Stephen Hawking: Big Bang Didn't Need God

[Klaatu]

Stephen Hawking: Big Bang Didn't Need God

Posted: 04/17/2013 3:59 pm EDT

By: Rod Pyle, SPACE.com Contributor
Published: 04/17/2013 02:05 PM EDT on SPACE.com

PASADENA, Calif. — Our universe didn't need any divine help to burst into being, famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking told a packed house here at the California Institute of Technology Tuesday night (April 16).

Many people had begun queuing up for free tickets to Hawking's 8:00 p.m lecture, titled "The Origin of the Universe," 12 hours earlier. By 6:00 p.m. local time, the line was about a quarter-mile long.

A second auditorium and a Jumbotron-equipped lawn, which itself was jammed with an estimated 1,000 viewers, were needed to handle the overflow crowd. At least one person was observed offering $1,000 for a ticket, with no success. [Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy Steps]

Stephen Hawking began the event by reciting an African creation myth, and rapidly moved on to big questions such as, Why are we here?

He noted that many people still seek a divine solution to counter the theories of curious physicists, and at one point, he quipped, “What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?”

Enthusiastic attendees started lining up 12 hours early for Hawking's 8:00 p.m. lecture at Caltech on April 16, 2013. The overflow crowd stretched for more than a quarter mile.

After outlining the historical theological debate about how the universe was created, Hawking gave a quick review of more scientific cosmological explanations, including Fred Hoyle and Thomas Gold’s steady-state theory. This idea hypothesizes that there is no beginning and no end and that galaxies continue to form from spontaneously created matter.

Hawking said this theory and several other ideas don't hold up, citing recent observations by space telescopes and other instruments.

After giving a brief historical background on relativistic physics and cosmology, Hawking discussed the idea of a repeating Big Bang. He noted that in the 1980s, he and physicist Roger Penrose proved the universe could not “bounce” when it contracted, as had been theorized.

Therefore, time began at the moment of singularity, and this has likely occurred only once, Hawking said. The age of the universe — now believed to be about 13.8 billion years — fits that model, as the number and maturity of observed galaxies seem to fit in the general scheme.

In another observation of modern religion, Hawking noted that in the 1980s, around the time he released a paper discussing the moment the universe was born, Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.

“I was glad not to be thrown into an inquisition,” Hawking joked.

He closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.

Hawking closed the event with a familiar plea for continued exploration of the cosmos: “We must continue to go into space for the future of humanity,” he said, adding, “I don’t think we will survive another thousand years without escaping our fragile planet.”

Hawking has been battling the debilitating neurological disorder amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disase, for 50 years.

The physicist has been spending a month or so at Caltech, as he does each year, sequestered with colleagues, such as fellow theoretical physicist Kip Thorne, to discuss many great mysteries of the cosmos.source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/stephen-hawking-big-bang-god_n_3103009.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thing is, the Big Bang is simply the name that is given to an event we don't yet fully understand - go back far enough in time, and we get absurd results like infinite temperature, mass and density. That absurdity is a strong indicator of where our models are incomplete.

Positing God as the cause of the Big Bang is just the usual "god of the gaps" (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) guff, which is not just bad science, but bad theology as well - God ends up inhabiting smaller and smaller spaces as science discovers more and more about our universe.

[homegrown terror]

Thing is, the Big Bang is simply the name that is given to an event we don't yet fully understand - go back far enough in time, and we get absurd results like infinite temperature, mass and density. That absurdity is a strong indicator of where our models are incomplete.

Positing God as the cause of the Big Bang is just the usual "god of the gaps" (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) guff, which is not just bad science, but bad theology as well - God ends up inhabiting smaller and smaller spaces as science discovers more and more about our universe.

and then there are those of us within the pagan community who do not think that a god or gods had any role in the formation of the universe, but rather are an integral part of it: its oldest, wisest and most powerful inhabitants.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

and then there are those of us within the pagan community who do not think that a god or gods had any role in the formation of the universe, but rather are an integral part of it: its oldest, wisest and most powerful inhabitants.

Which would technically make them... Aliens? Ultraterrestrials (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/ufofairies.htm)?

I suppose that would depend on whether they originated on Earth or not.

