it is a compilation of my blogs...





Stephen Hawking feels like God is unnecessary when it comes to the understanding of the whole world. Hawking has his own opinion on God which is shown in his book "The Grand Design" which was authored also be Leonard Mlodinow, Caltech physicist. He thinks that God is just something for humans that they need. There have always been controversies between scientific research and religion. The Grand Design talks about some of these. The law of gravity, not God, is what made the creation of the universe possible, Hawking says in the book. People who disagree with Hawking say science, being limited by laws of nature for instance gravity, is an inadequate approach to understanding the role of God within the galaxy.


Is it going to be Stephen Hawking or Sir Isaac Newton?


Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," squares off against the beliefs of Sir Isaac Newton, according to The Guardian. Newton stated that God designed the whole universe. It seemed impossible to Newton that the universe could have formed spontaneously. Hawking says gravity made the spontaneous creation of the universe possible. The Guardian said Hawking's current stance on God is a reversal of the position he took in "A Brief History of Time," the 1988 bestseller that made him world famous. In that book Hawking wrote that he accepted the role of God in the creation of the Galaxy. "If we discover a complete theory," he wrote, "it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."


Hawking bets on science to win


Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge in London, which technically makes him one of Newton's successors. In "The Grand Design," he writes that he started to doubt Newton's belief that the world could not have formed from chaos in 1992, when a planet was found orbiting a distant star. During a June interview with ABC News, Hawking said humans created God in their image as a being with whom they can have a personal relationship. He also said it is impossible considering human life was a complete incident and doesn't have any significance. Hawking explained his stance to ABC News. He said Science will always win between science and religion.


Hawking needs to explain


Individuals of faith, such as William Crawley at the BCC, disagree with Hawking's idea of the world naturally being created by calling it a "classic agnostic response". To Crawley, Hawking is only speaking for himself when he says God is not necessary for understanding the universe. "The Grand Design" gives no reason, he said, to rule out a religious explanation for the physical laws of the universe. There are many scientists that disagree with Hawking also. Fox News interviewed Professor George Ellis who believes differently than Hawking in that if it did come down to religion or science, which it would not, religion probably would win. Ellis is the president of the International Society for Science and Religion. "A lot of individuals will say, OK, I choose religion then," he said very evidently. "It is science that will lose out."



More on this topic

The Guardian

guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

ABC News

abcnews.go.com/WN/stephen-hawking-god-create-universe-question-day/story?id=11542128

BBC

bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/09/god_hawking_and_the_universe.html

 


Comments
on Sep 08, 2010

I am so glad someone brought up this subject.  Personally I do not care what he believes.  As a scientist, I do admire and respect him for the work he has brought to the human realm of understanding.

But look closely at my second sentence.  That is the irony of his latest declaration.  He is a very smart man, but the truth is he does not know, he has stated a belief.  And belief, while fine for religion, is an anathema in science (beliefs are fine, just do not use them in your scientific quests).

Whether Hawkings believes in Allah or Bang or Brane is not really the point.  He has dropped out of science and into religion with his latest statement.

on Sep 08, 2010

very interesting article. Like DrGuy, I don't really care for his "beliefs" either. To each his/her own. I am not much of a scientist and my religious beliefs are more personal than of a specific religion; ut my belief is that God did play a role in the creation of the Universe.

My belief comes from a scientific concept that I once heard and that it made total sense to me. It's said that the Big Bang was caused by a collision of some sort but the question was what started this collision. According to science in order for object to move some kind of force must be applied to it, this force has to come from somewhere. That is where I believe God's role comes into play.

You see, I can understand why some people, mainly scientist, do not want to accept the existence of God. So far just about everything in reality can be explained as to why or how it happens thru science and not necessarily some kind of divine intervention and to be honest it's hard to believe that things happen basically because God goes around making it happen as some religions make it seem. The way I see it, God created things in a way that they are done naturally as oppose to him being there making sure it happens thru divine intervention and to me it all started with the Big Bang. I believe that the force that started the collision that created the Big Bang was God and that thru this he made it so that the Universe could form itself based on his design on how everything is created and formed thru out the Universe.

