Coragyps

my brain hurts. can i leave now?

Magus55

You're welcome. Many of the worlds most famous scientists/physicists can't deny some creator being involved after all their studying based on the universe. Including Stephen Hawking. I'd accept what he says over any crap you spew out. Hawking is arguably the greatest physicist in history, and he even attributes the universe to a creator.

Shadowy Man

You are correct that it is arguable. I would argue that he is not the greatest physicist in history, but that is neither here nor there.

What you have here is argument from authority.

The Lone Ranger

Actually, Hawking has quite clearly and repeatedly said that we cannot rule out that the Universe is the result of some sort of act of divine creation, since the laws of physics that we understand do not apply to the moment of the Universe's origin. This is an utterly uncontroversial position.

He has repeatedly said, though, that he does not believe that this is the case, however. He has refused to make his religious beliefs -- if any -- clear. He denies that he is an atheist, but his comments tend to support the conclusion that if he has any religious beliefs at all, he's a deist. He makes the point clear in A Brief History of Time, when he says that if the Universe is the result of an act of Creation, the Creator seems to have limited itself to creating the Universe, then stepped aside to let it follow natural laws.

From A Brief History of Time: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we would suppose it had a creator (the cosmological argument). But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

Since much of Hawking's research and theorizing has been geared toward showing that the Universe has no boundary or edge, and hence no beginning in "real time," the conclusion that he believes in a Creator is not supported.

It's true, that he says at the end of the book, "However, if we do discover a complete theory. . . . . then we would know the mind of God." It's not uncommon for physicists to use the word "God" in an undefined sense to mean "All that exists" or "Mystery," however. In fact, it's a sort of tradition. Einstein, was (in)famous for doing so, for instance, even though he called belief in a personal God "childish superstition."

Cheers,

Michael

Magus55

Yes, you are right Hawkings doesn't come right and say God exists, but he accepts that idea that God very well could exist.

Here are quotes from a bunch of other scientists ( including nobel prize winners). Take from biblephysics.com.

Arthur L. Schawlow (professor of physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious... I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."[3]

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."[4]

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."[5]

Robert Jastrow (American astronomer and physicist): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."[6]

Wernher von Braun (pioneer rocket engineer, developer of the Saturn V moon rocket concept): "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."[7]

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."[8]

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."[9]

John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures... If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision, we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."[10]

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe... The impression of design is overwhelming."[11]

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."[12]

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."[13]

James Trefil (American theoretical physicist): ...If I were a religious man, I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore special in God's sight. Instead I shall say that what we have learned shows that it matters a great deal what happens to us."[14]

George Greenstein (American astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency -- or, rather, Agency -- must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"[15]

Barry Parker (American cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."[16]

Tony Rothman (American physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."[17]

Roger Penrose (British mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."[18]

Stephen Hawking (British theoretical physicist and author): "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[19]

Arthur Eddington (British astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."[20]

Psycho Economist

Right... there are some smart Christians and deists. Some of them are physicists.

What does that prove?

Naked Ape

Aha!
so quotemining it is:
--Carl Sagan

But wait, he has so many more quotes than me. Well I'm convinced. Can I get an Amen! (or at least an enema?)

Cheers,

Naked Ape

Naked Ape

Damn double post!

Shadowy Man

So you can quote a bunch of physicists and astrophysics who believe in a god. So what? I know many astrophysicists who don't believe in gods. In fact, many more don't believe than do believe.

I don't see how it is relevant anyway.

Oh.. and as far as gravity existing in M31.. it certainly appears that way.

xian

it is relevant simply to show that theism is not an irrational proposition. i fall back on my previous statements: there is evidence for theism, yet the evidence can be concluded to point either way. I do not call atheists irrational, I understand how they reach their conclusions. At the same time, atheists have no intellectual right to call theism irrational. Many people of sound mind and reason: scientists, philosophers, laymen conclude in theism as many others do in naturalism. It is immatrue to sit around and call each other names and say "you're so irrational" yada yada when the theistic position is fully within reason.