God did not create the universe says Stephen Hawking

[razzledazzle]

LONDON, England (CNN) -- God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.

His book -- as the title suggests -- is an attempt to answer "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything," he writes, quoting Douglas Adams' cult science fiction romp, "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

His answer is "M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space." He doesn't explain much of that in the excerpt, which is the introduction to the book.

But he says he understands the feeling of the great English scientist Isaac Newton that God did "create" and "conserve" order in the universe.

It was the discovery of other solar systems outside our own, in 1992, that undercut a key idea of Newton's -- that our world was so uniquely designed to be comfortable for human life that some divine creator must have been responsible.

But, Hawking argues, if there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life.

And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.

From there he introduces the idea of multiple universes, saying that if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours -- and in such a universe, something not only can, but must, arise from nothing.

Therefore, he concludes, there's no need for God to explain it.

But some of Hawking's Cambridge colleagues said the physicist has missed the point.

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing," said Denis Alexander.

"Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.

"Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," said Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

And Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God.

But, he said, "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

Hawking's book will be published on September 9.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09 ... index.html

[Lycoming]

The sooner humanity accepts that we are responsible for our own decisions and destiny the better. The mere idea that anyones fate is determined by an old man floating on a cloud - and that this idea has persisted for thousands of years - is possibly the greatest shame of our species.

Religion of all forms is the greatest blight the world has ever known, and will likely bring about our extinction if we can not see past the fact that silly things written in books 2000 years ago are not a reason to be butchering each other.

Props to Dr. Hawking.

[steven lloyd]

Hawking is amazing. He also postulated that the idea that time ("a concept created by man to desribe something he can't understand") began when the universe was “created” (or began or whatever) supported the possibility of an infinite God (nothing to do with religion) that has always existed, exists now and will always exist. You got to love a guy who is obviously so brilliant yet always remains willing to admit he doesn’t know for sure.

[John Right]

Does Hawking's view mean that modern physics "leaves no place for God in the creation of the universe," as the Times suggests, or that "God did not create the universe," as The Guardian claims? Not unless you need a "God of the Gaps" to step into science's place. A more sophisticated view would hold that physics (and evolutionary biology, to cite another example) are the not-always-mysterious ways in which God routinely works. In fact, Soren Kierkegaard would say that God's workings have to be transparent — after-all, doesn't it make sense that if God created the universe, he would have created the science to go along with it?

[Lycoming]

after-all, doesn't it make sense that if God created the universe, he would have created the science to go along with it?

I disagree - you cannot 'create' science. Science is a rational explanation of events based on observation and rigorous testing. You cannot create how events will be tested and observed. The paramaters by which humanity defines the world have been created by humans, for humans.

Religion is an emotional or spur-of-the-moment explanation for an occurance that cannot otherwise be explained. Necessary only in stone age cultures where literally everything was not rationally understood. Literally the only thing that religion still exists for is the whole 'what happens after death?' question. Otherwise acceptance of religious explanations pure ignorance and stupidity.

eg. What are clouds?

Science: H2O.

Religion: Heaven.

[John Right]

The concept of carbon dating is based on the fallacy of a constant amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, and the fallacy of a constant ratio between C-12 and C-14. When the problems of C-14 amounts not being constant were discovered, scientists decided to use the amount in the atmosphere in 1950 as a standard; and when the dates still don’t match the assumptions of the scientists, they apply a “correction table” to make them match. And if, after all of these “adjustments” are made, a carbon date still doesn’t match the ideas of the scientist, the carbon dating data is simply ignored.

To see how this looks in a real application, we can examine the example of what scientists call Cro-Magnon man. According to scientists, Cro-Magnon footprints found in France’s Chauvet Cave four years ago are estimated to be about 26,000 years old. The estimate is based on carbon dating of the soot from torches on the cave ceiling. The test shows about 2-3 percent of the C-14 present in the soot as would have been present in 1950 (the standard year). Since it would take about 26,000 years for the C-14 to decay that far, the age is set at 26,000 years old.

