Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Mr. Hawking's view

  1. #1
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,590
    Rep Power
    381

    Mr. Hawking's view

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namast



    Stephen Hawking suggests in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday 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 writes in the excerpt.
    "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.

    Denis Alexander , director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, addresses this:
    "Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.
    "Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," said Alexander.

    Another view:
    Mr. Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God. But, he said, "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not.
    That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

    My views:
    From where does 'existence' itself come from so all the laws of nature may take their actions? Existence itself is the canvass for all to exist.
    How can science pass up this question?

    From where did the rules and order of nature come from?
    From where does this gravity arise? What is the source?

    praṇām

    source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #2

    Re: Mr. Hawking's view

    haha I just wanted to post that.

    gravity is a field with holes and bumps, how can gravity cause nothing affected by it to spontaniously create all matter?

    I thought the big bang theory with the reason of the last universe exploding was more plausible. that the universe is in a constant cycle of expanding and retracting.
    but apparently we should believe gravity is our God.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,590
    Rep Power
    381

    Re: Mr. Hawking's view

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namast charlesbs

    Quote Originally Posted by charlebs View Post
    haha I just wanted to post that.

    gravity is a field with holes and bumps, how can gravity cause nothing affected by it to spontaniously create all matter?

    I thought the big bang theory with the reason of the last universe exploding was more plausible. that the universe is in a constant cycle of expanding and retracting. but apparently we should believe gravity is our God.
    This I do not know, but I will assume Mr. Hawking has the mathmatics for this assumption.
    As I understand it gravity was 'produced' at 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. This 'big bang' is now trying to be renamed to cosmic genesis in the literature I read.

    I am not a fan of this big bang view, but that is me. My issue with the whole line of scientific thinking is scientists seem not to question existence itself, the 'pure white board' that is the back ground for all things to take place.
    Its like a person writing on a while board with a marker and saying, 'see , each letter comes out and is indepentent of any creator' yet they fail to recognize the board they write on, the 'existence' that allows the letters to flow onto the board.

    If we look at the laws of nature - there is specific intelligence there, no? What I mean is there is order and structure to all of nature that is inherent from the sub-atomic particles to galaxies that are spinning. They all follow the rule of physics. This 'intelligence' this, is the Being I am suggesting. This infinite intelligence that need do nothing for all things to work perfectly within the boundaries of all the laws of nature. Scientists will say ' well the unfoldment of sub-atomic particles, atoms, make up this structure, there is no need for a God to do this' , yet they never question how & why this natural stucture occurs. I will not even mention pure space ( ākāśa ) which provides room for all things to exist. Was that there before the big bang?

    It's as if scientist think God as some person with a long white beard directing traffic of the universe sitting on a throne in heaven. The Supreme I am attesting to is in every fibre, every thing and every -no thing that is , that exists and does not exist. This is that infinite intelligence that with no effort unfolds the universe by its own natue. No decisions, no project map , it spoontaneously occurs.

    But scientist say ' well thats nature' - yep it is , and that is a part of the Supreme Intelligence - not all of it, just a finger nail of the Supreme.

    praṇām
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  4. #4

    Re: Mr. Hawking's view

    Yes, a lot of sceptics see God as a bearded man sitting in the clouds. But we know better. God is beyond the demi gods of hinduism. Even the Gods answer a higher being. I've read that multiple times.

    But the big bang theory was always well enough for me. There's a theory about all souls reaching enlightenment and coming together in the size of a thumb before they all explode and catch all kinds of impurities.
    Impurities that keep us away from our God, which we have to shake off with all the lives we live.

