No need for god in creating the universe!

[sherminator]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493


One of he smartest men on the planet thinks so!!!

[jomifl]

Hi squarebear, Re. you question, which one(religion) is right, as I observed in another thread, so many religions must be wrong (only the possibility of one of them ever being right) that, the balance of probability is that they are all wrong, and all that that implies re. a god (or gods)

[Old_Geezer]

Surely it is more that so many religions don't have it 100% correct, which would be expected gievn that they are basically conjecture, rather than all are completely wrong. As for what it implies wrt God(s) well nothing really.

[mibn2cweus]

I have my own suspicions that we as conscious beings with the ability to be cognizant of our tiny place in the universe might be rare indeed if not unique. The vastness of the universe makes a creator redundant. But if other conscious cognizant beings do exist does it really make the universe that much smaller?

If all there was to the universe was this Earth and what we can see with the unaided eye then I can understand how our ancestors might have found it necessary to invoke the existence of a creator but the shear vastness of the universe makes the happy accident of our existence virtually inevitable. Why did 'God' go to all this trouble to leave us in awe of his creation when one suitable planet with a moon and a smattering of stars was evidently enough to do the trick?

What a deceitful trickster and manipulative monster our presumed 'creator' turned out to be. But as long as we remain fools, there will continue to be those eager to cash in on our ignorance.

[keyplus90]

//// One of he smartest men on the planet thinks so!!!////

And this is what your given link reads,

///He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.///

I hope one of the smartest men in the world has FINALLY made his mind up once for good. Or would he change his mind again?

[Count-A-Strong]

Gawd, don't you lot get bored with this unresolvable pointless debate?

[LazyGun]

@Keyplus - Well, there you go - you have summed up one of the essential differences between religion and science - well done!

You, and your fellow zealots twist the world to fit within your religious views. Nothing will change your religious views - and you view such stubborn intransigence as a virtue - a bit like you believe that faith in the absence of any credible, demonstrable evidence is somehow virtuous.

Hawking, on the other hand, is a scientist - and a scientist is willing to change their world view should they be presented with evidence, or to accomodate a hypothesis that better fits the universe around them. Considered, measured rationality - A far better, far more mature and ,above all ,a far more intelligent approach to life.

[keyplus90]

A far more mature approach. Yes you are right and only thing I am saying is that few will change their minds until they will find the truth and few have believed in truth already without wasting time. Sometime wisdom comes with knowledge and most of the times knowledge follows wisdom.

[jomifl]

Hi OG, I did have my tongue in cheek slightly but I was trying to make a valid point. So many religions with so many different views cannot all be right therefore probably 99% of their beliefs must be wrong by mutual exclusion. The only thing that they nearly all agree on is that here is a god or gods. Buddism (possibly not a religion in the true sense of the word) doesn't require a god to justify it's theology, so maybe has got something right.

[ludwig]

It's all meaningless though isn't it? Stephen Hawking saying 'There might be a god' is no more informed than him saying 'I don't think there is a god - just physics'.

He's got no more insight into the existence of a creator than any of us. The obvious religionist answer to 'it's an inevitable result of the laws of physics' is 'yes, but god created the laws of physics in the first place'.

He's just indulging in philosophical musings like we do on answerbank.

[jomifl]

Hi again Keyplus, so how would you define the truth? Is it an absolute thing carved in tablets of stone as it were, or is it a balance of probabilities which is subjective. That is to say a sliding scale between infinitely true or infinitely untrue and truth as we know it lies wherever we want it to.Or doesn't lie at all?

[jomifl]

just a thought.... If god created the universe..where did he/she/it get all the stuff from?
Is it possible that in a supercelestial continuum far beyond our conception there is a kind of astral B&Q or even Walmart?

[jomifl]

Hi Count.. if we took it seriously it might get boring.

[sherminator]

I have said this time and time again Keyplus! You have absolutely no clue how science works!

you need to understand science before you can dare comment on there findings!

[Ankou]

"scientific progress is the discovery of a more and more comprehensive simplicity... the previous successes give us confidence in the future of science: we become more and more conscious of the fact that the universe is cognizable"

georges lemaitre (hence my 1st post)

[keyplus90]

I have never claimed to by expert in Science (or any thing else) but I will do what you said (stop posting) when all the scientists will agree with eachother on one thing.

[rov1200]

At least he said there were likely to be other universes out there. In those universes there may have lived some intelligent beings. So who is to say these intelligent beings (far superior to ours) colonised our universe and brought life to it. Not a god but a far superior form of evolution

Why do we assume our universe is greatly superior to any others that have existed in the far distant past?

[sherminator]

Keyplus again you dont understand science! the whole point is to try not agree on things!

say im a scientist and i say the moon is made of cheese and i give a list of reasons why. Other scientists will then go and try to prove me wrong they will do tests and then come back with the findings. thats how it works.

I can guarantee right now there will be a scientist who has seen what dawkins had to say and will now be doing tests to see if and where he has gone wrong with his theory. if he cant prove him wrong then he will accept dawkins findings as a scientific theory!