[homegrown terror]

Which would technically make them... Aliens? Ultraterrestrials (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/ufofairies.htm)?

I suppose that would depend on whether they originated on Earth or not.

i'm not sure what i think about that concept...it's entirely possible that the same gods exist throughout the universe, or that the gods i know are simply the earthly representations of some greater universal gods, or whether different gods gravitate towards different areas of the cosmos. then there's the question of whether gods are drawn to physical locations, or the presence of intelligent life which could benefit from their presence. it's enough to give me a night-long headache trying to wrap my mind around incomprehensible concepts.

[Zostrianos]

i'm not sure what i think about that concept...it's entirely possible that the same gods exist throughout the universe, or that the gods i know are simply the earthly representations of some greater universal gods, or whether different gods gravitate towards different areas of the cosmos. then there's the question of whether gods are drawn to physical locations, or the presence of intelligent life which could benefit from their presence. it's enough to give me a night-long headache trying to wrap my mind around incomprehensible concepts.

In Neoplatonic philosophy there's the whole concept of Cosmic and Hypercosmic Gods; the former are those known from various pantheons, while the latter are extremely exalted, mysterious deities, which are sometimes seen as infinitely higher reflections of the lower Gods. In the Hermetica, they're referred to as earthly and heavenly Gods respectively, and most interestingly the earthly or terrestrial Gods (again, those we know from mythology and pantheons) were said to have been created by man (while God created the heavenly Gods):

"Just as the master and Father - or God, to use his most august name - is maker of the heavenly gods, so it is mankind who fashions the temple gods who are content to be near to humans. Not only is mankind glorified; he glorifies as well. He not only advances toward God; he also makes the gods strong. " (...)


"Mankind certainly deserves admiration, as the greatest of all beings. All plainly admit that the race of gods sprang from the cleanest part of nature and that their signs are like heads that stand for the whole being. But the figures of gods that humans form have been formed of both natures - from the divine, which is purer and more divine by far, and from the material of which they are built, whose nature falls short of the human - and they represent not only the heads but all the limbs and the whole body. Always mindful of its nature and origin, humanity persists in imitating divinity, representing its gods semblance of its own features, just as the Father and master made his gods eternal to resemble him."


-Asclepius

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i'm not sure what i think about that concept...it's entirely possible that the same gods exist throughout the universe, or that the gods i know are simply the earthly representations of some greater universal gods, or whether different gods gravitate towards different areas of the cosmos. then there's the question of whether gods are drawn to physical locations, or the presence of intelligent life which could benefit from their presence. it's enough to give me a night-long headache trying to wrap my mind around incomprehensible concepts.

Most gods seem awfully anthropoid (human-shaped), in both mental and physical terms. Being something of a xenophile I find that a very dull state of affairs, and also extremely suspicious; even if such creatures had evolved on the same planet as we did, there's no naturalistic reason why they should look and act/think as close to us as they do.

This would suggest that they're concealing their true forms, but why? Here are some disturbing possibilities:

1) Their intentions are deceitful, and part of that is the masquerade of adapting shapes and behaviours that puny mortals like us strategically shaved apes are more likely to trust.

2) Their true forms are harmful or incomprehensible to us (this is more likely if they are aliens). This in itself isn't suspect, but it does raise the rather salient question of what their motivations are for dealing with us, especially in the nebulous and roundabout ways that constitute spirituality and mysticism. Even if they don't intend to harm us, they could do so inadvertently by using such foggy and imprecise avenues of communication.


In Neoplatonic philosophy there's the whole concept of Cosmic and Hypercosmic Gods; the former are those known from various pantheons, while the latter are extremely exalted, mysterious deities, which are sometimes seen as infinitely higher reflections of the lower Gods. In the Hermetica, they're referred to as earthly and heavenly Gods respectively, and most interestingly the earthly or terrestrial Gods (again, those we know from mythology and pantheons) were said to have been created by man (while God created the heavenly Gods):

"Just as the master and Father - or God, to use his most august name - is maker of the heavenly gods, so it is mankind who fashions the temple gods who are content to be near to humans. Not only is mankind glorified; he glorifies as well. He not only advances toward God; he also makes the gods strong. " (...)


