Seriously thoughtful Universe not created by God

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Druid_Elf

Only religion fanatics believe that god created the universe

I guess this would depend on ones definition of "fanatics". By any commonly accepted definition of the word that I am aware of, your statement is patently false and adds nothing to the discussion.

As for SH's book and the idea of the physical universe having not been created by a creator of some description.........

I don't know but the way I see it is this........

In a reality of infinite possibilities it is possible that the physical universe was created by a creator or by an accident of chance. Categorically stating "the universe was not created by god" is just as "wrong" as stating "the universe was created by god". At present we simply do not know which is the case.

Further, even if one accepts the proposition that the physical universe does not need a god to have been created and could have come about by a random chain of chance happenings, this does not prove a god was not involved. Just as I could show you that the mutations of a cold virus could have occurred randomly by chance, this does not mean that those mutations were not actually intentionally made by a scientists in the lab. Again, it all comes down to "we just don't know".

Of course then one must consider that even if the universe did come about by a random chain of chance events, that chain of events may have been instigated by some sort of creator.

Lastly, even should one accept that the universe was created by a creator one must consider how said creator came into existence. And down the rabbit hole we go!

Cheers,
PKFFW

[happy_terd]

I do not know what all the confusion is about.

I am God and I do exist.

[durkinrobinson]

God didn't have time to create the universe. He was too busy helping rock stars win MTV video music awards and athletes win championships.

Gonna go chat with Kanye,
Catherine

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

...

Lastly, even should one accept that the universe was created by a creator one must consider how said creator came into existence. ....

Which by that logic would leave us right where Stehpen Hawking says - Ultimately there was no God Creator.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

I do not know what all the confusion is about.

I am God and I do exist.

What the God of the Horse Piss?

[happy_terd]

bite me.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Which by that logic would leave us right where Stehpen Hawking says - Ultimately there was no God Creator.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see where Hawking says there is no God Creator.

It seems to me from the review link in the OP that he is stating that the laws of physics show the creation of the physical universe did not necessarily require a God Creator. Just as a cold virus can mutate without any intervention from an intelligent being. That doesn't mean that a specific cold virus mutation was categorically not the product of intervention from an intelligent being just because it could have happened by chance.

As for who created the creator........I guess the answer is really only of any significance if one is discussing the creation of the physical universe or of reality in totality.

If one is only discussing the former, it doesn't matter who created the creator. All that matters is the creator created the physical universe.(assuming a creator did)

If one is discussing the latter then I would argue the circular questioning would never end and we could never really know or we must accept the idea that all reality and all creation always was and was never "created" to begin with.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Categorically stating "the universe was not created by god" is just as "wrong" as stating "the universe was created by god". At present we simply do not know which is the case.

Pardon my pedantry, but would it be more accurate to say "..."the universe was not created by a god (or gods)..."" ?

There have been many candidate gods in many human traditions.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Pardon my pedantry, but would it be more accurate to say "..."the universe was not created by a god (or gods)..."" ?

There have been many candidate gods in many human traditions.

Maybe, maybe not. Some schools of though suggest all different "gods" are merely different facets of the singular supreme being or "God". Under such a philosophy, to distinguish between "gods" is merely to distinguish between the different names of "God". Hence, to use the singular turn of phrase for the supreme being would be correct.

Of course not everyone subscribes to the above and for them the plural turn of phrase may be more accurate.

Of course the statement itself would still be as essentially unprovable(at present) and potentially incorrect either way.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see where Hawking says there is no God Creator.
...

Well that's the point of this entire thread and of the referenced link.

[Over]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

What you say is what science has been doing for a while. To the milions of years since the Big Bang, they are now adding multiple universes to make chances more plausible.

And yet, science still can't create life. So they keep adding billions of years of randomness and evolution, just to be able to say that "in such a long time and trials and errors, something must have happened, we just need to find out". I have to praise such faith.

[TGS]

I guess PKFFW's point is that Hawking doesn't claim to have proved that the universe was not created by god, but rather that there is no need to invoke a creator god to explain anything - even when that "anything" includes the existence of the universe itself. In just the same way that explaining how my presents get into my Christmas stocking in terms of the behaviour of known individuals doesn't prove the non-existence of Santa Clause - but does render the Santa Clause story redundant, so explaining the existence of the universe in terms of science as we currently understand it does not prove the non-existence of a creator god, but...

[Over]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see where Hawking says there is no God Creator.

It seems to me from the review link in the OP that he is stating that the laws of physics show the creation of the physical universe did not necessarily require a God Creator. Just as a cold virus can mutate without any intervention from an intelligent being. That doesn't mean that a specific cold virus mutation was categorically not the product of intervention from an intelligent being just because it could have happened by chance.

As for who created the creator........I guess the answer is really only of any significance if one is discussing the creation of the physical universe or of reality in totality.

If one is only discussing the former, it doesn't matter who created the creator. All that matters is the creator created the physical universe.(assuming a creator did)

If one is discussing the latter then I would argue the circular questioning would never end and we could never really know or we must accept the idea that all reality and all creation always was and was never "created" to begin with.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Or that humans and mathematics aren't great dealing with infinites.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Over

What you say is what science has been doing for a while. To the milions of years since the Big Bang, they are now adding multiple universes to make chances more plausible.

And yet, science still can't create life. So they keep adding billions of years of randomness and evolution, just to be able to say that "in such a long time and trials and errors, something must have happened, we just need to find out". I have to praise such faith.

You seem confused about a couple of things. Science is not a process of making things up other than as a first step (and even that must fit the plausable facts/scenario). Science is the process of measuring the result of such hypotheses to verify if they are true or not.

Creation of life is a red herring and you don't seem to understand that evolution is a well described and verified process not some random event.

[Over]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You seem confused about a couple of things. Science is not a process of making things up other than as a first step (and even that must fit the plausable facts/scenario). Science is the process of measuring the result of such hypotheses to verify if they are true or not.

Creation of life is a red herring and you don't seem to understand that evolution is a well described and verified process not some random event.

I know what science is, but some times it lacks some epistomology (did I translate this word correctly to english?).

You talk about hypothesis... When science can't provide an anwer, they can provide more hypothesis, in an endless loop. Sure there are many findings that result of this, as every scientific finding starts with a question and some hypothesis, but something as simple as the origin of life is still a mystery, and there's no scientific facts about it, just hypothesis.

For example, no scientist has been able to create life in a laboratory (out of non living elements). Real science can't proove God's existence, but can't deny it either. So it's always funny to watch some people thinking they know better and are more scientific saying there can't be a God or Creator... They're just being "religious".

About evolution and randomness... Evolution is all about randomness... And how the fitest are the ones who survive. There's no "force" that selects who's the fitest or in what direction should evolve. And that's what makes thing even more unlikely, because of the above example: with all scientific expertize, it's not posible to make something that some scientists want to make us belive that just happened somehow a long time ago, in a random event or process of events.