This is why I am a believer that things happen for a reason because after all, nature happens for a reason and that reason is the design in which nature was created. Plants grow because they take nutrients from the ground, the nutrients get there thru a water source (rain or man made) rain comes from the condensation of water on the ground, etc, etc. It all works together as a "circle of life" as the movie puts it. It happens because it was designed that way even including evolution, things were meant to evolve in order to continue to exist even as a different form.

Does this mean miracles do not happen? Does this mean that God does not sometimes intervene when someone needs him? I guess it depends on your beliefs, I choose to believe that God does listen and that he does lend a divine hand when he chooses to do so. It has been my experience that he does. So basically I believe that science can explain a lot of things if not everything but I also believe it's because God made it this way. But that's just me.

on Sep 08, 2010

I agree w/you as well Doc. I believe he's just stirring controversy for himself, Mr. Hawking.  He's definitely laying it on thick with this new book.  I personally love Science, but I do not agree with someone as talented and gifted as Mr. Hawking using his talents to literally spit on God's existence. 

on Sep 09, 2010

I think Hawking is trying to convince himself forget about the general public.  Back some time ago Hawking was on the Discovery channel and he came right to the threshold of heaven,  almost admitting there had to be a God who started all this when he abruptly changed direction. 

I think he's doing the same thing Darwin did.  Darwin started out a strong believer but after the death of his daughter he had no desire in that belief anymore and did what he could to make it go away only deceiving himself in the end IMO. 

Hawking's rejecting a very important scientific fact that something can't come from nothing.  There has to be, as Charles put it, a force out there that got this whole thing started.  It couldn't just happen willy nilly.  The cell is just way to complicated for that to happen for one thing. 

In my study yesterday regarding the Pharisees who would not believe in the miracle of Jesus when he gave sight to a blind man even though the evidence was compelling (John 9) I read this quote from Voltaire:

"If in the market of Paris before the eyes of a thousand men and before my own eyes, a miracle should be performed, I would much rather disbelieve the two thousand eyes and my own two than believe it!" 

And that's how it is.  There is an obstinate determination to shut their eyes against light.  It teaches us the foolishness of supposing that mere evidence alone will ever make one a believer. 

 

on Sep 10, 2010

Hawking's rejecting a very important scientific fact that something can't come from nothing.

There is actually a new theory out now - that soon may either dominate or disappear based on an upcoming experiment.  It is called the Brane theory (short for Membrane).  It basically uses math to show there are 11 dimensions, and that 2 of the 4 dimensional spaces (we live in 4 dimensions - time being the 4th) will "touch" each other every trillion years or so, and in so doing, transfer energy from one space to the other (think of them as parallel universes).  That is the source of the the "big bang" (they actually refer to it as the circular expansion as there is no bang), so it does not defy the laws of physics.

 

on Sep 10, 2010

I believe in GOD.

bls recertification

bls recertification
on Sep 10, 2010

HaitherG,

very interesting article.

Yes, thanks for bringing Hawking's latest to our attention.

 

Stephen Hawking feels like God is unnecessary when it comes to the understanding of the whole world.

Hawking as the pop hero cosmologist representing the atheist scientific community is not new.

CHARLESCS posts:

Like DrGuy, I don't really care for his "beliefs" either. To each his/her own.

I know what you're saying and I could go along with this as well, but unfortunately, in many classrooms across this land, Hawking has been allowed to have the only and last word on the controversial and weighty subject as the origin of the universe.

My scorn for Hawking goes back to 2003 when my daughter was a junior in high school. Her chemistry teacher had the class watch a PBS video in which Hawking skillfully sells his "Big Bang" and "Steady State" theories as reality itself. 

In it we hear, in the beginning was the big bang that over billions of years the universe, then earth and eventually man evolved by chance from patterns of matter. The story line masquerades scientific hypotheses and speculation as established fact leading the idealistic students to believe what Hawking's believes and understands....that where the Universe comes from does not require the existence or explanation of God. He said, "For the first time we know how big the universe was. If like me, you have looked at the stars and tried to make sense of what you see, you too have wondered what makes the universe exist. The questions are clear and deceptively simple. The answers have seemed well beyond our reach, until now."

After we see a rocket lift off, we hear, "Today, the claims of Scripture are being put to the test by experiments launched into the heavens."

I believe he's just stirring controversy for himself, Mr. Hawking.

I personally love Science, but I do not agree with someone as talented and gifted as Mr. Hawking using his talents to literally spit on God's existence.

Yup. 

