Why God Did Not Create the Universe

[Penn]

A fascinating article by Stephen Hawking

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

[nmap]

Nice article! Although the mind boggles at the idea of countless universes...

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Penn

A fascinating article by Stephen Hawking

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

..........what if he's wrong?

How long is one of God's days?

To someone who is timeless and ageless why do we limit Him to 24 hours?

[nmap]

There's a subtle little twist to the article.

Hawking is not saying "There is no God". Rather, he is saying that God did not create this universe - as in, this particular universe.

If the multiverse theory is correct, then perhaps someone, somewhere - God, if you will - created an overall environment that spawns limitless numbers of universes over a limitless amount of time. The environment I make reference to is very much beyond comprehension - although there are tentative efforts, such as "brane cosmology".

Far from denying the existence of a creator, Hawking may be suggesting something greater than is dreamed of in most theologies.

Or maybe I've just had too much coffee....

[Richard]

Ahhh...back to the future with the ages old universal question - did God need Man or did Man need God? And if so, why?

And so it goes...

Richard

Originally Posted by nmap

...far from denying the existence of a creator, Hawking may be suggesting something greater than is dreamed of in most theologies.

Or maybe I've just had too much coffee....

When ideas are not founded in absolutes, (science), many subject themselves, in their own minds too, what is, (religion). While I believe science and religion are compatible, some do not. Early human history suggests that we, mankind, created God - because the thought of being alone in the universe is a tough cross to bear, sort of speaking.

What if we, humans, are mere spirtual creatures having an earthly experience, not simply hosts of clay trying to understand the spirit realm? Not, "Who am I, but what am I?".

The susject of religion is often avoided because there is just to much area of, "we don't know". Science has the same problems, but it is easier to discuss since we do not venture into one's sensibilities or risk offending someone. I avoid religious discussion with most outside of my immediate family, children and a few friends, which makes me not a good example of "letting my light so shine for the world to see", but I try to show the world by my actions, what I believe.

I believe the universe is endless, continually expanding. What it is expanding into, I do not know. After my probation on earth studying "Terraforming" is complete, I hope the Viking Mother ship returns to pick me up, and I can get into some of that "world building" myself. I would create a solar system with a single sun, like ours, some really cool moons, and an earth similar to this one for just me, with endless rivers, mountains, lakes and oceans. On another earth, I'd put all the kids to figure out how to cooperate, negociate and problem solve. I might occassionally visit them and intervein on some's behalf.

My question for Hawking would be, "In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded, right?" For matter can not be created, but simply moved, changed, and organized. What if a version of a Time-Space Continuum is concurrent, what if everything is happening simultaneously as we exist? The Romans are building, leaving evidence of their "existance", while at the same time, we are living, breathing today, viewing the "history" left behind. It looks old, but it is not. Of course, the builder of such viewing would see all of this in the present, and view the future just as easily, perhaps even allowing others to view the future, (in vision).

I'm moving back into my lane and search the Comedy Zone, the Mosque at Ground Zero, maybe immigration in Arizona.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Penn

A fascinating article by Stephen Hawking

I have read and admired Hawking for some 25 yrs. I am continually amazed at the way he perceives the universe.

I am happy that while I read his papers, I can understand maybe 40-50 %, while believing that I can span the the gaps in my inability to understand the rest.

I don't agree nor disagree with his writings for a simple reason. He's perception of the universe is a singular view that is beyond most of my comprehension.

It's about like telling Michelangelo that David should have looked to the right instead of the left.

Or telling Leonardo da Vinci that it is obvious the Mona Lisa painting is a thinly disguised self-portrait of himself in drag..

Or telling Mary Shelley she got it wrong, Frankenstein should have had a happy ending...

You can't,, You just sit with your mouth open and wonder..

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by Pete

..........what if he's wrong?

How long is one of God's days?

To someone who is timeless and ageless why do we limit Him to 24 hours?

in regards to Hawking's article it would take as much (or more) faith to believe that than it would to believe in intelligent design

[Kyobanim]

No it wouldn't.

[zauber1]

Pascal's Wager

[olhamada]

Originally Posted by nmap

Hawking is not saying "There is no God". Rather, he is saying that God did not create this universe - as in, this particular universe.

I disagree. In this editorial, Hawking himself says, "Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation". As a self-pronounced atheist, and in the same statement, Hawking once again tries to prove that the only "Creator" and "God" is man while at the same time stating that we are too puny and insignificant to matter. This is COMPLETELY counter to the entire message of scripture on both counts.

As Tony Campolo once said, "In the beginning God created man in His own image - and now we have decided to return the favor".

Hawking has a brilliant mind, but he's wrong. Theologically he is a humanistic atheist. Of course, he's going to say God didn't create the universe or man, that the OT is a compilation of ancient myths, that Genesis holds no scientific credibility, etc.....

There are many others who are just as brilliant who can "prove" just as well that this cosmos could not have come into being without the intervention of an intelligent, intentional, and present God.

[Buffalobob]

After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots.

Still plenty of pot bangers in the world!

Many/most of the great physicists turned to philosophy in their later life.

One would have expected the classical postulation that we (homo sapiens) are what we are because we are in the set of laws that we observe. Hawkings reverses the postulation and makes it new and fresh.

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by zauber1

Pascal's Wager

that's my bet

[echoes]

The title of this thread influenced my reasoning, thus, my veiw is that Mr. Hawking espouses very nice labels.

I stopped reading after the first sentence;

"Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world."

Good on you, Mr. H, for being published. (Tell me something I don't know!)

This is akin, IMHO, to a any Cook who thinks that their dish is better than the other guys because his uniform was starched clean! Maybe I'm wrong, but....

JMHO,

Holly

[Penn]

Echoes, whats it like out there on that limb?