Saturday, September 11, 2010

Religious rebuttals to Stephen Hawking

Famous physicist Stephen Hawking recently made news for his comments about the existence of gods being unnecessary in order for the Universe to exist.  Here is an excerpt from the article:

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."

Of course, this drew immediate responses from the theological community, none citing any evidence, some even quite baffling:

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."

It might or it might not. We don't know for sure yet. But one thing I know is that you have not settled anything either, "doctor", *cough*. You provide answers, but have no interest in verifying whether or not they are the correct and true answers. You also cannot even support any claims that your ideas are better than the ideas of any of the other religions' on the planet. I don't think any religion has ever, in the history of humanity, settled anything at all.

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."

It's not interested in how the Universe came into being?  It's not?!  Are you sure?  Then why are so many (biblically) religious people (a majority?), running around saying that the Bible tells us EXACTLY how the Universe was made?  Why does it say that it was created by a god?  Is the existence or lack of existence of a god merely an interpretation of reality?  No, if a god exists or doesn't exist, then that IS reality.  It is not an interpretation.  And I'd argue that as religion is completely unable to back-up any of its interpretations, that it is merely about allowing people to interpret reality in a way that makes them feel good, regardless of the actual truth of it.  Sacks, you win the dumbass comment of week award.

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."

Really?  It indicates it?  How?  Evidence?  Even a little?  Guess that would be too much for you, wouldn't it?  I suppose your faith is all the evidence we need, is that correct?  It's also interesting that you called your god a conqueror.  It hasn't conquered me, yet.  Am I too strong for it?  I thought your religion was peaceful.

"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.

Evidence?  No, it only provides an ultimate explanation for somebody who doesn't care whether or not the explanation is true, and who has no interest in exploring any further or asking further questions on the matter.


Anonymous said...

It really seems like Hawking meant a creator (sarc. it totally is...), why they all say it's not their god is just stupid.
He says that physics can explain how something came from nothing, then the Archbishop says it can't.
Who we gonna believe here?

ANTZILLA said...

Is there any "religious" out there capable of understanding Hawkings work, let along try and rebutt it.

ANTZILLA said...

Is Stephen Hawkings labeled "secular" after all he was trying to prove the existance of god. He just couldn't, infact he found the oppisite.

Jim said...

Hawking clearly set out to say that a god is not necessary for the universe to exist.

And, let's be honest, what other field of study besides physics is going to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings? Grammar? Social studies?

ANTZILLA said...

In the prelog of "a brief history of time" Hawking stated that we was trying to find 'the mind of god' that Einstein spoke of.

So Hawking was open to the possiblity of a God..

however he

'found a universe with no begining nor end and nothing for a creator to do."