God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[AnGaaR]

Angaar sahib, does your example proved the scientific existence of God? Good that you are satisfied.

Science will never accept religion. if science started accepting the religion then there is no use for it to exist in some cases

my example was not for science but for disbelievers..This man said that he doesnt believe in existance of Allah swt.

Scientists didnt believe in quran but in some cases they do..

i.e Existance of sweet water in oceans
the world's shape (quran said its egg shaped)
using of perfume near ur ear to give extra smell (Mohammad pbuh used it 1400 yrs ago)
Other creatures except Humans,jins and animals .. ( science call them aliens)

There are many things which are taken from quran and used by scientists..
lets not forget that once the original scientists were Muslims

[erlangner]

Do you remember that these priginal scientist were rejected my people like you and were unacceptable people in the society. DO you remember how misrable their lives were made by fatwas against them. Because they were discussing science and mullahs were unable to understand.
I believe that if God exists then hawkin accepts or not it does not matter. However, we should answer scientifically.

[Son of Mountains]

lol
then Hawking by himself would have created the universe

[Khan]

Then I think, no need to discuss the things with you, if you reject the theories with your two sentences without having any reason. If I say, you are a biased muslim fanatic? (how will be your feelings).

Motor neurons no way control the wisdom or memory of the human being, therefore if he has problems in motor neruons, his brain work perfectly.

Relax dude, Do and say as you wish to

To me he's like an attention *****. As I said before no need to reason with him.

[erlangner]

There are many confusion in Hawkin theory. He is confused himself, and he asnwers many of his things himself about God. it is really hard to write such long statements, however, we should analyze each and every theory critically and very narrowly, and to think, what that person is saying, and why?
I am criticsing our own approach towards analyzing things.

[Khan Gul]

Scientists always put me in a puzzling situation. I ask them: You men of science and knowledge, how can YOU not believe in GOD? You should be the last to deny His existence and yet you are the first! What sickness has overtaken you that you allow your egos to overshadow your sense of logic? With your sciences and encyclopedias, why are you apt to forget the Divineness in the well-equipped laboratories of yours?

[Saifullah]

Science is based upon observation. Quran commands humans to OBSERVE his creation. So Allah promotes us to use science in order to wonder at how great the creation is. Like when you become a doctor you are amazed at Allah creation how he made the immune system like an army to fight pathogens. Embryology seeing how one cell turns into another and then a human being. These are all things which make your belief in existance of God more solid!! Rather than weaker

[Baygham]

Scientists always put me in a puzzling situation. I ask them: You men of science and knowledge, how can YOU not believe in GOD? You should be the last to deny His existence and yet you are the first! What sickness has overtaken you that you allow your egos to overshadow your sense of logic? With your sciences and encyclopedias, why are you apt to forget the Divineness in the well-equipped laboratories of yours?

First, Big Bang is a theory, not proven reality. It may be immensly popular but is still a yet unproven theory. Secondly, poor S. Hawkins, is a good showman and will sell many books. He is about as good a scientist as my doorman. Peaple like to invoke God in everything, it got us going, it sells books and will pay for his 24 hr nursing care. The fact will still remain that God will not solve the riddle of whether Big Bang really happened or not, let alone being involved with it or otherwise.

More valid is the corect observation of the presence of so many atheists in sciences. I am talking about true siences, not pseudo religious cults, like string theory. Well God is redundant by definition in science. So if you have a working theory, with good predictive capabilities, than God becomes redundant for just that aspect of human experience. Now the more working models you have the more redundant God becomes. If we could explain and predict all human experiences, than God would become totally redundant. In short, God is a good filler for ignorance.

As far as big bang is concerned, we are not there to make anything redundant, not yet at least.

[Wrayun]

Hawkins is a smart man that deserves our respect, regardless of your beliefs and views. His contributions to subjects within theoretical physics and quantum mechanics is immense. To compare him to a doorman is just absurd. He is only making amends within the scientific community because he has in the past entertained the idea of a Creator.

In one of his recent documentaries, while explaining the universe and how it came to be (the laws of the universe), he mentioned "luck" so many times that it had me laughing at the end of it. Was he doing that on purpose? luck was on our side, luck so has it, lucky for us etc. etc. Even he knows that much of what he understands using his primitive mind to comprehend it all (the fine tuning of the universe), is just impossible to imagine for someone like him that all of it happened "accidentally" or "coincidentally".

[akbarkhan]

The Privilaged Planet is a really good book for those of you who are interested in the subject matter.

[Baygham]

Hawkins is a smart man that deserves our respect, regardless of your beliefs and views. His contributions to subjects within theoretical physics and quantum mechanics is immense. To compare him to a doorman is just absurd. He is only making amends within the scientific community because he has in the past entertained the idea of a Creator.

In one of his recent documentaries, while explaining the universe and how it came to be (the laws of the universe), he mentioned "luck" so many times that it had me laughing at the end of it. Was he doing that on purpose? luck was on our side, luck so has it, lucky for us etc. etc. Even he knows that much of what he understands using his primitive mind to comprehend it all (the fine tuning of the universe), is just impossible to imagine for someone like him that all of it happened "accidentally" or "coincidentally".

He may be the smartest man in the world, but his contribution to advance the field of physics is about as much as my doorman, actually the field of physics has not had a major breakthrough in the last 30 years. The only reason he is talked about is because he has motor neuron disease and is a poster child for the british.
Him mentioning luck or God has no bearing on physics or science.

[Wrayun]

He may be the smartest man in the world, but his contribution to advance the field of physics is about as much as my doorman, actually the field of physics has not had a major breakthrough in the last 30 years. The only reason he is talked about is because he has motor neuron disease and is a poster child for the british.
Him mentioning luck or God has no bearing on physics or science.

So you are telling me that your doorman has contributed as much as Hawkins to the subject of Black Holes and general relativity? I wonder why he is still a doorman.

Last part about luck/God wasn't meant for physics or science.

[Baygham]

So you are telling me that your doorman has contributed as much as Hawkins to the subject of Black Holes and general relativity? I wonder why he is still a doorman.

Last part about luck/God wasn't meant for physics or science.

Hawkins was an above average mathematician, which he cannot do much due to his motor neuron disease and now is a show piece. Actually if one is familiar with motor neuron disease you will know that intellect is significantly impaired with this level of motor deficit. So who knows what he is mumbling and what the graduate student is putting down.

He has no earth shattering contributions to physics, besides some obscure theorems, which he has himself refuted. More mathematical wizardery rather than physics.
He is however a successful author for lay people.

If you disagree, kindly advance the one earth shattering contribution to physics that he has done. Examples would be, theory of relativity, plank constant, uncertianity principle, etc.

Hence the comment about him above.