Seriously thoughtful Universe not created by God

[TGS]

So says Stephen Hawking in his new book, briefly reviewed here

[Druid_Elf]

Only religion fanatics believe that god created the universe
But thanks for the link, didn't know that a new book was going to released by hawking.
Should be interesting

[jhempel24]

There was a great series on either the Science Channel or National Geographic Called

"Through the Wormhole w/Morgan Freeman" and the fist episode discussed what his book is most likely about.

They didnt' mention the book, but it was a VERY good explanation regarding multiple big bangs, and it's just one big cycle.

[church mouse]

My understanding, though I could be wrong because I have only read purported extracts from the book and not the book itself, is that he is simply saying that the laws of physics are sufficient in themselves to explain the beginning of the universe and do not require the existence of a God to have started the whole thing off.

Strange that such a conclusion should make a headline - "Hawking says Universe needed God to kick it all off!" I could understand could warrant a big, if most unlikely headline.

[Sweetpea]

http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/b28560/?si=0

I like Sawyer's explanation better!

[impry]

I see only one interesting thing against that theory. The law of gravity is "something" wich must be created too. If there is a spontaneous factor in it, than there is a chance, that gravity is not always "working", so we can say its not a law.

[darknessangel]

Oh noes! Why make a thread that will stirr all the religious fanatics in here!? >_<

[Graham]

Originally Posted by impry

I see only one interesting thing against that theory. The law of gravity is "something" wich must be created too. If there is a spontaneous factor in it, than there is a chance, that gravity is not always "working", so we can say its not a law.

Scientists wouldn't claim it to be a "law" either. They would point to Newton's Theory of Gravity, for example.

However, the relevant point here is that the various physical principles, call them theories or laws, were created along with the universe. Physics is exploring the concept of multiple universes, each with different properties: they may or may not exist alongside our own, and only a fraction may be stable.

We happen to be living in a universe where the physical principles allow not only for a stable cosmos, but for life to exist: this is a wonderful thing.

If there is or can only ever have been one universe then this is also astonishingly unlikely.

If there are, or have been a succession of, many universes, then the fact that we are here to observe the existence of a universe with life in it serves to filter out all the unlikely ones: obviously the one we ended up in was stable and could support life, because here we are! (This is an example of what's known as the Anthropic Principle.)

Graham

[Nathanael]

Originally Posted by Druid_Elf

Only religion fanatics believe that god created the universe

Is it possible to be religious without being a fanatic? If it's not, then "religious fanatic" is redundant. If it is, then your statement is wrong.

--Nathanael

[GeoffC]

It happened, now we move on and live through the echoes .....

[happy_terd]

There are very few religious fanatics compared to the vast amount of people that claim they believe in a God. The majority of Christians in the US do not care to try and convert anyone. The same people who are whack jobs with God would have been whack jobs without God. The same people who kill or hurt others in God's name would have found another reason to do so if God's name wasnt so damn convenient to use.

Originally Posted by darknessangel

Oh noes! Why make a thread that will stirr all the religious fanatics in here!? >_<

lol. The only people who ever bring up religion on this forum are people who tell us how wrong or fanatical we are.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Druid_Elf

Only religion fanatics believe that god created the universe

Couldn't you be non-religious, and still believe a god created the Universe?

You might believe such a god doesn't have any special concern for humanity, so doesn't require us to maintain a religion for their benefit.
So you'd believe in a creator god, but not be religious.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Couldn't you be non-religious, and still believe a god created the Universe?

You might believe such a god doesn't have any special concern for humanity, so doesn't require us to maintain a religion for their benefit.
So you'd believe in a creator god, but not be religious.

Interesting idea Sparrow. I guess it would be possible to believe in a creator (I won't use the word 'god' - even non-capitalised - as it seems to me to hold too many connotations) without necessarily worshipping that being.

Personally though, I think that once the step of believing in a creator is taken, it is pretty inevitable that religion as we understand it will arise.

In the interests of full disclosure, I myself am an atheist.

[Nathanael]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Couldn't you be non-religious, and still believe a god created the Universe?

You might believe such a god doesn't have any special concern for humanity, so doesn't require us to maintain a religion for their benefit.
So you'd believe in a creator god, but not be religious.

They used to call it Deism. But really, you're just raising semantics. If "religious" means actively practicing a religion -- e.g., worshipping a deity -- then there are obviously a whole lot of non-religious theists. If "religious" simply means holding to a certain category of transcendent beliefs -- generally involving the existence of God or gods -- then one need not practice a religion to be religious. And if one is a practicing Buddhist, it's even possible to be a religious non-theist.

Just a matter of semantic boundaries.

--Nathanael

[v1k1ng1001]

If Dawkins is any indication, then scientistic atheism is a money maker.

Methinks SH is ca$hing in.