New Steven Hawkin book: The grand design

[capcom_suicide]

He writes:

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

I'm not a Cambridge professor, but isn't that the same as just saying:

"**** happens"

If that's what he spent his time doing he could have saved a lot of work by emailing me, I've know that **** happens for ages.

[Brad]

In "The Universe In A Nutshell" I'm pretty sure I remember reading that most of the things he told us in A Brief History of Time he now believes to be incorrect.

In short, you're wasting your time listening to anything he says.

[endo]

That's the nature of science isn't it- constantly questioning everything and refining theories and knowledge in general? A natural consequence of that is that lots of theories are demolished altogether.

[Kieran76]

That's the nature of science isn't it- constantly questioning everything and refining theories and knowledge in general? A natural consequence of that is that lots of theories are demolished altogether.

Which is why I sometimes get annoyed when people who blindly follow science and claim to know the truth, because we have proved it, only for their "facts" to be later called rubbish by some other scientist a few years down the line. They should says things like, "this is what we currently believe to be true", rather than "we have proven the exsistence of..."
I don't want to sound like a luddite or hater of science, because that would be stupid, but I sometimes feel that some people who claim to be rational thinkers almost worship science in the same way that religious people worship a god that they claim to know for a fact doesn't exsist.
I am not religious by the way. Just confused.

[Brats]

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

I'm not a Cambridge professor, but isn't that the same as just saying:

"**** happens"

I think he's referring to the (strongly supported) theory that matter can just appear out of nothing, which renders the argument that there must be a God (because otherwise who created us) moot.

In aBHoT, he refers to God being the force that created the universe (similar to Einstein) as opposed to a guy with a white beard. I think he's now saying that there is no special force as such, it's just a part of physics.

[vanpeebles]

I remember at Uni ages ago when I did Astronomy one of the lecturers started off by saying how crap Hawkins was and there were far better people about but he gets all the press.

[endo]

How come everyone always says Hawkins when his name is Hawking?

[NW2013]

Is there a foreword by Kevin McCloud?

[Dogg Thang]

In aBHoT, he refers to God being the force that created the universe (similar to Einstein) as opposed to a guy with a white beard. I think he's now saying that there is no special force as such, it's just a part of physics.

A Universe appearing spontaneously out of nothing sounds about as likely to me as a guy with a white beard. Hawking obviously knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do but then the Pope knows a lot more about his area and I'm not buying what he says either.

[endo]

Which is why I sometimes get annoyed when people who blindly follow science and claim to know the truth, because we have proved it, only for their "facts" to be later called rubbish by some other scientist a few years down the line. They should says things like, "this is what we currently believe to be true", rather than "we have proven the exsistence of..."
I don't want to sound like a luddite or hater of science, because that would be stupid, but I sometimes feel that some people who claim to be rational thinkers almost worship science in the same way that religious people worship a god that they claim to know for a fact doesn't exsist.
I am not religious by the way. Just confused.

I get what you're saying and I agree with you to an extent- people who blindly put their faith (hur hur) in science as some sort of definitive answer or the 'truth' are missing the point somewhat. To my mind, any scientist with any kind of integrity will say 'this is what we currently believe to be true' rather than 'we have proven the exsistence of', like you say. That, as I understand it, is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

That said, there are some things that I think can generally be taken to be true as it would appear to be reasonable to expect they won't be proven otherwise. Off the top of my head, the earth was once believed to be flat and the idea it might be round was only a theory and science has now shown that it is indeed round. Obviously I've never been into space and observed the earth for myself, but I don't feel like I'm on dodgy ground believing it's round.

But yeah, I agree with your main point: 'worshipping' science is totally missing the point. Besides which, the thrust of Hawking's work isn't to prove or disprove the existence of god; it is to seek to better explain what the universe is, how it was formed and to describe the processes within in it.

In terms of promoting sceptical thought and reiterating the importance of evidence-based theory though, science is invaluable.

[Richard.John]

I suppose the biggest problem with the argument is that something had to exist to to make something. Whether that was god, I don't know and will never know, but I'm sure of one thing. The 'God' that started it all, isn't the same one (which one?) that is written down in the various religious texts, created by man. I'm inclined to believe that Mother Nature is in fact the supreme force, and is governed by the laws of physics. Or perhaps it's the other way round?

[sj33]

In other words, we're back to '**** happens'

[wonderboy]

The problem with this, is causality. Everything in the physical world that has ever or will ever, be moved, created destroyed is caused by an effect from something else. The biggest mystery for humans, is the first push/bang. Who, what, where and why is what irritates people/scientists... Maybe the end of this universe is what will start the next and did before that..?

We are so fixated by time, that everything has to have a begining and an end !? Really, in the end, perception is our ultimate master...

To some the universe is a lot like searching for a parent, knowing you were adopted. You really want to know were you created out of love, or abandoned..?

[jezzace]

Didn't Y'all play ocarina? It was din, farore and some other god I never found, maybe that's what hawking is onto. Guess gamefaqs would've benn quicker...

[endo]

I suppose the biggest problem with the argument is that something had to exist to to make something.

And the problem with that is that something else surely had to exist previously to create that creator, no? That's just it though, Hawking's saying here that nothing 'had to' exist previously to create the universe. He's saying he thinks it's possible that it just spontaneously came into being:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Utterly bizarre to consider, and as to whether it's correct or not- I have absolutely no idea. That said though, it's no less or more bizarre than any other theory concerning the origin of the universe.