• Religious leaders hit back at Hawking
    203 replies, posted
[quote]London, England (CNN) -- Religious leaders in Britain on Friday hit back at claims by leading physicist Stephen Hawking that God had no role in the creation of the universe. In his new book "The Grand Design," Britain's most famous scientist says that given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published 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 wrote. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going." But the head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, told the Times that "physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing." He added: "Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe. It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence." Williams' comments were supported by leaders from across the religious spectrum in Britain. Writing in the Times, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said: "Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation ... The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being." Physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing. --Archbishop of Canterbury RELATED TOPICS * Stephen Hawking * Rowan Williams The Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, added: "I would totally endorse what the Chief Rabbi said so eloquently about the relationship between religion and science." Ibrahim Mogra, an imam and committee chairman at the Muslim Council of Britain, was also quoted by the Times as saying: "If we look at the Universe and all that has been created, it indicates that somebody has been here to bring it into existence. That somebody is the almighty conqueror." Hawking was also accused of "missing the point" by colleagues at the University of Cambridge in England. "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, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. "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," he added. Read why Hawking says God didn't create the universe 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. "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 -- as the title suggests -- is an attempt to answer "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything," he wrote, quoting Douglas Adams' cult science fiction romp, "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Read CNN's Belief Blog 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.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/03/hawking.god.universe.criticisms/index.html?hpt=C1[/url]
apparently, it undercut another statement -snip-
[QUOTE=Armotekma;24573703]we weren't the first things on this planet so it was not "uniquely designed" to be comfortable for humans[/QUOTE] If it wasn't for that meteorite. Woop quoted before you snipped
[quote]"The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being."[/quote] How do they explain Genesis then?
[quote]But the head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, told the Times that "physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing."[/quote] Pardon me for believing in something that sounds more credible than something made up.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;24573856]How do they explain Genesis then?[/QUOTE] They dictate it a metaphor, instead of actual fact. It's the same thing they've been doing for centuries as less and less of their holy scripture seems plausable.
I wouldn't take advice from a little retarded cripple. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("troll" - Lithifold))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=that1dude24;24573908]They dictate it a metaphor, instead of actual fact. It's the same thing they've been doing for centuries as less and less of their holy scripture seems plausable.[/QUOTE] So Genesis is a metaphor but Jesus could really walk on water? [QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24573916]I wouldn't take advice from a little retarded cripple.[/QUOTE] He's not retarded, that implies a mental deficiency. That being said you're clearly a troll.
[QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24573916]I wouldn't take advice from a little retarded cripple.[/QUOTE] Seriously?
[QUOTE=that1dude24;24573941]Seriously?[/QUOTE] Yup.
[QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24573916]I wouldn't take advice from a little retarded cripple.[/QUOTE] this is the single stupidest fucking comment I have ever seen
-snip-
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;24573936]So Genesis is a metaphor but Jesus could really walk on water?[/QUOTE] Some say it was a metaphor (for what, I have no clue), and some believe it to be an otherworldy magical power. Which means they can't explain it.
[QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24573916]I wouldn't take advice from a little retarded cripple.[/QUOTE] Worst post of news section 2010
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;24574004]-snip-[/QUOTE] uh you never edited that
[QUOTE=Arachnidus;24573975]this is the single stupidest fucking comment I have ever seen[/QUOTE] Hawking is a fucking retard, he can suck on deez nuts. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("extended - noticed more trolling" - Lithifold))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24573916]I wouldn't take advice from a little retarded cripple.[/QUOTE]Retarded? He's 100 times smarter then you'll ever hope to be.
[QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24574035]Hawking is a fucking retard, he can suck on deez nuts.[/QUOTE] I must admit I laughed at that.
[QUOTE=alienmartian23;24574034]uh you never edited that[/QUOTE] Yes I did. If you do it within a few seconds of the original post it gives no edited message. It was intended for another thread.
[QUOTE=Killer900;24574039]Retarded? He's 100 times smarter then you'll ever hope to be.[/QUOTE] He's in a fucking chair. How the fuck do you know his brain is working right.
[QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24574086]He's in a fucking chair. How the fuck do you know his brain is working right.[/QUOTE] Okay everyone, move along, nothing to see here.
[QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24574086]He's in a fucking chair. How the fuck do you know his brain is working right.[/QUOTE] Because it's not working left.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;24573936]So Genesis is a metaphor but Jesus could really walk on water? He's not retarded, that implies a mental deficiency. That being said you're clearly a troll.[/QUOTE] Genesis is most likely stating that God created everything, it doesn't actually tell us how it was created, simply that it was.
Hmmm, who do I trust more? A widely renowned, multiple PhD-wielding physicist who has redefined the way we look at the universe, or some bible-thumping nutjobs who believe our whole lives are governed by an invisible, omnipotent deity whose existence is supported by nothing more than a 2000-year-old book. :downs:
[QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24574086]He's in a fucking chair. How the fuck do you know his brain is working right.[/QUOTE] Because other scientists have evaluated his work and found it to be correct.
[QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24574086]He's in a fucking chair. How the fuck do you know his brain is working right.[/QUOTE]You're either a troll or a moron, probably both.
Science can suck ma hammer.
[QUOTE=HairyGoatMan;24574277]Science can suck ma hammer.[/QUOTE] Finest example of maturity.
ITT: People don't understand the fucking scientific method.
[QUOTE=Killer900;24574039]Retarded? He's 100 times smarter then you'll ever hope to be.[/QUOTE] Hawking is indeed the most intelligent man of our time. However, he does tend to turn away from science and go more into the realm of theory and thought. Many of his works, according to scientific standards, are complete nonsense, because they are speculative theories as to how the universe exists and acts. Still, an extremely intelligent man. I do agree with these religious leaders. I'm theistic evolutionist, and I think, though it's ridiculous to say a diety of some sort made us, it's infinitely more ridiculous to say the universe acted with personality or thought and "created itself", or that it all happened at chance just "because it could". [editline]06:49PM[/editline] [QUOTE=1239the;24574347]ITT: People don't understand the fucking scientific method.[/QUOTE] Scientific method works both ways. It thoroughly denounces evolution which, though it has plenty of evidence, cannot be proven. According to Bacon, anything that can not be undeniably proven is false, and evolution is heavily debated on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.