02 Sep 10
An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -
Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.
02 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobit seems he says that gravity will be responsible for spontaneously generating the universe.
An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -
Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.
i don't understand that. in the early moments of the universe i was under the impression that gravity was combined with the strong force, weak force and electromagnetic force into one singular superforce. how will that force suddenly "break" and cause the big bang?
maybe he was misquoted because bbc don't get it.
anyway, there is always an event behind which we can place god. i don't find it possible to prove conclusively that god is redundant.
02 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper Knoboh yeah, biology hasn't made god redundant, only disproves the constant interference of god, else everything dies out.
An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -
Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.
02 Sep 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhy not? Surely if we can show that the universe as we know it could, within the basic laws of physics have come about through nothing more than the most basic laws of physics, then we can simply take those laws as brute facts, and God is redundant.
anyway, there is always an event behind which we can place god. i don't find it possible to prove conclusively that god is redundant.
In fact, I can't really see how God could not be redundant. Just about any scenario where we take the start of the universe as a brute fact, is no less reasonable than taking Gods existence as a brute fact.
ie it is just as reasonable to say:
1. The universe popped into existence for unknown reasons or no reason at all (brute fact).
and
2. God existed for unknown reasons or for no reason (brute fact) and created the universe.
02 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobBiology has done no such thing. Reputation is only as good as the opinion of people: how's that worked out historically, again?
An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -
Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.
02 Sep 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is a metaphysical question. Most theist philosophers would point out that the universe is contingent (i.e. need not have been) and argue that God is a necessary being. It's not that God's existence is a brute fact but that God cannot but exist.
Why not? Surely if we can show that the universe as we know it could, within the basic laws of physics have come about through nothing more than the most basic laws of physics, then we can simply take those laws as brute facts, and God is redundant.
In fact, I can't really see how God could not be redundant. Just about any scenario where we take the star ...[text shortened]... and
2. God existed for unknown reasons or for no reason (brute fact) and created the universe.
I would like to see more on this theory that argues that the Universe could pop out of nothing. Any physicists here who can explain it in layman's terms?
02 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobDon't neglect that the word "theories" are in this comment..Lol.
An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -
Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.
Oh but wait!!!!!!! That means proof to you guys....I forgot.