Stephen Hawking view on God | Science vs God

Around 13.8 billion years ago our universe born from the big bang. If big bang was true, then who triggered that.

Many people perceive the struggle to understand our Universe as a battle between science and God. But this is a false dichotomy. Stephen hawing- one of the great scientist. In his final book “Brief Answers to Big questions” explains his view on God in the topic of “Is there a God?”.

And He said during an interview with El Mundo in 2014: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

Even though he is a great scientist, can we accept that what he said is right?

@Klonusk

#god #stephenhawking #godexists

[AnuDas-kbxd]

Bro I don't get it why this YouTuber does not get likes cause he makes such good content

[IshmaamKhan]

This video touches on complex topics that intersect science and philosophy, two different domains with divergent methods for approaching truth. I wanted to provide some perspectives on the issues raised:

- Stephen Hawking did not attempt to disprove God using scientific theories. As a scientist, he understood that God is by definition outside the scope of scientific inquiry. However, Hawking preferred empirical scientific explanations over metaphysical ideas.

- There is no scientific consensus that the universe was created from "nothing." Furthermore, the concept of creation lies more in the realm of religion rather than science. Scientifically, one assumes matter and energy exist in different forms rather than being created.

- No evidence in science points to the universe or its rules being consciously created. As mentioned prior, creation falls under a religious framework, not a scientific one. The prevailing scientific view is that the matter and energy preceding the Big Bang expanded to form the observable universe today.

[PatrickBateman]

Nothing created God, and even if something created God then that God can’t be the all powerful God We’re worshipping!

[hs]

imam Ali was asked how do you see God he replied :
Eyes can never see God, but hearts with proper belief can recognize God. God is close to everything, but not attached to things; is away from everything, but is no stranger to them; is a speaker, not through thinking or thought; is determined, not by desire or wish; is creator/maker, not by hands or legs; is kind and friendly, and that is not secret or hidden; is great not by oppression; can see but not with external senses; is kind, but not touchy; the heads and faces fall down (prostrate) due to God’s greatness; and the hearts are restless due to fearing God

[trafyknits]

Here's what truly perplexes and enrages religious people of all faiths: Even if there is a god, it's nothing remotely like what's in your particular superstitious texts. Even if a deist agrees that there might be a god, there's zero chance that it's like the monsters described in the bible, the quoran, the Torah or any other man-made book of nonsense. So, believers, I'll grant you that there's a god, but it's not the one you get to describe and create out of your fevered, terrified minds. Amen.

[sammyson]

Thats very intellectually appealing and balanced conclusion for looking at the universe in all modesty. Though I hope you could touch over the point of human consciousness as well. We all believe as if we or other living creatures have 'will' to work against what is physically determined from the time of Bigbang and trust its 'rationality' behind it. If it is indeed a some kind of substance or realm, we truely have something beyond matter, space and energy. However if it is really just about nothing other than those matters, as we are also strictly obeyed by the same principle, it will be irrational to believe that our brain is formed such a way that it can function as the rational tool and do something of its own will. I'm very intrigued by this idea. Nonetheless, these are the questions many brilliants come out with and suggest unthinkable answers. And I think it's wonderful to have open mind over these questions rather than use them as weapons to opposing ideas. I like your videos!

[MustAfaalik]

Which universe are you referring to; there has been not one but many, and they did not come from nothing but dependent on on other factors.

[dsnzjzn]

Before I was baptized in California, I met a false god who called himself as crazy monk in Taiwan university's second graduate
student's dormitory when I was watching TV. After that I realized that spiritual persons' existence. So I believed God finally.

[freznelite]

You could not evolve even a single gene randomly from scratch. Let us calculate the probability of doing so. One of the simplest viral RNA sequences is only 400 base pairs long (and represents a very poor ribosomal molecule). Let's say this is all you need to start life, which is obviously not enough (we'd need at least 250 more genes at ~1000 base pairs each for a functional cell). Let there be a trillion trillion Earths, each with an ocean made entirely of amino acids (1.4E24 kg ocean per planet, 110 DA per amino acid, yielding 7.7E45 amino acids per planet). Let the entire sequence of these amino acids be combined into a single chain on each planet, giving the highest possibility of forming at least one correct sequence in the entire chain. Let these Earths randomly recombine their sequence of amino acids at a rate of a million times per second for 100 trillion years (until the last star dies). You are left with approximately 7.7E89 total combinations across this period. Now, let us set up the odds of assembling the correct sequence. The odds that an event occurs can be approximated as one minus the odds the event does not occur after a given number of trials. Let the probability that we get at least one sequence of 400 base pairs in this situation be: P = 1 - (1 - 1/(4^400)) ^ 7.7E89. Compute this formula in Wolfram Alpha to see what the odds are of life arising randomly. To those who will argue the Universe is infinite / infinitely cyclical, this would mean you also believe Planet Mountain Dew, Star Wars, and the Purple Flying Spaghetti Monster were/are/will be real. Yet you still do not believe an unmade creator / eternal designer is real? Let me put it this way. It is more reasonable to believe in a creator God than it is to believe life evolved randomly.

[brightmoon]

Zero is the sum of positive and negative. Wow! That's an inspiration! ❤🥰

[orangotango]

where tf does that particle before the big bang come from tho

[rewar]

Hawkings concept of god is the multiverse, totally un-provable...I kinda find this amusing, the two sides are not so different these days.

[kotje]

What is the possible goal of nature. IS IT TO UNDERSTAND ITSELF?

[ihateorangecat]

I like the video and you earned a sub.

[bekaralien]

Yes.... Who created God? This my all time question from childhood when my mother told me about god.... I thought I would find the answer in future with the help of highly qualified peoples....
But now I understand that our brain doesn't support that "answer" ... because of our limitations in this reality of
Well I'm happy that I know many things better than average people who believe in "faith"

[itadaku]

I like _klonusk_ . Interesting and none of these videos see to be aimed at any particular age group which is nice

[Goldenboy-scfg]

I really appreciate your videos. Hopefully your subscribers and viewers will keep increasing 🇴🇲 ❤

[medfitconsultant]

Lets says, life is a process, a continuity and a mystery. Where do we came from?

[funentertainmentandknowled]

Here some questions is arising that who or what was the cause of Big bang theory or what was there before these universe or God? Even if we accept that there is god but there's a lot of religions and beliefs how can we prove that these religion is correct?

[rahultrivedi]

When hawking said time wasn't there before singularity itself contradicts the statement about denial of existence of time. It meams there is some period between singularity and big bang