"Mankind certainly deserves admiration, as the greatest of all beings. All plainly admit that the race of gods sprang from the cleanest part of nature and that their signs are like heads that stand for the whole being. But the figures of gods that humans form have been formed of both natures - from the divine, which is purer and more divine by far, and from the material of which they are built, whose nature falls short of the human - and they represent not only the heads but all the limbs and the whole body. Always mindful of its nature and origin, humanity persists in imitating divinity, representing its gods semblance of its own features, just as the Father and master made his gods eternal to resemble him."


-Asclepius

Can't say I'm a fan of Platonism in any flavour. It's obsession with perfection (unattainable) and hierarchy (unjustified) lends itself more to reactionary political philosophies rather than anything radical.

Democritus was more my kinda guy.

[bcbm]

this thread went off in a crazy direction pretty fast, i like this 'pagan gods or ancient aliens' thing

[Zostrianos]

Can't say I'm a fan of Platonism in any flavour. It's obsession with perfection (unattainable) and hierarchy (unjustified) lends itself more to reactionary political philosophies rather than anything radical.
Democritus was more my kinda guy.

Well Platonism is very much about ideals and perfecting and transforming yourself to the utmost of your ability. Even if those ideals are unattainable in their full form, they can certainly be aspired to and will help us become better. I can't become a perfect person, but I can become a better person. You take an ideal and use it as an anchor point to inspire you to become better.

Hierarchy is mainly applied to spiritual notions where it has its place (everything arising from the One, from simplicity to complexity at lower levels). Applied on a mundane level, hierarchy is actually at odds with many late Platonic movements which taught that all men had the potential for enlightenment, regardless of class or status.

I'm also a big fan of Stoicism, it's a very helpful way of thinking in day to day life.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

this thread went off in a crazy direction pretty fast, i like this 'pagan gods or ancient aliens' thing

I thought it would be more interesting than the usual arguments over gods' existence. I thought I'd put that aside and consider the philosophical and theological implications instead.


Well Platonism is very much about ideals and perfecting and transforming yourself to the utmost of your ability. Even if those ideals are unattainable in their full form, they can certainly be aspired to and will help us become better. I can't become a perfect person, but I can become a better person. You take an ideal and use it as an anchor point to inspire you to become better.

There's nothing wrong with wanting something better, either in oneself or more generally. But my understanding is that Platonic ideal forms go further than that, having an existence beyond being abstract concepts devised by humans - they're supposed to actually exist out there somewhere, or be somehow part of the fabric of the universe, or something along those lines.


Hierarchy is mainly applied to spiritual notions where it has its place (everything arising from the One, from simplicity to complexity at lower levels). Applied on a mundane level, hierarchy is actually at odds with many late Platonic movements which taught that all men had the potential for enlightenment, regardless of class or status.

I'm also a big fan of Stoicism, it's a very helpful way of thinking in day to day life.

I'm not at all comfortable with notions of some kind of spiritual order of things, firstly because it's all too easy to slip from spiritual orders to mundane ones (I consider Plato himself to be guilty of this in The Republic), and secondly because chaos is something found at all levels of existence, while order is something imposed on the rest of nature by humans.

[homegrown terror]

Most gods seem awfully anthropoid (human-shaped), in both mental and physical terms. Being something of a xenophile I find that a very dull state of affairs, and also extremely suspicious; even if such creatures had evolved on the same planet as we did, there's no naturalistic reason why they should look and act/think as close to us as they do.

This would suggest that they're concealing their true forms, but why? Here are some disturbing possibilities:

1) Their intentions are deceitful, and part of that is the masquerade of adapting shapes and behaviours that puny mortals like us strategically shaved apes are more likely to trust.

2) Their true forms are harmful or incomprehensible to us (this is more likely if they are aliens). This in itself isn't suspect, but it does raise the rather salient question of what their motivations are for dealing with us, especially in the nebulous and roundabout ways that constitute spirituality and mysticism. Even if they don't intend to harm us, they could do so inadvertently by using such foggy and imprecise avenues of communication.

i came across this same problem a few years ago when i first started going deeper into polytheism. my take on the matter is that the gods do not, indeed, mimic or mirror humanity, but the traditional representations of them do for of one of two reasons: the people who first knew them had to express what they saw in a frame of reference that was comprehensible to the human mind; or they intentionally represented themselves in images that people would understand.

