Where's the mathematical hypothesis concluding God played no role in the creation of the universe?
Einstein's theories, Newtons theories all had mathematical basis for various relationships.
Hawking pulled this one out of his ass.
I don't have to be physicists to have common sense. Are you really going to argue Hawking can tell us with ANY confidence through science that God played no part in the creation of the universe which is basically his claim? And if he can't offer any confidence beyond 50-50 what's the point in saying it?
“I don’t have to be physicists to have common sense. Are you really going to argue Hawking can tell us with ANY confidence through science that God played no part in the creation of the universe which is basically his claim? And if he can’t offer any confidence beyond 50-50 what’s the point in saying it? “
What Hawking can point to is a lack of evidence that “God played any part in the creation of the universe.” Why should he, or anyone else, give any more deference to the idea of the existence of God than any other theory for which there is no evidence?
Two points. First, I have not yet had the opportunity to read the book. I'm hoping Amazing delivers my copy sometime before this weekend. It just went into print on Tuesday.
Second, all that we know about what Hawking said, and what he did say is....
"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. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Is what has been reported by the few media outlets that received advanced copies of the book. Of course, to sell papers, they're going to create the most sensational headlines.
Clearly however, you can see that Hawking isn't refuting "God" per se, he's saying that a supernatural force isn't perhaps necessary to explain the spontaneity of the universe. I would prefer to read his entire thesis, before I pass judgment on the man as a "racist & fascist" as some on this very thread have done already.
Theoretical physicists theorize. That is their stock & trade. Sometimes those theories hold up after close scrutiny, and sometimes they don't. I'm suggesting we let that process play out before we label the man the second coming of the Third Reich.