    Actually I believe all actions might have been done before, when there was past universe. That all that happens happens at all time! I know this sounds pretty odd, but I could explain it better in dutch. :/

  5. #5

    Re: Mr. Hawking's view

    Well, I do not know how someone can have a view that God doesn't exist or in the above discussion not the creator. It is said even the atheist in their low moments invoke him, though many would not admit it including the famed scientists.
    Science has not been able to answer so many of the questions everyone wants to know not to talk of this which many will not even bother to know.
    There was a time when I was young and hadn't stepped into the spiritual path when I was an avid science fan. But as the life progressed, and things happened, I slowly realized science was not the answer to what I was seeking. Spirituality was.
    Today I am happy not because of science but because of spirituality though science does makes me happy on the surface for a brief duration.
    Spiritual Seeker

  6. #6

    Re: Mr. Hawking's view

    discussed this with a friend of mine with an iq of 135 and he believes in the string theory. he says maybe before the big bang the unending strings began to vibrate like a universal breath taking. the awakening of the universe.

    it's hard to explain though.. he was kinda high. but he doesn't believe in God. however he does believe in souls and reincarnation.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    355

    Re: Mr. Hawking's view

    Namaste All

    I think we should integrate Kallol's thread here.

    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6311

    Om Namah Shivaya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,590
    Rep Power
    381

    Re: Mr. Hawking's view

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    Here is another point from my perspective I do not get. In this grand universe the astrophysicists and cosmologists have calculated or inferred that ~ 84%
    of the mass of the universe is missing i.e. dark matter. They also calculate that 70% of the energy is missing that i.e. dark energy.

    How do they come to this conclusion - by inference. They cannot measure it 'cause they cannot see it. But it must be there otherwise the universe does not 'add up'.
    Their views of the cosmos is missing 84% of it, yet they are able to deduce the nature and character of this grand universe?

    If I use the same tools of logic and inference on coming to the conclusion that the Supreme must exist and in fact direct evidence is offered by our great ṛṣi-s ( rishi's)
    from their direct cognition of Being, of tad-ekam ( That One), it is discounted.

    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - when I use inferences and logical judgement to clearly suggest the Supreme in this delightful world, I hear , well nice idea but it cannot be measured ,
    from the science community.
    Yet I read and hear as a matter of fact that there must be this dark matter, yet never measured, and their must be dark energy ( yet never captured).
    What's wrong with this picture?

    praām
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  9. #9
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    63
    Posts
    7,192
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    5020

    Re: Mr. Hawking's view

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    What's wrong with this picture?

    Vannakkam:

    Historically, scientists have always thought they knew ... until the next better theory came along. This hasn't changed. So there's really nothing wrong with the picture from this point of view. A better theory will make the two 'add up'. Fun to watch. I can't wait until they can measure more subtle energies. Then I and a billion others will say, "Sheesh, we could have told you that."

    Aum Namasivaya

  10. #10
    Join Date
    November 2009
    Age
    32
    Posts
    839
    Rep Power
    1014

    Re: Mr. Hawking's view

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namast

    Here is another point from my perspective I do not get. In this grand universe the astrophysicists and cosmologists have calculated or inferred that ~ 84%
    of the mass of the universe is missing i.e. dark matter. They also calculate that 70% of the energy is missing that i.e. dark energy.

    How do they come to this conclusion - by inference. They cannot measure it 'cause they cannot see it. But it must be there otherwise the universe does not 'add up'.
    Their views of the cosmos is missing 84% of it, yet they are able to deduce the nature and character of this grand universe?

    If I use the same tools of logic and inference on coming to the conclusion that the Supreme must exist and in fact direct evidence is offered by our great ṛṣi-s ( rishi's)
    from their direct cognition of Being, of tad-ekam ( That One), it is discounted.

    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - when I use inferences and logical judgement to clearly suggest the Supreme in this delightful world, I hear , well nice idea but it cannot be measured ,
    from the science community.
    Yet I read and hear as a matter of fact that there must be this dark matter, yet never measured, and their must be dark energy ( yet never captured).
    What's wrong with this picture?

    praām
    Heh, it so happens that some of my research in the near future may involve dark matter searches. I'll let you know if we find any!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •