Seriously thoughtful Universe not created by God

[captcrouton]

Originally Posted by 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

I know you're trolling, and also you're from Belgium, so you might not care. But your statement made me google...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062300818.html

I love this statement. I had to read it several times to make sure I understood it right.

"The study detailed Americans' deep and broad religiosity, finding that 92 percent believe in God or a universal spirit -- including one in five of those who call themselves atheists. More than half of Americans polled pray at least once a day."

I think the bigger concern than religious fanaticism in America, is confused atheists, as 20% of them believe in God. Clearly, they are an uneducated lot.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by captcrouton

I know you're trolling, and also you're from Belgium, so you might not care.

I don't know what that means, but for some reason it made me laugh.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Adoby

....

Most likely the origin problem will NEVER be resolved completely. Not with science anyway.

....

I agree with you but find this statement interesting in that afaic the only tool we have for understanding our surroundings is science. If it can't answer the question, then the question cannot be answered.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by captcrouton

...

I think the bigger concern than religious fanaticism in America, is confused atheists, as 20% of them believe in God. Clearly, they are an uneducated lot.

[darknessangel]

This is another case of true science reporting...

[nguirado]

Was this thread started by a secular fanatic? In order for this theory to disprove God, you have to believe that something cannot not exist if physical laws exist and that physical laws cannot not exist.

The multiverse does not solve the problem on causality; it merely pushes it back.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Was this thread started by a secular fanatic? In order for this theory to disprove God, you have to believe that something cannot not exist if physical laws exist and that physical laws cannot not exist.

The multiverse does not solve the problem on causality; it merely pushes it back.

No, it was started by me.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Was this thread started by a secular fanatic? In order for this theory to disprove God, you have to believe that something cannot not exist if physical laws exist and that physical laws cannot not exist.

The multiverse does not solve the problem on causality; it merely pushes it back.

The multiverse is not used to solve the problem of causality, but instead is used to explain the likelihood of a particular set of physical laws being the ones we observe in our universe.

The proposed solution for causality (whether in a single universe or a multiverse) lies in Hawking's observation that our current theories do not prohibit matter from spontaneously 'popping into existence'.

Again, the thread title is misleading, as from the various reviews I've read Hawking's book doesn't say that "Physics indicates that there is no God", it argues that "Physics indicates that there is no need for a God". How you weigh up the statistical likelihood of a deity after accepting Hawking's interpretation of the physics is up to you.

I'm looking forward to reading the book when it's released, although at the moment there doesn't seem to be an eBook version forthcoming. (Hopefully that will also spontaneously pop into existence.)

Graham

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Graham

Again, the thread title is misleading, as from the various reviews I've read Hawking's book doesn't say that "Physics indicates that there is no God", it argues that "Physics indicates that there is no need for a God". How you weigh up the statistical likelihood of a deity after accepting Hawking's interpretation of the physics is up to you.

The thread title was taken from the review in The Guardian, to which the link in the OP pointed.

[Sparrow]

The "creator god/no creator god" debate is interesting in its own way; but I can't really see the outcome mattering overmuch, unless someone can explain why discovering the existence of such a god would have any impact on our day-to-day lives.

I guess it's the sort of thing that would be nice to know, but we'd still be where we are if we did.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Graham

...

Again, the thread title is misleading, as from the various reviews I've read Hawking's book doesn't say that "Physics indicates that there is no God", it argues that "Physics indicates that there is no need for a God". ...

Graham

Nor does the thread title (or article title) say or imply that there is not God.

I wouldn't call it misleading at all.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

The "creator god/no creator god" debate is interesting in its own way; but I can't really see the outcome mattering overmuch, unless someone can explain why discovering the existence of such a god would have any impact on our day-to-day lives.

I guess it's the sort of thing that would be nice to know, but we'd still be where we are if we did.

At least we'd have a lot more time to argue about something else.

Graham

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Graham

The multiverse is not used to solve the problem of causality, but instead is used to explain the likelihood of a particular set of physical laws being the ones we observe in our universe.

That's really just a re-statement of the anthropic principle which answers the question "why are the physical laws the way they are?" with the answer "because if they were different, we wouldn't be here to observe them."

I'm looking forward to reading the book when it's released, although at the moment there doesn't seem to be an eBook version forthcoming. (Hopefully that will also spontaneously pop into existence.)

It's available for pre-order from Amazon for £5.98.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nor does the thread title (or article title) say or imply that there is not God.

I wouldn't call it misleading at all.

Good point with regard to God. He may have taken an interest at a later stage.

However, the thread/article title is misleading over Hawking's position (as reported - we need to read the book when it comes out to find out for sure).

Graham

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Graham

..
However, the thread/article title is misleading over Hawking's position (as reported - we need to read the book when it comes out to find out for sure).

Graham

If we don't have the information (i.e. we have not read the book) then it's not possible to say if the title is misleading or not, eh?