Hawking: God did not create Universe

[jem]

B.S. by stu again.

Very few if any scientists would argue this universe created itself... without invoking faith in the multiverse. We have done this before for hundreds of pages and about 7 years on ET and each year more and more scientists speak of the fine tunings to the point where it is a universally acknowleged argument. Some may disagree but no one acts like there is not an appearance of fine tuning to many scientists. And, few if any scientists now state we got here by random chance... without invoking faith in the multiverse.

That we are here and the standard model is so finely tunes invokes the need for an explanation of how this universe is so finely tuned for life.

Creator is one reasonable explanation for the incredible fine tunings but note... I am not saying it is the only possible explanation.

To deny that a Creator is one possible explanation is childish in thought and learning.

You're right. No reputable scientist would say God "did not" create the universe any more than they would say Chuck Norris "did not" create the universe
Real truth seekers don't insert God or Chuck Norris into such things as they are both irrelevant and not required.
The universe is however understood scientifically and mathematically to be more than capable of creating itself from nothing and you will find reputable scientists supporting that.
Invoking Gods in the 21st century to explain the universe is little more than the remnants of a primitive reaction playing itself out and to be agnostic I suggest, is no more than the failure of human reasoning which invites every form of imaginary notion including the promotion of the Tooth Fairy into the role of Creator.

 

[futurecurrents]

It's amazing how whenever someone says something intelligent jerm calls it bullshit. Just amazing. It's like he has a highly developed sense of fine tuning out that which he does not want to hear.

Wow, maybe jerm is the fine tuner! Scary thought.

 

[jem]

I call b.s. when someone makes claims about by science that are untrue.
I am very familiar with the literature and books in the area as I own a few and have been debating stu and others on this since about the time Susskind's book came out.

I have never seen any scientist state what stu claims without resorting to the multiverse. So by saying that with including the multiverse in his statement, what stu wrote is highly misleading. In the past when stu made the similar statements he cited Hawkings recent book. But all you have to do is go back a few pages and see Hawking made the quote about gravity in the context of a mulitverse with m theory.

So stu has been bullshiting about this for years.

 

[achilles28]

I doubt that Hawking or any other reputable person of science would say that God "did not" create the universe. There's a world of difference between not necessary and did not. Real truth seekers are agnostic. Anyone claiming to know what is currently unknowable is a zealot, religious or otherwise.

That's exactly right. "Scientific" conjecture. Nothing more.

 

[futurecurrents]

That's exactly right. "Scientific" conjecture. Nothing more.

Yeah just "scientific". What has science ever done for us?

I just love it when dumb righties disparage knowledge. Like ignorance is better.

 

[FortuneTeller]

Yeah just "scientific". What has science ever done for us?

I just love it when dumb righties disparage knowledge. Like ignorance is better.

Science has done one good thing for us. Learned how to create nuclear bombs so we can point them at each other. And of course we have already used a few to cook and bake some Japanese people.

 

[stu]

I call b.s. when someone makes claims about by science that are untrue.
I am very familiar with the literature and books in the area as I own a few and have been debating stu and others on this since about the time Susskind's book came out.
I have never seen any scientist state what stu claims without resorting to the multiverse. So by saying that with including the multiverse in his statement, what stu wrote is highly misleading. In the past when stu made the similar statements he cited Hawkings recent book. But all you have to do is go back a few pages and see Hawking made the quote about gravity in the context of a mulitverse with m theory.
So stu has been bullshiting about this for years.

You call b.s. on everything you won't, cant or don't want to understand.

You've never been able to debate (you're too busy calling everything you think fucks with your superstitious beliefs as bullshit), let alone grasp that, whether it's to do with one universe or multiple universes, string theory or M theory; whatever, it makes no difference.
How the whole shebang can come about spontaneously from nothing is what modern physics is explaining.
Sure, Creator is one possible explanation and Gravity fits that bill.
God pointlessly begs the question.

 

[futurecurrents]

Science has done one good thing for us. Learned how to create nuclear bombs so we can point them at each other. And of course we have already used a few to cook and bake some Japanese people.

OK then, do everyone a favor and use a witch doctor the next time you get sick.

Throw away your computer and go back to writing letters.


What is it with you righties that you hate knowledge so much? It's like you prefer staying dumb.

 

[jem]

I might not be able to debate... but you just conceded the point about God as the possible explanation for creation, something you concede about once every 5 years. So we are done with this argument now.

You call b.s. on everything you won't, cant or don't want to understand.

You've never been able to debate (you're too busy calling everything you think fucks with your superstitious beliefs as bullshit), let alone grasp that, whether it's to do with one universe or multiple universes, string theory or M theory; whatever, it makes no difference.
How the whole shebang can come about spontaneously from nothing is what modern physics is explaining.
Sure, Creator is one possible explanation and Gravity fits that bill.
God pointlessly begs the question.

 

[dbphoenix]

So we are done with this argument now.