Stephen Hawking: ? was not needed to create the Universe
Options
KTULU IS BACK
Banned Users Posts: 6,617 ✭✭
too long, didnt read version: worlds smartest man says ? doesnt exist and the universe never needed ? to explain its existence either
The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need ? to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded. Photo: GETTY
The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.
In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “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.”
He added: “It is not necessary to invoke ? to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
In A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking's most famous work, he did not dismiss the possibility that ? had a hand in the creation of the world.
He wrote in the 1988 book: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of ? .”
In his new book he rejects Sir Isaac Newton's theory that the Universe did not spontaneously begin to form but was set in motion by ? .
In June this year Prof Hawking told a Channel 4 series that he didn't believe that a "personal" ? existed. He told Genius of Britain: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by ? for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science '? ', but it wouldn't be a personal ? that you could meet, and ask questions."
Until his retirement last year Prof Hawking was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, a post previously held by Newton.
The book, co-written by American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, is published on September 9.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-? -was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html
The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need ? to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded. Photo: GETTY
The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.
In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “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.”
He added: “It is not necessary to invoke ? to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
In A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking's most famous work, he did not dismiss the possibility that ? had a hand in the creation of the world.
He wrote in the 1988 book: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of ? .”
In his new book he rejects Sir Isaac Newton's theory that the Universe did not spontaneously begin to form but was set in motion by ? .
In June this year Prof Hawking told a Channel 4 series that he didn't believe that a "personal" ? existed. He told Genius of Britain: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by ? for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science '? ', but it wouldn't be a personal ? that you could meet, and ask questions."
Until his retirement last year Prof Hawking was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, a post previously held by Newton.
The book, co-written by American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, is published on September 9.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-? -was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html
Comments
-
That ? needs ? to fix his damn body since his smart ass aint found a way yet.
-
whoah, that thread move was IMMEDIATE
mods are on their game today -
louis the great wrote: »That ? needs ? to fix his damn body since his smart ass aint found a way yet.
he would have died in his thirties if medical science had not come up with the techniques that have kept him alive to old age
also, people believe in miracles, but there is never any evidence that ? actually heals crippled people or people with missing limbs. know why that is? because miracles arent real and ? doesnt exist. -
I'd like to ask Hawking who killed hip hop.
-
eh....i wont say nothing....
-
I'd really like some GED having ICer to come in here and try and refute one of the smartest men alive
-
93% of scentist are atheist that disapprove each other every year over things that cannot be scientifically proven.
-
-
I think peoples definition of what ? is, is truly the question.Is it a being, is it energy, is it consciousness,etc. It seems as if most things in life consists of duality, so i doubt there is one source or one being.
-
TX_Made713 wrote: »eh....i wont say nothing....
yeah, this is literally the same thing we were arguing about last year
difference is, now hawking has a whole book about it
gonna cop that book -
I think peoples definition of what ? is, is truly the question.Is it a being, is it energy, is it consciousness,etc. It seems as if most things in life consists of duality, so i doubt there is one source or one being.
problem is, when people select a definition for that word, they are just making it up
they have no observation of any kind of ? , so they are just speculating based on what makes them feel good (or on what is politically expedient) -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »yeah, this is literally the same thing we were arguing about last year
difference is, now hawking has a whole book about it
gonna cop that book
whats the name of the book -
TX_Made713 wrote: »whats the name of the book
the name of his book is in the article Ktulu posted -
Hawking has said as much before. It cant be proven or disproven, so...believe what you choose to believe.
-
the name of his book is in the article Ktulu posted
i just read it
The Grand Design
ill check it out and see what mr. hawkings has to say -
This guy is white and a scientist.... doubly whammy.
Those two therefore prove whatever he says is a lie. -
If you had the defects that Hawking has, would you believe in a loving ? ?
-
If you had the defects that Hawking has, would you believe in a loving ? ?
Yes. ? was punishing him for his hatred toward other races. All white people have either a physical deformity or mental deformity, not a coincidence. -
major pain wrote: »It cant be proven or disproven, so...believe what you choose to believe.
Why does something have to be disproven if it cannot be proven?
If you are accused of committing a crime (a positive claim, that something happened) and the prosecution cannot prove that you did it, you are considered not guilty.
If a positive claim is made and cannot be supported, you can safely call it false. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Yes. ? was punishing him for his hatred toward other races. All white people have either a physical deformity or mental deformity, not a coincidence.
You're a racist -
-
ThaChozenWun wrote: »This guy is white and a scientist.... doubly whammy.
Those two therefore prove whatever he says is a lie.
L m a o
Well Damn! -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »No, I'm a realist, there are facts and proof to each of my claims.
if you want to believe that to justify your racism, thats fine with me. -
if you want to believe that to justify your racism, thats fine with me.
Do you burn in the sun... yes proof.
Do you get headaches... yes proof.
Is it visible when you have dirt on you... Yes even more proof... ? outta here racist. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »too long, didnt read version: worlds smartest man says ? doesnt exist and the universe never needed ? to explain its existence either
The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need ? to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded. Photo: GETTY
The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.
In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “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.”
He added: “It is not necessary to invoke ? to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
In A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking's most famous work, he did not dismiss the possibility that ? had a hand in the creation of the world.
He wrote in the 1988 book: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of ? .”
In his new book he rejects Sir Isaac Newton's theory that the Universe did not spontaneously begin to form but was set in motion by ? .
In June this year Prof Hawking told a Channel 4 series that he didn't believe that a "personal" ? existed. He told Genius of Britain: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by ? for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science '? ', but it wouldn't be a personal ? that you could meet, and ask questions."
Until his retirement last year Prof Hawking was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, a post previously held by Newton.
The book, co-written by American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, is published on September 9.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-? -was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html
Well that’s Hawking’s metaphysical preference that ‘g-d’ was not needed to create the Universe. So what? <shrugs>