But, because we know C-14 is not in a state of equilibrium (stable), it is necessary to “estimate” what it would have been in the past. If we use the current growth rate of C-14 in the atmosphere and calculate back from there, we find it actually may have been only 4,000 years ago that the 2-3 percent figure would have been true. Here is why.

We can calculate backward how much C-14 was in the atmosphere last year, and 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago and so on. Since about 4,000 years ago there would only be about 19 percent as much C-14 in the atmosphere as the standard year of 1950, the wood the soot comes from would only have absorbed 19 percent as much C-14 as expected. Then, knowing the half-life/decay rate, we can calculate the 2-3 percent figure to be all that would be left today.

So the footprints of Cro-Magnon man, considered by evolutionists to be 26,000 years old, may well be only 4,000 years old. Of course, most scientists simply reject such figures.

It comes back to one of the center-planks of modern science, evolution. Anything that does not support evolution is considered wrong, and no further questions are tolerated.

Makes you think doesn't it?

[Captain Awesome]

Makes you think doesn't it?

So, science is your friend all of a sudden?

[JLives]

Meh, we would have came to the logical conclusion of evolution without ever finding a fossil.

[strwbrrydvl]

So the footprints of Cro-Magnon man, considered by evolutionists to be 26,000 years old, may well be only 4,000 years old. Of course, most scientists simply reject such figures.

It comes back to one of the center-planks of modern science, evolution. Anything that does not support evolution is considered wrong, and no further questions are tolerated.

Makes you think doesn't it?

Well.. The same idea you have could also prove that the estimated 26 000 year old artifacts are in fact much older. Carbon-14 has a 5,730 year half-life, that is assuming that atmospheric conditions have remained constant throughout time. If the half lifes of C14 have been more rapid as you are suggesting then certainly only a few thousand years ago could make sense but if half lifes have been longer than the current figure that is worked with then it could have been far more than 26 000 years ago.

[Lycoming]

The concept of carbon dating is based on the fallacy of a constant amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, and the fallacy of a constant ratio between C-12 and C-14. When the problems of C-14 amounts not being constant were discovered, scientists decided to use the amount in the atmosphere in 1950 as a standard; and when the dates still don’t match the assumptions of the scientists, they apply a “correction table” to make them match. And if, after all of these “adjustments” are made, a carbon date still doesn’t match the ideas of the scientist, the carbon dating data is simply ignored.

To see how this looks in a real application, we can examine the example of what scientists call Cro-Magnon man. According to scientists, Cro-Magnon footprints found in France’s Chauvet Cave four years ago are estimated to be about 26,000 years old. The estimate is based on carbon dating of the soot from torches on the cave ceiling. The test shows about 2-3 percent of the C-14 present in the soot as would have been present in 1950 (the standard year). Since it would take about 26,000 years for the C-14 to decay that far, the age is set at 26,000 years old.

But, because we know C-14 is not in a state of equilibrium (stable), it is necessary to “estimate” what it would have been in the past. If we use the current growth rate of C-14 in the atmosphere and calculate back from there, we find it actually may have been only 4,000 years ago that the 2-3 percent figure would have been true. Here is why.

We can calculate backward how much C-14 was in the atmosphere last year, and 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago and so on. Since about 4,000 years ago there would only be about 19 percent as much C-14 in the atmosphere as the standard year of 1950, the wood the soot comes from would only have absorbed 19 percent as much C-14 as expected. Then, knowing the half-life/decay rate, we can calculate the 2-3 percent figure to be all that would be left today.

So the footprints of Cro-Magnon man, considered by evolutionists to be 26,000 years old, may well be only 4,000 years old. Of course, most scientists simply reject such figures.

It comes back to one of the center-planks of modern science, evolution. Anything that does not support evolution is considered wrong, and no further questions are tolerated.

Makes you think doesn't it?

Are you implying that because of % error (that exists in all things), that evolution is wrong? How does the % error in carbon dating have anything to do with evolution, in any way? Carbon dating is simply humanities current best method of testing the approximate age of something. Of course there is inherent error in the analysis.

