby we cannot go any further in explaining anything. It's possible that the extent of our brain process has reached that point. It's now more a possibility, than an improbability, that we'll have to recalculate whats already been fully calculated, in order to open up the already answered questions. In other words, quite simply, we are going nowhere, we have completed our function, whatever that might have been. From now on, everything we do, or achieve, will be repetitive, in one form or another. Time gives and time takes, everything in between is a vacuum, filled only by human ego's, in thought, deed and everything else you might care to think of or imagine. Jaysus, we're a quare lot of "nothing".

Anonymo

headmaster wrote: »

So, you're all telling us what "may be" from your own level of thinking, but this is based on nothing of fact. Therefore, i'd have to ask, "how do you know you can think"? I'd imagine the answer to this will produce nothing, so we're back again at the start, with absolutely nothing to go on, except what HAS already happened, not WHAT WILL HAPPEN. My belief is that we human beings arrive at a point in intelligence, whereby we cannot go any further in explaining anything. It's possible that the extent of our brain process has reached that point. It's now more a possibility, than an improbability, that we'll have to recalculate whats already been fully calculated, in order to open up the already answered questions. In other words, quite simply, we are going nowhere, we have completed our function, whatever that might have been. From now on, everything we do, or achieve, will be repetitive, in one form or another. Time gives and time takes, everything in between is a vacuum, filled only by human ego's, in thought, deed and everything else you might care to think of or imagine. Jaysus, we're a quare lot of "nothing".

deary me. this post was a little abstruse. your argument is one that has been used down the ages. i'm not sure we are reaching a stage where our brain process cannot go further. However what is sure is that in order to understand the origin of the cosmos to a better degree requires us to understand physics at scales where it doesn't correspond to our everyday experiences. Quantum mechanics is certainly an uncomfortable proposition but one that has been tested quite well. I would refute your point that 'you're all telling us what "may be" from your own level of thinking, but this is based on nothing of fact'. I do know, of course, that this is general statement and not directed at anyone in particular - however, one thing I've tried to do on this forum is to delineate what is fact and what is speculation and which speculation is built on a 'factual basis'. Very different, I think you'll agree, to plucking random ideas out of the air.

Most of your post - though, to be honest I got lost in the stream of consciousness a few times - sets an unnecessarily depressing tone. Certainly physics is getting much more technical and major advances are less forthcoming. However your point that 'we have completed our function' is very wide of the mark. It reminds me of various quotes attributed to scientist at the start of the 20th century stating that our understanding of physics was almost complete.

Myrddin

I just finished watching it there.

Two things that I cant get my head around:

1) Space itself is the negative energy that exists to balance out the 'positive' energy we see around us. Surely this must be some kind of layman explanation though, because as space is expanding, surely that means there is more & more negative energy due to the expanded space. Seeing as energy cannot be created or destroyed, wouldn't this 'unbalance the books' per se? Is he referring to Dark Energy, which exists between galaxies & prevents them from coming apart?

2) Back to this no time before the big bang thing. Is he saying at the quantum level, because there doesn't seem to be a cause & effect law, & particles can spontaneously appear & disappear at random, that this is how the Universe was created? But don't those particles go somewhere? I thought I read before that a particle that appears, is actually part of a pair of particles & that is has an exact duplicate that exists somewhere else, at the quantum level? I could be completely mistaken, I wasn't in school for quantum mechanics day Surely those particles go somewhere, when they're seen to disappear?

And what about the possibility of multiverses? Multiple universes floating around like bubbles? I think this program only really scratched the surface of the big question.

Personally I'm of the ilk that believe the universe is a mechanical object, not created by a God. After all, the two possibilities strike similar condundrums, who created the Universe? Who created God? I think its far more likely some day we will discover the mechanics behind the universe & its creation, rather than the realisation that there is an omnipotent & immortal entity behind it all. Of course thats my own personal opinion, & those of faith have as much a valid take on things as I do. 'Thank God' we live in a more enlightened time than Galileo that we have the liberty to have such a discussion

headmaster

Anonymo wrote: »

deary me. this post was a little abstruse. your argument is one that has been used down the ages. i'm not sure we are reaching a stage where our brain process cannot go further. However what is sure is that in order to understand the origin of the cosmos to a better degree requires us to understand physics at scales where it doesn't correspond to our everyday experiences. Quantum mechanics is certainly an uncomfortable proposition but one that has been tested quite well. I would refute your point that 'you're all telling us what "may be" from your own level of thinking, but this is based on nothing of fact'. I do know, of course, that this is general statement and not directed at anyone in particular - however, one thing I've tried to do on this forum is to delineate what is fact and what is speculation and which speculation is built on a 'factual basis'. Very different, I think you'll agree, to plucking random ideas out of the air.

