Hawking: God did not create Universe

Wrong again. Explain where my logic fails in the link below, Gayfly. You can't because it doesn't and you're just another B- brain who can't think for himself.

I'll tell you where yours fails. You have NO IDEA what everyone's background is here AND Hawking's not infallible AND one doesn't need a PhD in physics to understand that given how little we know about the universe, Hawking's statement was a highly speculative reach at best.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2943416#post2943416

 

Point taken. Kindly set the matter straight. Please tell me how many university undergraduate courses you have taken in physics, let alone the research you have done at the graduate, post graduate and post doctoral levels.

 

Typical Gayfly, trying to turn the tables by answering a question with a question because you have no answer.

96% of the universe is currently thought to consist of "dark energy" and "dark matter" which are theoretical constructs hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile differences between theory and observation.

Given that scientists admittedly have NO CLUE about the vast majority of the universe, explain how any human can make a definitive statement like Hawking did.

“because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..."

In other words, how is it rational to proclaim that, that which we know practically nothing about can and will create itself from nothing?

You're proving yet again that you not only have a B- brain; you're also incapable of honest discussion and debate.

 

Not at all. You opened the door. I merely walked through it. You pointed out that I had no idea what anyone's background is here. And you are correct. I don't. Therefore, I await the logical next step: your advising me exactly what your background is in this scientific field and how many years you have devoted to its study and advancement, which would give you a legitimate voice in this discussion. I am simply following up on the valid assertion that you made. I am not in a position to weigh in and counter anything Hawking has to say because I recognize that I do not have the proper grounding to do so. I am sufficiently self-aware to be cognizant of my limitations, and I do not know of a better mind than his who can dispute his current thinking. Please assure me that you are not looking to debate Hawking with nothing more than high school physics and a couple of Internet references. Surely no one can be that stupid.

 

Oh please... that's exactly what you're trying to do because your little B- brain hasn't been able to come up with anything of substance. So in typical troll fashion, you ask for my resume. Get a life Gayfly

Again you prove you can't think for yourself. Just because Hawking says so and he has the "best" credentials, you accept it? Never mind that scientists are for all practical purposes clueless about the nature of the universe AS I'VE SHOWN YOU. Dispute it or STFU. This is not about credentials. Mine BTW are none of your business.

 

Wonder if hawking trades and if so, what????

 

by the time the book comes out the quote will be put in context.

I am willing to bet... he is going to go into M theory to explain the anthropic principle and explain why our universe is so finely tuned.
Just like susskind.

And therefore "this" universe had to come out the way it did because we need gravity to be the way it is.

If Hawking produces proof of other universes, then that will be noteworthy.

I have been watching his recent shows on one of the science channels.

He seems to think that our universe is so vast that there is reason to suspect there are lots of other life forms out there.

Basically he does not think humans are likely to be special.

 

Yes, I know. You run circles around world class scientists in your spare time.

How very surprising.

 

What's the big deal? He is espousing a theory. He does it all the time. And he alters his theories over time too. The guy is a scientist. That means he is still looking and will never stop looking.

And if he finds something else - he'll change his theory again.

 

multiverse - it is -

although still waiting for the explanation of the out of nothing because of "gravity" and quantum theory part.

Note: these multiverse guys love to play down the "if it is true part" but the "if" is there.



"By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.

If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.

The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously 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.

Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html