Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

[Chris OConnor]

By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
September 2, 2010 3:41 p.m. EDT

LONDON, England (CNN) -- God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

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

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.

His book -- as the title suggests -- is an attempt to answer "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything," he writes, quoting Douglas Adams' cult science fiction romp, "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

His answer is "M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space." He doesn't explain much of that in the excerpt, which is the introduction to the book.

But he says he understands the feeling of the great English scientist Isaac Newton that God did "create" and "conserve" order in the universe.

It was the discovery of other solar systems outside our own, in 1992, that undercut a key idea of Newton's -- that our world was so uniquely designed to be comfortable for human life that some divine creator must have been responsible.

But, Hawking argues, if there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life.

And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.

From there he introduces the idea of multiple universes, saying that if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours -- and in such a universe, something not only can, but must, arise from nothing.

Therefore, he concludes, there's no need for God to explain it.

But some of Hawking's Cambridge colleagues said the physicist has missed the point.

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing," said Denis Alexander.

"Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.

"Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," said Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

And Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God.

But, he said, "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

Hawking's book will be published on September 7 in the United States and September 9 in the United Kingdom.

[Kevin]

But, he said, "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

I mostly agree with the statement above.

At times it said said that God didn't create the universe(s) while at others it mentions that God isn't necessary for the creation of the universe(s). Regardless of it being just one, or both of the arguments Hawking is actually promoting, it is sure to be an interesting read.

[Jim Watters]

Interesting view from a respected scientist who is an atheist. Perhaps I'll read it one day when I have a job again.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#R ... ious_views

[Penelope]

Surely it depends on how we visualise, or perceive 'God'.

In Christian, Jewish based, doctrine, we are taught to think of God, rather like a child, creating form, from modelling clay.

God, modelling Eve from Adam's Rib. Modelling Adam from the Clay and 'breathing' life into him. All very picturesque and beautiful, but NOT.

Maybe, it is more 'digestable' from an intellectual point of view, to think of 'God' as a force, like in Star Wars, 'May the Force Be With You!!'

Even the Bible (well, in the Psalms) says that God created Good and Evil. So, it is just 'the Force'. We, perhaps, choose whether we are on the side of light or darkness, and by our desire, draw such to ourselves.

Maybe that is what free-will means.

I would like to recommend, to anyone who may be interested the book:0

Hiding in the Mirror - The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions, from Plato to String Theory and Beyond.

By Lawrence M Krauss. (the author of The Physics of Star Trek).

I am not pretending to understand this book.......but....Oh, the Allure.

[JulianTheApostate]

Interesting view from a respected scientist who is an atheist. Perhaps I'll read it one day when I have a job again.

Though you might have more time to read a book like that when you don't have a full-time job. Good luck in your job search.

Actually, as a physics Ph.D., I don't think physicists have any special insights into religious matters, besides the fact that prominent physicists (a group that includes Hawking but not me) are very bright people.

[Jim Watters]

Thank you Julian.

I have heard from a number of modern physicists that they believe in God.

I'm an aspiring physicists that has been enraptured by quantum mechanics\field theory\relativity (particle physics/cosmology) since 1985. I have a handful of classes to get my B.A., but not the time or money to complete it. (Classical Mechanics II, Electricity and Magnetism I & II, Intermediate Lab, Advanced Lab, and a weekend seminar).

Maybe if I hadn't bought the 300+ books on math and physics I could have paid for those remaining classes.

While job searching, I have been studying each day for the CompTIA A+ Certification exams to attempt getting a higher paying job repairing and designing computers.

[NY152]

Penelope you are so correct!

When I was little and wanting to understand the bible more I would actually (confessing here ) think of Star Wars and compared that to the bible.

"Maybe, it is more 'digestable' from an intellectual point of view, to think of 'God' as a force, like in Star Wars, 'May the Force Be With You!!'
Even the Bible (well, in the Psalms) says that God created Good and Evil. So, it is just 'the Force'. We, perhaps, choose whether we are on the side of light or darkness, and by our desire, draw such to ourselves."
That is actually how I saw it.

So, which side are you on?

I really hope this is a good book.

[Penelope]

NY wrote:

So, which side are you on?

I really hope this is a good book.

Need you ask? I definitely 'Always look on the bright side, of Life....da dum, da dum, di di di di di di, da dum...' (a la 'the Life of Brian').

The Force is with me.

I reckon a good book is one that you never forget. That perhaps changes your outlook in some way......

Ah, but remember, recommending books can lose one a lot of friends.

[Penelope]

I just thought I'd better qualify what I wrote there:- (above)

With regard to books:

My husband of 46 years, is a scientific bod, so, when I extol the virtues of Richard Dawkins, because he writes science in a way that I can understand, and I don't find too daunting - he, my OH, thinks that Mr. Dawkins expounds the 'bleeding obvious'......

Well, it might be obvious to him, but it never was to me.

I think it is something to do with which side of ones brain is dominant - one side being intuitive and artistic and the other side being the rational and mathematical side.

I am sure we need to try to balance the two - like when one looks at those ,'magic eye' pictures - look like random dots until you balance both eyes and then you can see the 3D image?

In 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' - the author notes that the person with the rational, mathematical side of the brain, will look at a motorbike and see its component parts and engineering....and appreciate it.

The artistic dominant one will see the design and the beauty of it. Imagining the feeling of speed, and air currents -

Neither are wrong!!! (No, you chump, Penny) Neither is wrong!!! Sorry - my grammar leaves such a lot to be desired.

[NY152]

That's okay, my grammer is never good either.

Very interesting.