Anonymo,
that's fine, I've no problem with what you're saying, or not saying, as the case may be. However, I do stand over my own analysis of where we are, or aren't. I guess there's a school of thought out there that believes, whatever someone says is true, unless you can disprove it. I see you saying some of my notions are without validity or truth, well go ahead and prove me wrong. In other words, "Find God". I happen to believe it's impossible, for one thing, how can you find something, when you don't even know what it is you're looking for? We're going no further, just changing where we are , similar with thought processes. I guess we just had this line of supposed thinking that we knew what we were doing. To a point we did, the point has long been reached, further is not possible. Change is possible, but it's change only , not advancement. Oh, i'm sorry if i'm boring you, I guess it goes with the subject matter and the utter belief that i'm correct. You could be right of course, but you've no way of proving it, therefore i'm correct and it proves itself.

mickydcork

headmaster wrote: »

Anonymo wrote: »

deary me. this post was a little abstruse. your argument is one that has been used down the ages. i'm not sure we are reaching a stage where our brain process cannot go further. However what is sure is that in order to understand the origin of the cosmos to a better degree requires us to understand physics at scales where it doesn't correspond to our everyday experiences. Quantum mechanics is certainly an uncomfortable proposition but one that has been tested quite well. I would refute your point that 'you're all telling us what "may be" from your own level of thinking, but this is based on nothing of fact'. I do know, of course, that this is general statement and not directed at anyone in particular - however, one thing I've tried to do on this forum is to delineate what is fact and what is speculation and which speculation is built on a 'factual basis'. Very different, I think you'll agree, to plucking random ideas out of the air.

Anonymo,
that's fine, I've no problem with what you're saying, or not saying, as the case may be. However, I do stand over my own analysis of where we are, or aren't. I guess there's a school of thought out there that believes, whatever someone says is true, unless you can disprove it. I see you saying some of my notions are without validity or truth, well go ahead and prove me wrong. In other words, "Find God". I happen to believe it's impossible, for one thing, how can you find something, when you don't even know what it is you're looking for? We're going no further, just changing where we are , similar with thought processes. I guess we just had this line of supposed thinking that we knew what we were doing. To a point we did, the point has long been reached, further is not possible. Change is possible, but it's change only , not advancement. Oh, i'm sorry if i'm boring you, I guess it goes with the subject matter and the utter belief that i'm correct. You could be right of course, but you've no way of proving it, therefore i'm correct and it proves itself.

Let me try to summarise what you are trying to say here - you're saying that anything you say or believe could be true because no one will be able to dispove you? Is that correct?

So you are saying if you believe in the flying spagetti monster - he exists and is real because no one can disprove your belief.

I'm not sure that type of thinking is compatible with the scientific method.

headmaster

mikydcork,
no, i'm not in the business of talking, or writing, about flying spaghetti saucers. I'd have thought that was plain enough. My thought process is a little deeper than you portray and is serious. It may take more than one reading of it to understand, i'm sorry if you picked it up the wrong way. I'm saying that our thinking and thought process is at a crossroads, just changing how we think, will achieve no more than we already know, it will just come to the same conclusions in a different way. Not everything will be the same, but the end conclusions will be more or less the same as is. We sleep, we eat, we drink, we talk/communicate, the rest is man made. Let that be one equation, what's the other one, or any other one? It/they, can be anything, doesn't matter what it is, it will = the same as we already feel we know. I'm using words, not symbols or algebra. There's a missing link, some fellow scientists feel they're getting somewhere on the road to finding it, they can't, it's not a possibility to find it/that. It only exists in our cloudy empty head space. It's a bit like me asking you to go out and bring me in a bucket of 150mph wind. I've no doubt there's a human method to say that can be done, but the fact is. It cannot be done in reality. That's all that matters. I know i'm mad, potty, dotty, but so what. We're all going the one route......eventually. Safe journey, enjoy it, it's important...for you.

westcoast1

Cian A wrote: »

What seems more likely? A creator or coincidence and billions of years of expansion?

