Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#11

Post by wintersFright »

Groxx wrote: post #7

> And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it. Definitely deserves a "well, duh", but so many people seem averse to this line of thought. I can't count the number of times people have argued in my vicinity for God's existence based on how nicely our planet suits us... while in the same breath demonstrating that they underst…

Douglas Adams:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.'

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#12

Post by pigbucket »

revoltingx wrote: post #3

Heh, it's actually funny because in the bible it states that 'the Word of God holds the universe together'

That's a good point. Hawking's argument presupposes a purely natural universal gravitation, the problems with which assumption were exposed several years ago by Burdett et al., as reported here: http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refu...;

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#14

Post by KoZeN »

george_george wrote: post #6

First the existence of aliens and now the existence of God. What totally unscientific speculation is Stephen Hawking going to make next for the media to latch on to?

With the controversy that Britains other leading scientific mind Richard Dawkins generates, Hawking is under increased pressure from journalists to define his stance on some of the more 'media friendly' topics such as aliens, gods, etc.

I personally think it's unfortunate that the publicity about his book is almost entirely focused on 'Hawking doesn't believe in god' instead of areas such as his improved thought process on the unified field theory.

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#15

Post by george_george »

Groxx wrote: post #8
george_george wrote: post #6

First the existence of aliens and now the existence of God. What totally unscientific speculation is Stephen Hawking going to make next for the media to latch on to?

Read/re-read the article. Or at least the title. He's not speculating that God might exist, he's saying he understands the sentiments that lead people to feel that way, while the book goes on with why he says they're wrong.

>He's not speculating that God might exist...

I understand that. I just don't understand why he feels the need to start making these unscientific speculations about whether God does or does exist or whether aliens do or don't exist.

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#16

Post by dtf »

george_george wrote: post #6

First the existence of aliens and now the existence of God. What totally unscientific speculation is Stephen Hawking going to make next for the media to latch on to?

His PR team have already spun this as Hawking throwing down the gauntlet to religion, gleefully canvassing outrage and outright denial from Rabbis and Bishops.

Wiser theologians should take a step back, bring out that age old trick, and inquire "ah... but who created gravity?"

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#17

Post by mickeyben »

sprobertson wrote: post #9
shantanubala wrote: post #2

I find it funny how hands-off the article is. CNN tries too hard not to offend anyone, and unlike most articles, it doesn't actually present its own opinion. Which would be nice to see in everyday reporting, but it seems the risk of offending people is the only way to garner true neutrality.

This is just my opinion, but I think big news networks should keep their opinions out of their reporting, supplying us with as much factual information as possible (even if some would find those facts offensive). I find this article to be good reporting because it introduces Hawking's controversial opinion and a few opinion-based reactions without muddling them with its own bias.

I wish I could upvote you twice

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#18

Post by lelele »

Evolution, that's where many scientists and skeptics fail to address the big question. I can't believe that life evolves, in the sense of growing organs to meet specific needs. Natural selection does not work like that: if you have organs which don't suit you, they atrophy, that's it; if they suit you, those which have them stronger will survive. That's it. You don't grow wings to fly, lungs to breath air, brains to think. OTOH, believing in a creator just moves the issue elsewhere: who created such creator? Is he/she/it alone? I've grown comfortable with not knowing for sure what the heck we are doing here.

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#19

Post by rooshdi »

hndb wrote: post #5

So the reason there is a God, is that there must be a reason everything is created. I have tried to find out why that must be so, but have not come up with it. The only reason I could think of why people are saying this is that it might feel better for us humans that there is a reason.

Ambiguity abets assumptions.

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#20

Post by samstokes »

Groxx wrote: post #7

> And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it. Definitely deserves a "well, duh", but so many people seem averse to this line of thought. I can't count the number of times people have argued in my vicinity for God's existence based on how nicely our planet suits us... while in the same breath demonstrating that they underst…

The anthropic principle is useful for rationally debunking "... but surely..." arguments, but it's definitely a last resort, because it doesn't tell you anything about how or why.

It's a form of proof by reductio ad absurdum. You assume the counterfactual ("what if the universe couldn't support human life?"), derive a contradiction ("the universe can't support human life, yet here we are discussing it"), and conclude the phenomenon you're trying to explain is obviously true ("therefore we shouldn't be surprised that the universe supports human life"). In mathematics, reductio is a valid proof technique, but one of the least interesting, because it doesn't teach you much about the domain, whereas a proof by construction (for example) may suggest related theorems or techniques to explore.

You can explain gravity by the anthropic principle (without gravity, we wouldn't have stars or planets, so human life as we know it could never have evolved; yet here we are discussing it), but we much prefer an explanation like "matter curves spacetime so that nearby matter feels an acceleration toward it". It gives us tools to visualise and calculate the phenomenon. It also gives us a narrative, albeit a very limited one (we don't know why matter curves spacetime!), and human understanding is very dependent on narratives.

Post reply on HN