Stephen Hawking: God did not create the universe

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

This is priceless.

Just out of curiosity... how exactly does a young, clean-shaven man get himself in situations that would have him arguing with older women or, more importantly, being angrily told what to do by an older woman?

Sounds like his mom bitched him out for shaving in the shower again!

[pepper24]

So basically man created God. Most of us have already figured this out and the rest are still in the denial.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by pepper24

So basically man created God. Most of us have already figured this out and the rest are still in the denial.

Well that's what Jethro Tull said.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by photon

If you see it as a net energy of zero, then the energy didn't need to exist.

I'm really interested to see the book though.

Interesting, so in GR the force gravity can essentially work against entropy. In going from the least complex state essentially zero energy to a much more complex state the universe.

I have to get caught up in my theoretical physics reading.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Down on your knees, b*****.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

Interesting, so in GR the force gravity can essentially work against entropy. In going from the least complex state essentially zero energy to a much more complex state the universe.

Entropy and conservation of energy aren't the same thing, so no not really.

In terms of energy, GR just means the net energy of the universe is zero (or can be zero, as long as the universe is flat, as it appears to be to our best measurements so far), but doesn't really tell us how we get from zero to an inflationary universe filled with particles, I hope the book addresses that.

Relevant link: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...thropic-brain/

And remember entropy isn't a statement about complexity, it's a statement about the usable energy in a system, or a statement about the available and possible states of a system.

The early universe had a low entropy and has a high entropy now, even though the universe now is more "complex" than it was early on.

Here's some stuff of a book I've been reading on and off, haven't really finished yet and still working through, has stuff about entropy:

http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/faq.html

[missdpuck]

I often wonder what Moses and those guys would say if they were alive today.
Perhaps something like , "Hey, get a grip! God is not some guy, it was just a catchall term because we didn't know what else to say!"

Whoever wrote the first line of Genesis would probably agree with self-creation, that there never was real "nothingness".

[photon]

Excerpt from the book today:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/articl...017262,00.html

These examples bring us to a conclusion: There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Excerpt from the book today:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/articl...017262,00.html

Very interesting. I look forward to reading the book.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Yeah, I'd tend to the view that those who spend most of their time thinking about how to live tend to spend the least amount of time actually living.

Yep. And the philosophical outlook on life can lead to the paralysis of indecision.

As one who loves to contemplate things I also have a healthy respect for the ability to act without overanalyzing. Sometimes I could use a bit more of that.

[annasuave]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world.../15220906.html

To paraphrase - The possibility of nothing excludes everything, including it's own non-existence.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Yep. And the philosophical outlook on life can lead to the paralysis of indecision.

As one who loves to contemplate things I also have a healthy respect for the ability to act without overanalyzing. Sometimes I could use a bit more of that.

I think the vulgar response to philosophy is because most people imagine contemplation to be something along the lines of this image by William Blake of Isaac Newton. People think that's what philosophy is, but it's precisely opposite. Blake was criticizing Newton's materialism precisely because it prevented him from being philosophical.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but the impression I get from this comment is that you can't be an actual atheist unless you have read the books (and understood them) by these "important" atheists.

I don't see it working like that. People don't have to understand the rationale that someone else came up with to not believe in something.

You just don't believe, for whatever reason. That's it. It doesn't have to be complicated. You don't need a Ph.D in philosophy to not believe in something.

I'm talking about atheism on the cheap. You just don't believe without realizing what you are rejecting.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm talking about atheism on the cheap. You just don't believe without realizing what you are rejecting.

Doesn't that apply for theism or faith on the cheap as well?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Doesn't that apply for theism or faith on the cheap as well?

Probably more-so.

[zuluking]

Interesting article that adds a less mainstream perspective to this topic: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/20...king-delusion/

[peter12]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Interesting article that adds a less mainstream perspective to this topic: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/20...king-delusion/

Great article. Lots of meaning that needs to be unpacked.

[photon]

Great article in that it's a great example of poisoning the well and ad hominem, seeing as it doesn't mention any actual content from the book. But that's ok, toss out a few quotes from names past because clearly if someone isn't the top mind of a generation that they should dare to weigh in with their take on a topic is obviously folly.

If the book is anything like his other books, they're books on the science and bringing the science to the uninitiated. We don't need god to explain the orbits of the planets, we don't need god to explain the diversity of life on our planet, and in this case the book appears to make the case that with the current level of understanding we have we don't need god to explain the universe either.

So the point that he's not even in the top 10 of physicists today is likely irrelevant and poisoning the well since the book will comprise of conclusions from entire disciplines like cosmology and physics, not just his own.

Hawking’s latest remarks on the redundancy of God have little depth, as Paul Davies showed easily enough in the Guardian: if you have any kind of law-like regularity in the universe, the door is always open for those who like to attribute it to God.

Ah yes, those that like to attribute things to god have to dwell in the vanishing margins of what is merely possible, not what is probable. That is far more shallow. It's also possible that everything was created last Tuesday, complete with memories and everything.

Saying that god isn't required to explain the universe isn't a deep concept.

Another case of classifying a book without even referencing the book or being able to support the claims about the book.. where have we seen that before?