[Klaatu]

An Atheist friend of mine once pointed out that we automatically assign the word "God" to things that we do not understand.
Wise fellow. This makes a lot of sense, I think. People really do that. Still so even in this modern day of science and enlightenment!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i came across this same problem a few years ago when i first started going deeper into polytheism. my take on the matter is that the gods do not, indeed, mimic or mirror humanity, but the traditional representations of them do for of one of two reasons: the people who first knew them had to express what they saw in a frame of reference that was comprehensible to the human mind; or they intentionally represented themselves in images that people would understand.

There are problems for humanity with either possibility; in the first, we're not properly understanding the gods any more than a chimpanzee properly understands an aircraft as some giant magical bird. In the second, there is an element of deception going on, and we're none the wiser as to the motivations behind the concealment of their true nature.

Personally, I think the only kind of godlike beings worth bothering with are the ones that we can build/control ourselves, of which everyone can see the true nature regardless of their personal beliefs, and which communicate using the most unambiguous means and in the clearest terms possible. The only things I can think of which could possibly qualify are superhuman Artificial Intelligences, and we haven't figured out how to make any yet.

[homegrown terror]

There are problems for humanity with either possibility; in the first, we're not properly understanding the gods any more than a chimpanzee properly understands an aircraft as some giant magical bird. In the second, there is an element of deception going on, and we're none the wiser as to the motivations behind the concealment of their true nature.

Personally, I think the only kind of godlike beings worth bothering with are the ones that we can build/control ourselves, of which everyone can see the true nature regardless of their personal beliefs, and which communicate using the most unambiguous means and in the clearest terms possible. The only things I can think of which could possibly qualify are superhuman Artificial Intelligences, and we haven't figured out how to make any yet.

the problem with a "god" AI is that no matter what checks and balances are built into it, if it's a superhuman intelligence, and there is no possible way to "control" it. on a long enough timeline, it WILL break free and we WILL eventually live to serve it, the same way earlier hominids were driven to extinction by the newest "version" of the proto-human software.

as to the question of inherent godly deception: while there are some gods who would fit this mold and thrive in it (Loki, in particular, comes to mind) i doubt it's a universal phenomenon. i doubt any humans out there have ever intentionally deceived a chimpanzee into thinking an airplane is a giant bird, it's simply a construct of the fact that a chimpanzee's mind can't comprehend a turbine engine, nor the concept of applied aerodynamics. my personal view is that the gods are much the same way: they are what they are, and we, being lesser minds, cannot fully comprehend that reality.

that said, there are certain gods i believe have decidedly unholy agendas. the christian/jewish/muslim god is a good example of this. my theory on him is that he is a minor god with something resembling a napoleon complex: unsatisfied to be one of many, he tricked a group of people into worshipping him and only him. whether he had any knowledge that those people would go on to use this deceit to oppress all others in the world, or if this was just a roll of the dice for him, is anyone's guess. this, as i see it, is his greatest crime, possibly the greatest committed by any being on earth: the metaphorical murder of every other god humanity has come into contact with, and is the reason a patch of my jacket reads: JESUS DIED FOR HIS OWN CRIME, NOT FOR ANY SIN OF MINE.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the problem with a "god" AI is that no matter what checks and balances are built into it, if it's a superhuman intelligence, and there is no possible way to "control" it. on a long enough timeline, it WILL break free and we WILL eventually live to serve it, the same way earlier hominids were driven to extinction by the newest "version" of the proto-human software.

We're dealing with a thinking being here; there's no reason it wouldn't be able to assimilate human values. From then on, control would not be necessary any more than it would be needed for anyone else in society.


as to the question of inherent godly deception: while there are some gods who would fit this mold and thrive in it (Loki, in particular, comes to mind) i doubt it's a universal phenomenon. i doubt any humans out there have ever intentionally deceived a chimpanzee into thinking an airplane is a giant bird, it's simply a construct of the fact that a chimpanzee's mind can't comprehend a turbine engine, nor the concept of applied aerodynamics. my personal view is that the gods are much the same way: they are what they are, and we, being lesser minds, cannot fully comprehend that reality.

Even if there's no purposeful intent to deceive, that doesn't mean we haven't got the wrong end of the stick, so to speak.