How can Stephen Hawking say there "IS NO God" (i.e., with certainty)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hawking is no worse than another great mind, Rene Descartes. He had a theory of how the universe worked that he explained to Napoleon. Napoleon asked where God fit in it. He is supposed to have answered, “I do not require that theory!”

Patrick
AMDG
 
No, I posted this thread because that was his latest belief:
So…it was his belief at the time. That’s how he could say it.

He wrote as a scientist. He knew it was impossible to prove a negative by the scientific method, particularly when it comes to proving or disproving an entity that is by definition far beyond the comprehension of humans.

If he died hardened in that sentiment but at least in the belief that he had honestly pursued the truth, then may God have mercy on him. Only God knows what any heart was capable of comprehending. St. Paul worked hard against the Church, too, so may St. Paul intercede for him and all like him.
 
Last edited:
A primordial quantum fluctuation is still something. Quantum implies the dimension of time, which is also something. A fluctuation implies a preexisting equilibrium which was deviated from. That is also a something.

All of these theories still presuppose some manner of existence which has physical dimensions or states, all of which would still require an explanation.

Hawkings was a scientific genius, but I believe that in this proclamation he overextended his reach, and made a number of assertions with malformed presumptions at their core.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I should have said “universes with net zero energy” instead of “particles with net zero energy”.
 
I’m out of my depth with physics. I just remembered I had read about creating something from nothing, but I admit, I don’t know the science behind it. If I remember correctly, the “creation” did not survive long.
 
“We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God”
This doesn’t actually say there is no God. It implies that there may be a complex reason to explain the existence of God.
 
A primordial quantum fluctuation is still something. Quantum implies the dimension of time, which is also something. A fluctuation implies a preexisting equilibrium which was deviated from. That is also a something.

All of these theories still presuppose some manner of existence which has physical dimensions or states, all of which would still require an explanation.

Hawkings was a scientific genius, but I believe that in this proclamation he overextended his reach, and made a number of assertions with malformed presumptions at their core.
And invoking God doesn’t just move that problem back a step? If we have a problem with the notion of infinity, then God or turtles all the way down no more resolves that problem than just saying the Universe came about from a quantum fluctuation in an epoch that our understanding of time-space isn’t going to explain.
 
He can’t. Any more than we can say the opposite with absolute certainty.
 
Invoking God doesn’t move the problem up a step.

With arguments like Hawkings, or those people who say a multiverse could be used to explain away existence, or that we are just the 3D event horizon of a 4D Black hole, all of those arguments rely on a higher-level contingent, created reality. All of their explanations are not self-sufficient in and of themselves. Hence, they all require an explanation external to themselves.

When discussing God, we are discussing the only non-contingent reality from which all contingent realities derive. A roof is held up by the walls, which are supported on the foundation, which is held up by the Earth’s crust, which is held up by the mantle, etc. etc… Eventually, in order for any of these things to be held up (including the laws of physics which govern them), you must reach a point where the thing holding everything up is not itself held up by anything. This reality it God.

That is why reference to God is not merely moving it up a step. God is the unchanging reality by which all other contingent realities are supported.

It may very well be true that our Universe resulted from the events Hawking describes. That doesn’t change the fact that, in order for those events to have taken place, something must exist. Given that that something is changeable (because per Hawking’s arguments change had to occur to upset the equilibrium), it must find its own origin in something outside itself which is not changeable.

Trent Horn does a much better job of talking about this in his book “Answering Atheism.” It’s on sale right now, and definitely worth a read for believers and skeptics alike.
 
Last edited:
I think Hawking understood the concept well enough. His point is that, at least in his view, the Universe didn’t require any kind of Prime Mover at all (whether that be the personal God of the Judeao-Christian tradition, or the more distant entity of the Deists). If we follow through on Hawking’s final thought experiment, and the Universe was the product of some sort of primordial quantum fluctuation, and the actual rest state of the universe is an energy level of 0, then where exactly does any sort of creator come into the picture?
If he were to have shown that the present state of the universe is theoretically possible in the absence of the non-contingent Source of Being we call God, he would have removed a proof of God, not proven that God did not exist. Those are two very different things. He of all people knew that of course something can exist even when humans have no way to prove that it does!

Science investigates what is in existence and yet unknown or unexplained. If something didn’t exist until some human noticed it or could prove it, then it would be an impossible enterprise, wouldn’t it? How could anyone notice something that did not exist? Indeed, it is the most reasonable, based on the history of science, to believe that there are a great many things about the universe that are currently beyond our imagining. We don’t even know enough to suspect that they could exist, let alone prove that they do. If someone were to make a conjecture about such things in the absence of evidence, they’d be outside the realm of science until all those years later when they are dead, their prediction proves to be true, and they are praised for their great insight.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think Hawking claimed the notion was scientific at all.
 
There are five classic proofs for the existence of God, as listed by St. Thomas Aquinas: The need for a Prime Mover, a First Cause, a Necessary Being, a Supremely Perfect Being, and the need for an Intelligent Designer. What did Hawkings have as proof for there being no God?
 
I don’t think Hawking claimed the notion was scientific at all.
You are probably right; it is merely assumed because of his standing as a scientist that whatever he said was based in science. Even if he explicitly said otherwise, it would be like the Pope saying that something wasn’t his religious view. It’s almost a religious viewpoint merely because the Pope said it.
 
And also:

“This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. ‘But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,’ as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly ‘the bottomless pit’ is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty”. — Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos , 14
 
Atheists say you can’t prove a negative.
I see that as their problem, and thank God we believers, on the other hand, have the ability to reason. God imprints His existence in our hearts and we know this as our conscience and live our lives the way we believe God wants us to, basically because we trust Him. Some choose to ignore their conscience, and live their lives according to their own wishes. I think they are stuck in a rut. My father was an atheist. He never, ever, put anyone down for their belief in God. In fact, I really think he was envious of believers. He ended his own life at the age of 49. My most precious gift is a crucifix that my dad, an atheist, gave me for my 21st birthday. I’m now 71, and it’s still on my wall.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top