Yes we only think of a creator ourselves because we are arrogant humans and after thousands of years of religious brainwashing worldwide we are stupid enough to not just accept what is and we have to have a "creator" because otherwise people would freak out worldwide as they cannot even grasp the truth never mind handle it

I'm so glad i know and can handle the truth but it's a lonely life being surrounded by people that all believe there's "something" controlling all of this and more people need to know the truth to progress mankind as a whole

Sin City

westcoast1 wrote: »

Yes we only think of a creator ourselves because we are arrogant humans and after thousands of years of religious brainwashing worldwide we are stupid enough to not just accept what is and we have to have a "creator" because otherwise people would freak out worldwide as they cannot even grasp the truth never mind handle it

I'm so glad i know and can handle the truth but it's a lonely life being surrounded by people that all believe there's "something" controlling all of this and more people need to know the truth to progress mankind as a whole

Atta boy Westie , you tell em

maninasia

who_ru wrote: »

hi.

i had a quick look at this on Discovery HD last night, and while i found a lot of what he said compelling i just find it impossible to get my head round his final analysis - that a creator didn't have anything to do with the beginning of the universe, since as he says, time doesn't exist in a black hole, which is where the whole shebang (universe) originated from. The universe, according to hawkings, simply popped into existance.

a black hole is created by a giant start collapsing in on itself, it's gravitational force is so great not only does it absorb light, yes not even light can escape it's gravitational pull, but also time cannot exist in a black hole. but the star that was there before the black hole would have have to existed?

so, he argues, a creator could not have created the universe since there was no time in which to create anything. apologies for my basic grasp on all this, but are we to believe that everything just 'popped' into existence.

and if one universe popped into existence, could there literally be 1000's of universes popping into existence?

also since the universe did 'begin' won't it also have to end? all energy will eventually diminish to nil, just like the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen to convert into helium.

i know i'm rambling here - but all of us and everything, matter, energy, space - just happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Yes that's essentially it, it takes a while to get the religion out of your bones in Ireland.

Just do a thought experiment, it makes mores sense to believe that the universe(s) always existed and always will. There was no beginning and no end, that is a human thought construct related to the way we live and die.

Myrddin

maninasia wrote: »

Yes that's essentially it, it takes a while to get the religion out of your bones in Ireland.

Just do a thought experiment, it makes mores sense to believe that the universe(s) always existed and always will. There was no beginning and no end, that is a human thought construct related to the way we live and die.

Well given it's expanding, its safe to assume it's expanding from somewhere, & that somewhere by deduction would be a central point. It's a bit blind to say there was no beginning

Tomk1

The OP's title is false and misleading

Cian A wrote: »

Just reading over a couple of posts and there's a lot of contradictions.

Everything in the universe operates within the laws of physics, yet time does not exist in a black hole?

do you know the laws of physics? Time is an observation, not a messure of momentum or energy or it's not related to basic laws of physics, though the manmade messurement (yardstick) of rate of change is termed time. It's just a tool.
Just to indulge, if you enter the gravitational pull of a black-hole -(a dead star that has collapsed under it's own gravitational mass) For you time will appear normal, for a remote observer you will appear timeless/stuck in an instant, it's all to do with relativistic velocities. I'm not sure where you got 'time doesn't exist in a BB' from. For an external observer a black hole will age and under Hawking's Radiation lose energy/mass to eventually disperse, but the timeframe for this is beyound the life-time of the universe.

Cian A wrote: »

Energy cannot be created or destroyed yet the universe was created or "popped" into existence?