The problem with Hawkings is that when he looks up into the heavens he doesn't realize he's looking at God's workshop. Instead of the awe and wonder of a created universe, he sees only his own appetitie in hot pursuit of the next idea.

 

 

on Sep 10, 2010

Hawking's rejecting a very important scientific fact that something can't come from nothing.

BINGO!

ANd this begs the question ...how can such a smart guy who knows so much about physics and whose career has been built upon application of logic miss the obvious? He claims the universe was created by the Big Bang, but what caused the Big Bang? We began with nothing and now we have something. What happened? To what? (You and I have the answer found in Genesis.)  

 

There is actually a new theory out now - that soon may either dominate or disappear based on an upcoming experiment. It is called the Brane theory (short for Membrane). It basically uses math to show there are 11 dimensions, and that 2 of the 4 dimensional spaces (we live in 4 dimensions - time being the 4th) will "touch" each other every trillion years or so, and in so doing, transfer energy from one space to the other (think of them as parallel universes). That is the source of the the "big bang" (they actually refer to it as the circular expansion as there is no bang), so it does not defy the laws of physics.

Doc,

 

I think all of Einstein's and Hawking's theories have been based upon mathematics.

I sent this article to my brother, a retired physicist. He wrote,

But what we've seen is there is a major problem to "reality" due to false assumption that just becasue it works mathematically then there must be some physical reality associated with "beautiful mathematics." 

 
Einstein toyed with dividing by zero, which is breaking the cardinal commandment in mathematics; "Thou shall NOT divide by zero, "0." For his mass changing equation is nothing but a function whose denominator, ( 1 - vE2/CE2) to the 1/2 power is nothing more than a decreasing function--A SHRINKING FACTOR-- with selected variables "v" and "C".  And when v approaches C the value goes to zero!!! And, of course, causing the numerator, 'M sub o" to tend to grow larger and larger approaching infinity. And that is just what all the "Unitarians" wanted i.e.., to create some plausible mathematical way for our universe to start from "near zero" mass, but increase to all the material we know to be in our universe based on nothing but "velocity" and Einstein's God, "the speed of light being the sole CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE"
 
Of course they got their "Big Bang" by promoting Einstein. And now they are attempting to do a similar thing by creating a modern "Einstein" in the person of Stephen Hawking to promote the idea that "God isn't necessary."
 
 Just your sending the name, "Stephen Hawking" set me off on a tangent. The equation which I've gone on and on about is the one where Einstein claims mass to change with velocity and that mass tends toward infinity as the velocity of a particle approaches the speed of light.
 
                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                           M = Mo divided by { 1 - v/c ]
 
Squaring the velocities, v and C, and taking the square root of the entire denominator does nothing more that slow the rate of change of the increasing mass, M, down. Just mathematical gimmickry!

 

on Sep 13, 2010

I think all of Einstein's and Hawking's theories have been based upon mathematics.

I sent this article to my brother, a retired physicist. He wrote,

I was a math Major in College - and once you get past calculus (beginning), Math is basically the explanation of physics, so the 2 are very tightly woven together.

I appreciate your brothers comments, and enjoyed reading them.  Some of the stuff I already knew (like the v=c and infinity thing), but I do enjoy reading about stuff that I do not know, in a way that is easy to understand.

And why is he retired?  With a mind that sharp, he should still be doing!

on Sep 15, 2010

And why is he retired? With a mind that sharp, he should still be doing!

My brother wrote: 

Explain to your acquaintance, Dr Guy, that to be retired is not doing nothing for I have enrolled in two "Senior College Courses". One on astronomy, for I know little or nothing on the subject and the other on Memoir writing for one at 72 should think of leaving something to posterity.

He's also grandfather to 8 grandchildren with the 9th on the way.

on Sep 16, 2010

One on astronomy, for I know little or nothing on the subject and the other on Memoir writing for one at 72 should think of leaving something to posterity.

He's also grandfather to 8 grandchildren with the 9th on the way.

A second career!  Well, I noted his intelligence, and that just proves it.  And congratulations on the grands!  I guess that makes you a great Aunt?

on Sep 19, 2010

Most religions teach that G-d does not need man...the vice versa is up to you.

on Sep 19, 2010

the vice versa is up to you.

there is no vice versa. 

Meta
Views
» 665
Comments
» 13
Category
Sponsored Links