Anything that does not support evolution is wrong, and no further questions are necessary, especially ones that imply that we all popped out of some godly stew after 7 days in the pot.

[John Right]

So the footprints of Cro-Magnon man, considered by evolutionists to be 26,000 years old, may well be only 4,000 years old. Of course, most scientists simply reject such figures.

It comes back to one of the center-planks of modern science, evolution. Anything that does not support evolution is considered wrong, and no further questions are tolerated.

Makes you think doesn't it?

Well.. The same idea you have could also prove that the estimated 26 000 year old artifacts are in fact much older. Carbon-14 has a 5,730 year half-life, that is assuming that atmospheric conditions have remained constant throughout time. If the half lifes of C14 have been more rapid as you are suggesting then certainly only a few thousand years ago could make sense but if half lifes have been longer than the current figure that is worked with then it could have been far more than 26 000 years ago.

Here are the key assumptions needed for carbon dating to be accurate:

-The C-14 to C-12 proportion was the same in the past as today. This assumption cannot be tested, because it is impossible to actually measure the proportion. However, there is solid evidence that the proportion of C-12 to C-14 was not the same in the past, but in fact was much lower.
-The rate of decay from C-14 to N-14 has been constant since the organism died. This assumption also cannot be tested.

It's a flimsy theory that must hold a lot of water in order for evolutionists to justify their positions. But the facts are; there is just too much room for error to be to able hang the entire Theory of Evolution on something so uncertain.

[Loed]

Hawking is amazing. He also postulated that the idea that time ("a concept created by man to desribe something he can't understand") began when the universe was “created” (or began or whatever) supported the possibility of an infinite God (nothing to do with religion) that has always existed, exists now and will always exist. You got to love a guy who is obviously so brilliant yet always remains willing to admit he doesn’t know for sure.

This is the best part about following Hawkings work. IF he sees something as wrong, or disproves HIMSELF even, he's more than willing to make that concession. He knows that not all things can as of yet(or even ever maybe) be explained on this plane of existence and is willing to express that and say that he might just be completely off!

[Lycoming]

So the footprints of Cro-Magnon man, considered by evolutionists to be 26,000 years old, may well be only 4,000 years old. Of course, most scientists simply reject such figures.

It comes back to one of the center-planks of modern science, evolution. Anything that does not support evolution is considered wrong, and no further questions are tolerated.

Makes you think doesn't it?

Well.. The same idea you have could also prove that the estimated 26 000 year old artifacts are in fact much older. Carbon-14 has a 5,730 year half-life, that is assuming that atmospheric conditions have remained constant throughout time. If the half lifes of C14 have been more rapid as you are suggesting then certainly only a few thousand years ago could make sense but if half lifes have been longer than the current figure that is worked with then it could have been far more than 26 000 years ago.

Here are the key assumptions needed for carbon dating to be accurate:

-The C-14 to C-12 proportion was the same in the past as today. This assumption cannot be tested, because it is impossible to actually measure the proportion. However, there is solid evidence that the proportion of C-12 to C-14 was not the same in the past, but in fact was much lower.
-The rate of decay from C-14 to N-14 has been constant since the organism died. This assumption also cannot be tested.

It's a flimsy theory that must hold a lot of water in order for evolutionists to justify their positions. But the facts are; there is just too much room for error to be to able hang the entire Theory of Evolution on something so uncertain.

Why do you keep bringing up evolution? Neither Hawking's statement, nor C-14 dating have anything to do with evolution. C-14 dating is a METHOD used to test the age of something. This has ZERO to do with evolution.

Also you can't say "the facts are" and then not quote any facts. If you want to dispute evolution for some ridiculous reason, create your own thread about it.

[JLives]

I'll save him the trouble. Here's one right here. Evolution is NOT an opinion: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=22065

[tsu]

-The rate of decay from C-14 to N-14 has been constant since the organism died. This assumption also cannot be tested.

This is just plain false, not only is the nature of radioactive decay well understood but we use the same science for energy generation and naviagtion.