Look up 'virtual particles'

Cian A wrote: »

Could the notion that space and the universe has always existed in some shape of energy not be considered, that it is everything that does and has ever constituted being? The universe has eternally existed?

not sure what you mean, one theory is our universe -(using that discription losely) has gone through many big-bangs and big-crunches, or theres infinate BB therefore multi-universes maybe best to read up on Michio Kaku 'hyperspace' do a Youtube search as he has a great way of explaining science to cough: common-folk. He allso did a great tv-doc on the topic of 'Time'

As in making some relationship between physics & a god :rolleyes: there's allready enough unknowns/halfknowns in the 'verse that we can work to find answers too, without the need to make stuff up.

headmaster

Sin City wrote: »

Atta boy Westie , you tell em

My late father used to say, "Atta boy", brings back a lot of memories. By any chance are you from anywhere in Co Galway?

maninasia

EnterNow wrote: »

Well given it's expanding, its safe to assume it's expanding from somewhere, & that somewhere by deduction would be a central point. It's a bit blind to say there was no beginning

Central point of what, who defines the central point. I could set up the central point of my universe as the kitchen for example?

The universe is likely to be one of an infinite number of universes, or it could simply be cycling through an endless series of expansions and contractions.
There is no such thing as a beginning and an end to time in this case.


'There was no beginning, there'll be no end...'
'We are stardust....'

beardedmaster

I believe in God.. but I also love Science... to be honest, I think this solves all our problems -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGIen0Pp7TQ

maninasia

When you know how the universe is governed by fundamental physical laws and that humans are just another myriad form of life on Earth where does God come into the equation.

headmaster

In your conversation with us

Littlehorny

As Christopher Hitchens, who died this week said "God didnt create us, we created God/Gods".

Myrddin

maninasia wrote: »

Central point of what, who defines the central point.

Not a central point within space, because space itself is expanding. However, if everything in space is rushing away from each other, & time is moving in a forwards direction, do you not think its logical to conclude that this motion had an originating point?

maninasia wrote:

I could set up the central point of my universe as the kitchen for example?

Well no, because our universe already exists in order for you to do that. We are talking about the origin of the universe.

maninasia wrote:

The universe is likely to be one of an infinite number of universes, or it could simply be cycling through an endless series of expansions and contractions.

Very possible, & the foremost is probably very likely too. Regards endless cycles of expansion & contraction, I think they've determined that the universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating also. Within a given time frame, their won't be enough mass in the universe to contract it, so I'm not convinced of that theory yet.

maninasia wrote:

There is no such thing as a beginning and an end to time in this case.

Time is only a consequence of the mechanics in question, the world was also flat at one point you'll recall.

maninasia wrote:

'There was no beginning, there'll be no end...'
'We are stardust....'

Poetic, & true to an extent. It doesn't apply on a universal scale though

headmaster

Littlehorny wrote: »

As Christopher Hitchens, who died this week said "God didnt create us, we created God/Gods".

Well, he's going to find out if he's talking bull "there" now, as he did here.;)

slade_x

EnterNow wrote: »

Well given it's expanding, its safe to assume it's expanding from somewhere, & that somewhere by deduction would be a central point. It's a bit blind to say there was no beginning

The universe is not expanding from a central point. it is expanding exponentially from every point, which is why greater more distant galaxies are receeding faster than the local or closer ones (the further away it is the more space there is to expand in between). And dont you think without knowing or humanly even being able to comprehend such a possibility of no beginning its a bit blind to say there was a beginning in the first place just because thats whats easier for us to comprehend. The understanding is currently beyond even our way of thinking.

Myrddin

slade_x wrote: »

The universe is not expanding from a central point. it is expanding exponentially from every point, which is why greater more distant galaxies are receeding faster than the local or closer ones (the further away it is the more space there is to expand in between).

I don't profess to know very much about it at all, but is the universe, or is it not, expanding in an outward direction? Is everything not rushing away from its nearest neighbour (expansion between them)? If so, does that not mean that at some point, at the very beginning, the universe expanded from something much much smaller than it is now? How small does something have to be before you can say if it had a beginiing or not? My wording is a bit off granted, to say its expanding from a single point isn't quite what I meant.

slade_x wrote:

And dont you think without knowing or humanly even being able to comprehend such a possibility of no beginning its a bit blind to say there was a beginning in the first place just because thats whats easier for us to comprehend.

I just feel there's more credence to that theory, rather than the universe is simply eternal.

slade_x wrote:

The understanding is currently beyond even our way of thinking.

I don't think anyone here would deny that.