God and Stephen Hawking: Do the Laws of Physics Make God Unnecessary? by Prof.Lennox

God and Stephen Hawking: Do the Laws of Physics Make God Unnecessary?
Prof. John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics, Oxford University

talk by Prof John Lennox , pointing out the faulty logic and unreasoning characteristics of Stephen Hawking in his assumptions that universe comes from nothing , and of the need for god etc ..


well worth listening to:

http://www.discovery.org/v/2511

..

[UniverseofLove]

That was video! Thank you for posting it.

I've never read any of Hawking's works but I've grown up knowing him as a genius scientist of our time. As I haven't read his work, I can only base my opinions of his work on the quotations made in the video (which I assume are accurate).



My overview of the video! If you don’t want SPOILERS! then don’t read it

~ No-one be offended by my use of the term Source, please: I'm intending it to mean the Higher Power that anyone believes in (not accounting for multiple-theistic religions, as I don't know how they'd relate to this properly, but feel free to comment and fill me in) and I use it because it means "what caused everything". ~

Stephen Hawking does not seem to understand the concept of The Divine: Source. My impression (from his book quotes and Prof. Lennox’s speech) is that he believes "God" to be the explanation when no scientific explanation can be attributed, and therefore dismisses the possible existence of "God" when science can be used to explain workings of our worlds.
Prof. John Lennox said Hawking concluded that the laws of physics make God unnecessary and referred to Source as “God of the gaps” because it is, apparently, only used to explain what science cannot.

Concise overview:
Mathematics is a method and scientific study is a theory to how the Universe works and came into existence. What maths and science cannot do is CREATE anything: something must USE these methods in order to create something, which is why maths/science cannot replace Source, and more reason why Source cannot be “the God of the gaps”.



My opinions: Aside from his view point as a Christian (which, to me, doesn’t cover the entirety of Source because it refers to a “Him”, implying a male entity rather than an omniscient, omnipresent, All-That-Is), he has an outstanding argument, makes hilarious jokes about why Source is and how our intellectual tools cannot create anything. He demonstrates what the Higher Power is and I agree with what he’s said.

Love and Light

[Emmalevine]

I haven't listened to the video yet - and will do - but I was always under the impression that Hawking, as well as Dawson and many other brilliant scientists, refer to the Christian God rather than looking into reconciling science with a Divine source.

I can't watch it. It says I have a missing plug-in. Is the video on another website?

[UniverseofLove]

Originally Posted by Starbuck

I haven't listened to the video yet - and will do - but I was always under the impression that Hawking, as well as Dawson and many other brilliant scientists, refer to the Christian God rather than looking into reconciling science with a Divine source.

That's a good point and I did wonder how much spiritual knowledge Stephen Hawking has but, unless Prof. L. has given me the impession of H's book, he doesn't seem to be referring to any particular God, just the need for any God.

Yes, Animus27, it's on discovery according to the link and it takes you away from SF.

[Chrysaetos]

Originally Posted by Starbuck

I haven't listened to the video yet - and will do - but I was always under the impression that Hawking, as well as Dawson and many other brilliant scientists, refer to the Christian God rather than looking into reconciling science with a Divine source.

What's the difference in the end? Both assume there is a unobservable 'force'.

[UniverseofLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysaetos

What's the difference in the end? Both assume there is a unobservable 'force'.

Actually, I thought they both concluded with their personal view of there being no God due not 'needing' one. Unless, by 'unobservable force', you mean he could be interpreted to have left the possibility open for the presence of a God?

I personally don't think the laws of physics make god unnecessary, but what it does do is require us to redefine what we understand to be "god". I personally believe that what most people call god, is not necessarily a being, but more of an energy, a force, that is inherent in all things. I don't believe that god is a being, like the way some religions make god to be anthropomorphized (if that's even a word :p). God, to me, is a spiritual ideal, the apex of human spiritual evolution.

[Apakhana Akshobhya]

I think Hawking does get it, it's that he can't find a way to get everyone else to undersand that God isn't a person. That "source" doesn't equate to an anthropomorphic pronoun. Just because our primitive humanity personifies the Divine or any extra-dimensional creative energies as a person/pronoun, that does not mean the reality of the circumstance has to actually be what we've thought it has to be.

The three-dimensional universe (and time) can create itself from nothing if you understand there is more than 3 dimensions to reality.

Another suggestion, search for Professor David Bohm on Youtube, theoretical physicist and friend of Albert Einstein.

Look for Ending of Time dialouge with Jiddu Krishnamruti, and Search for the book "Jiddu Krishnamurti on God" you can find online book if you search on google.